As American politicians and editorial writers resume their tough talk about sending more U.S. troops into Iraq, they are resurrecting the “successful surge” myth, the claim that President George W. Bush’s dispatch of 30,000 more soldiers in 2007 somehow “won” the war – a storyline that is beloved by the neocons because it somewhat lets them off the hook for starting the disaster in the first place.
That's one of the advantages of war. Lying is legitimized as "psychological warfare".
In addition to being crafted to help Dubya and his boss Cheney leave office gracefully, the Iraq surge was also planned as a boost for John McCain to win the white house in 2008, and that would have worked if the financial meltdown had occurred in November 2008 instead of September 2008.
In early to mid September 2008 the mainstream media made a big deal of how successful the surge had been and McCain's poll numbers soared. By late September the financial meltdown made voters forget the surge, blame the GOP for the meltdown and destroy the chances of a GOP victory in November.
Bush, Cheney and Gates apparently deemed it a small price to pay for enabling them to blame a successor administration for the inevitable withdrawal from America’s first large-scale war of aggression
Say what? This was the first US war of aggression? In this line the entire argument against the "selective memory" and reference to myth of the current media is compromised.
"It did not achieve its ostensible aim — the rationale Bush eventually decided to give it — namely, to buy time for Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites to reconcile."
Considering that the U.S. sent in John "Death Squad" Negroponte it seems much more likely that the neocons driving U.S. policy wanted a religious war between the Sunni and Shia - and they got it.
'Say what? This was the first US war of aggression? In this line the entire argument against the "selective memory" and reference to myth of the current media is compromised.'
That's not what McGovern wrote. Please reread the article.
I read it and stand by what I said.
McGovern has referred on many occassions to Iraq being a "war of aggression" and calling for those that initiated it to be prosecuted while nver making the same charges towards other US wars of aggression such as Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam.When he stated in that sentence that this was Americas first large scale war of aggression it is something he seems to believe in..
It was stated as a "matter of fact" and not a belief he ascribed to Bush/Cheney.
That claim itself is a myth.
"But I have long believed that in a military context, when you do the same thing over and over again without a clear strategy for victory, at the expense of your young people in arms, that is dereliction. That is deeply immoral.”
The whole friggin roster of wars is what's immoral. Surge or otherwise, what should be called into question was pre-planned wars waiting for a trigger; and how cases were fraudulently made to make these already planned wars possible.
It's all about gargantuan profits to war profiteers and arms' manufacturers. The rest is a Hollywood scripted story line... replete with the so-called capture of Bin Laden and sick fairy tales like "Zero Dark 30."