Additionally, the engagement of the USA currently in Iraq has nothing to do with USA national security. It is about the 'theory' (Think War College) that the USA 'made the mess and now we own it.' That is outrageous. There is no sincere enemy of the USA in Iraq.
None.
Think about it.
How many people in Iraq actually have declared war on the USA.
How many people in Iraq BEFORE the illegal war actually engaged in acts of war against the USA?
None.
How can there be a war on USA terror in Iraq if there was never any terrorists in the first place and why are the Iraqi people made to suffer for the political infrastructure of the USA?
Is the Joint Chiefs of Staff sincerely a political 'arm' of the current administration?
Absolutely.
The military moves, in this case, at the whim of the Commander and Chief due to the 'approved' War Powers Act after Bush over reached his authority by ignoring the United Nation's Security Council. Regardless of his 'war czar' (whom simply oversees the administrative readiness to empower the military operations in Iraq and with NATO in Afghanistan) the Bush White House sincerely has the ability to 'adjust' the political climate in the USA based on the 'image' of the USA military and it's operations in Iraq. The more legitimate the war appears the more legitimate the expenditures to the war and the stronger the political basis facilitating the 'choice' by Neocons/Republican Right Wing to engage in war regardless the legitimate basis for it.
Not bad, huh?
The USA military has men with huge investments into military careers. Do you know how many generals have come and gone, starting with Shinseki, under the Bush status of Commander and Chief? Many.
What kind of image does the Bush White House 'take on' when it continues to change personnel in the face of a failed war and why would it be important for someone like Peter Pace to openly state that in the face of losses the USA is successful? Does General Pace have a vested interest, given his position, in the image of the Iraq War?
Absolutely.
Most retired Neocons, including the likes of Tommy Franks, go on to become consultants to major military corporations within the USA military infrastructure and/or they become consultants to media as 'talking head generals' capable of spewing vast amounts of propaganda to any viewing audience in a very short time, like sixty seconds.
The other side of this 'dangerous' Commander and Chief are the people he calls allies, including General Perez Musharraf. Mushy has his upside and his downside in all of this, but, for him to be calling Iran a danger is a bit like 'the pot calling the kettle sooty.'
See link to this entry, click on title.
The Musharraf government is a coup government. He displaced Bhutto in a coup while making false claims against her. Additionally, he has a book he authored and has been on tour to sell that book which puts him in 'celebrity' status with Americans whom have seen him on shows like The Daily Show. President Musharraf is very engaging. He is also very challenged, no differently than any other Islamic leader in that, there are many factions in Pakistan that would like to see him dead. Those factions have their upside and their downside depending on 'the side' of human rights they err.
I don't find the words of President Musharraf relevant because he has 'different' vested interests. President Musharraf has reached the pinnacle of his career. He is the ultimate warlord and to that end he has some redeeming characteristics in his involvement in ending the lives and habits of terrorist regimes within Pakistan. But, for him to engage in an open advocacy against Iran is more an act of concern for his own nuclear engagement and the 'idea' that Pakistan is primarily Sunni Arab. See, Iran's missiles will reach Pakistan where there are nuclear weapons already perfected. Pakistan has nuclear weapons much in the way Iran has come by them. Illegally. The problem is that when one is a nuclear power there really is no argument with them after they have the technology. And to his credit, President Musharraf does advocate global disarmament of nuclear weapons. I think the reason is self evident.
At any rate, Mushy has no legitimate place in advocating a prolonged engagement of the USA military in Iraq or a war with Iran. He has stated openly that statements from McCain like, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" when considering the populous of Tehran is an irresponsible 'dialogue.' I have to agree.
