Bush chaos building in Iraq reversed:

[9215]

Reverse chaos building.
Some thoughts about what I see happening in Iraq, please share your own:

The fascist use of chaos to further political ends can be reversed on them. The guerrilla campaign now in Iraq may be trying to make as much mayhem and chaos as possible so that people will increasingly view the US as worse than what they had before. This will stiffen resistance to the US occupation by the citizenry at a time when the US needs their support the most.

The Saddam era will increasingly be viewed as "the good old days".

What I believe was largely controlled chaos by the fascists at the outset has run amok.

IMO the bombing of the UN was viewed at first as furthering the Bushies political goals, as Wolfowitz commented afterwards on its desired affect: "change the atmosphere in New York". But the attacks on coalition forces and the Red Cross after that were done by the guerrillas/insurgents/terrorists/enemy/resistance fighters when they saw that attacks on the UN by the US were having the opposite effect the US wanted--the UN fled instead of getting more resolute. This can be understood by the atmosphere of growing concern if not panic sweeping the Bush admin with attacks that came after the UN. The strategy of "the enemy", as mentioned on other topics, is to isolate the US on the ground.

We are faced with a tough, organized and highly intelligent and totally dedicated enemy that does not tend to do things for the benefit of those it is fighting. They are well versed in Sun Tsu's "The Art of War". What Bush wanted to see happen from the UN bombing was more resolve from that body, more cooperation in "fighting a common enemy", what they got was the opposite--the UN fled. This dynamic was not missed by the guerrillas and they are now doing more of the same thing for their own purposes. There are some real military brains behind the resistance.

Here is the article citing Wolfies comments after the UN bombing.

NoticeWolfie's candidness about the favorable effects of the bombing of the UN. It is the same sort of comment made by some about how 9/11 unified the US and was "a good thing". Chris Matthews even said this once. Numerous conservatives at Free Republic and elsewhere have hinted in how the 9/11 attacks were positive.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/04/sprj.irq.main/index.html>

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday the Bush administration has been pushing for months for a new U.N. resolution to internationalize the force in Iraq, but it took the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad to change the "atmosphere in New York."

Wolfowitz made the surprising comments after testifying to congressional leaders on Capitol Hill, and on the same day the Washington Post reported on the apparent change of course the administration has taken in dealing with the United Nations.

The newspaper essentially said Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, teamed up to overcome Pentagon objections to a U.N. force for Iraq. Both men later called the report inaccurate.

Wolfowitz acknowledged that "any plan has got to adjust to the reality as you find it on the ground," but he also disputed any notion that the Bush administration has resisted international help.

[specimenfred1984]

1. Chaos Building Based on Flawed Assumptions

Like the entire republican platform, the root idea that people can be treated like slaves is so antithetical to the human experience that to base any strategy, military or not, on simply controlling them is insane.

I thing the neo-cons want huge chaos, want to use some nukes and, want to eliminate most of the population of the Middle East, aka genocide. While being an extreme position, this is not unheard of in America's history wherein we basically exterminated the Indian population. Sure, there are all the neo-con to Strassian and Nazi comparisons but, I think the neo-cons are land-dominators rather than pure racists because the neo-cons want the territory regardless of who's on it.

Controlled chaos is a contradictory term. Pure chaos, IMO, is the real neo-con objective. It's the complete opposite of conservatism which fits with the Orwellian nature of these double-speaking people. The problem for the neo-cons is what's always been their problem, most Americans, whether CIA, FBI, Pentagon or military or whomever, are simply not behind these lunatics.

[9215]

2. Welcome to DU

:toast:

Thanks for the input. Coincidently your first paragraph is the subject of another topic I am discussing with friends. Democracy is not just an ideal but a neccessity for the survival of the specie.

I have read parts of the book "The Emerging Democratic Majority" and it makes a compelling argument for the inevitability of a democratic majority, but the possibility of conservative dominance in times of war is also there though a "tenuous" one . Interesting how war just happens along when the Repigs take power.