An Astute Analysis By The Main Stream Media...
...in Egypt.
While the American press is busy doing the "he said-she said" soft shoe on the current regime's increasingly hot diatribes against Iran, some media outlets in the rest of the world are actually doing some analysis of just what is probably going on. Evidence? Egypt's Weekly Al-Ahram.
For the Bush administration, the focus on Iran is a welcome, if not contrived, distraction from the woes that continue to shame and blame the White House and the planners of the Iraqi invasion.
In recent weeks, Bush administration policy has even been rocked by criticism from former senior US generals.
Therefore, blaming and targeting Iran fulfills several US strategic imperatives in the region.
Firstly, with the threat of a nuclear holocaust played up in the media and aired by "expert" talking heads, the public will turn its focus away from Iraq to dealing with Iran.
Furthermore, it has become abundantly clear that the US has no viable exit strategy in Iraq and has on the contrary made contradictory statements regarding the duration of the US military presence in Iraq. Will US forces be out by the end of the year or will they remain for a decade ... or more?
That question can be answered by examining the expansive military bases, campgrounds, and runways being built by a horde of military contractors throughout Iraq.
The US military has budgeted $74 million for the extension of the Al-Asad military base in Balad, Iraq. Spanning 49 square kilometres, it is so large that it requires bus transportation (routes have already been built). US military engineers have also been reinforcing Iraq's aging runways to sustain F-16 and other US air force use.
And this is just one of several similar military bases and expansions concurrently underway in Iraq.
This may appear puzzling at first -- why build bases if the US intends to withdraw as soon as security and military control is handed over to the Iraqis?
Iran, of course, is the most available answer. With its sponsorship of terrorism and active pursuit of fuelling sectarian violence -- as espoused by both US and UK officials -- the most logical recourse is for the US to maintain a near-permanent presence in Iraq to protect it from Iranian intervention. [Emphasis added]
The plan the article describes appears to be working, thanks in large part to the passivity and collusion of the American press. But what would I know. I'm just a blogger, one of those foul-mouthed, naive whiners who are never satisfied with anything.
While the American press is busy doing the "he said-she said" soft shoe on the current regime's increasingly hot diatribes against Iran, some media outlets in the rest of the world are actually doing some analysis of just what is probably going on. Evidence? Egypt's Weekly Al-Ahram.
For the Bush administration, the focus on Iran is a welcome, if not contrived, distraction from the woes that continue to shame and blame the White House and the planners of the Iraqi invasion.
In recent weeks, Bush administration policy has even been rocked by criticism from former senior US generals.
Therefore, blaming and targeting Iran fulfills several US strategic imperatives in the region.
Firstly, with the threat of a nuclear holocaust played up in the media and aired by "expert" talking heads, the public will turn its focus away from Iraq to dealing with Iran.
Furthermore, it has become abundantly clear that the US has no viable exit strategy in Iraq and has on the contrary made contradictory statements regarding the duration of the US military presence in Iraq. Will US forces be out by the end of the year or will they remain for a decade ... or more?
That question can be answered by examining the expansive military bases, campgrounds, and runways being built by a horde of military contractors throughout Iraq.
The US military has budgeted $74 million for the extension of the Al-Asad military base in Balad, Iraq. Spanning 49 square kilometres, it is so large that it requires bus transportation (routes have already been built). US military engineers have also been reinforcing Iraq's aging runways to sustain F-16 and other US air force use.
And this is just one of several similar military bases and expansions concurrently underway in Iraq.
This may appear puzzling at first -- why build bases if the US intends to withdraw as soon as security and military control is handed over to the Iraqis?
Iran, of course, is the most available answer. With its sponsorship of terrorism and active pursuit of fuelling sectarian violence -- as espoused by both US and UK officials -- the most logical recourse is for the US to maintain a near-permanent presence in Iraq to protect it from Iranian intervention. [Emphasis added]
The plan the article describes appears to be working, thanks in large part to the passivity and collusion of the American press. But what would I know. I'm just a blogger, one of those foul-mouthed, naive whiners who are never satisfied with anything.
posted by Diane at 8:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home