Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

Back in 2002, when the French President Jacques Chirac went along with the opinion of the overwhelming majority of his countrymen to oppose the war against Iraq, Murdoch’s rightwing shitrags and Faux News labelled the French “cheese-eating surrender monkeys”. Similarly, the all too few voices in the Congress who called for an end to American occupation were tarred as “cut-and-runners”. Well, guess who just had his slice of cheese and contemplates cutting and running?

Guardian reports:

The Pentagon is actively considering a series of fallback positions for Iraq in the event that President George Bush’s plan of expanding the US military presence fails. Among the options are adoption of the El Salvador model, which would see Washington withdraw most of its 150,000-plus troops and replace them with a few hundred, or few thousand, military advisers.

A more drastic option also being looked at is to retreat inside Baghdad’s Green Zone and the heavily fortified airport on the outskirts of the city.

The US appears to be moving closer to an endgame…

The Vice President’s office, where the neocons hold trenches, still remains a formidable bastion of resistance, however. At AIPAC’s annual convention – the gathering where American politicians pledge fealty to the State of Israel in return for hefty campaign contributions — Cheney echoed the Israeli Prime Minister in opposing withdrawal.

“Those who are concerned for Israel’s security, for the security of the Gulf States and for the stability of the entire Middle east should recognize the need for American success in Iraq and responsible exit,” Olmert said in remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)…

Cheney laid out a dire sequence of events – all dangerous to Israel – that could arise if critics of the war, particularly those in Congress, mandate troop withdrawals or limit funding.

“A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster for the United States and the entire Middle East,” he said.

While the Salvador Option has already been in place for some time, how likely is it to succeed?

Andrew Krepinovich, a respected strategic analyst who advises the Pentagon on Iraq… said the problem with the model “is you need some kind of government to support and the government has to have some legitimacy and loyalty”. He questioned whether there was such a government in Iraq.

He also questioned the reliability of the Iraq forces, in particular the police. “If you were to draw down to a few hundred or few thousand advisers, it it not clear whether they would be helping these groups to do more than prepare for civil war.”

Winslow Wheeler, a senior fellow at the Centre for Defence Information thinktank…also said the El Salvador model was not viable in Iraq. “It is not sufficient to train indigenous forces. They have to have a government they are willing to die for. There is no moderate centre in Iraq for which people are willing to die.”

Referring to the chaotic scenes that accompanied the US pullout from Saigon, Mr Wheeler said retreat into Baghdad’s fortified zones would be tantamount to “bringing in the wooden steps for helicopters to take us out. That is just the final stage before the failure becomes apparent.”

In the short run, however, W is still pumping in more cannon fodder:

George Bush, confirmed at the weekend that he would send an extra 4,700 combat support troops and military police to Iraq in addition to the “surge” of 21,500 combat forces announced in January. Mr Bush is also sending an extra 3,500 troops to Afghanistan in expectation of increased fighting in spring.

Even in its moments of enforced humility, however, the Imperial mind doesn’t fail to provide us with modest amusement. A Pentagon official was quoted as saying: “This part of the world has an allergy against foreign presence” — as opposed to other parts of the world, I presume, where occupations are welcomed. Imagine that!