Yesterday in the hearings, we learned that the only mission left in Iraq is to make sure that the war continues through the next presidency.
Ambassador Ryan Crock(er) informed us that their mission is 'to provide a stable foundation from which to base policy decisions, for the next president'.
Their testimony was confused and evasive. One can draw a variety of conclusions from it.
1. They are trying to lock the next president into this war. I get this interpretation from Mr. Crocker's statement.
2. They have no idea whatsoever what they are doing. They are completely clueless.
3. They are losing, and lying about it through their teeth.
But what was clear is that they provided no sense whatsoever that they had a definable mission. They had no definable goals.
Our Senators talked about winning. But Petraeus and Crocker made it clear that they aren't trying to win anything. It's like that joke about the man praying to God to let him win the lottery. He goes through much of his life asking God over and over. Finally God replies, "Help me out here and buy a ticket."
We want to win. But we don't know what winning is. And we want victory handed to us. We don't want to actually pursue victory. Our senators demand that we win in Iraq, but their errand boys are taking the money they've alloted for a ticket, and spending it on other things...
Does that make sense? Sure it does. It turns out that Congress has been allocating reconstruction money for years and they just found out, it's being spent to build military bases. The military is cooking the books and embezzling funds for their own purposes. Clearly, once the billions of dollars reach Iraq, it goes into a big pool and Petraeus and Crocker spend in on whatever they want.
Congress only thinks that they are earmarking funds for certain kinds of projects. But that is just an accounting trick to fool them into thinking they have some say in how the money is spent. Once the money is in Iraq, ir becomes the property of Petraeus and Crocker. they decide on the policies and missions in Iraq and they spend the billions as they see fit.
The very naive Mrs. Wicker seemed especially taken aback, when she learned that the Iraqis aren't getting the money that they voted to give them. She wanted the Iraqis to repay the US for the bombs and missiles we dropped on their country. Now that she knows that she's been lied to about where the money goes, she comes across as hurt and surprised. she actually believed that the Iraqis would repay us for destroying their country and for slaughtering over a million of their fellow citizens.
If the US were bombed and millions of Americans were killed, would she be looking to give cash rewards to the bombers? I guess she would.
Finally, Iran was mentioned so many times, and so often, that it seems clear that it is the next target and that Petraeus is itching to send soldiers into that nation.
In examining the situation in Basra, it appears that this city may be a beachhead for a counter offensive. Petraeus may be thinking the same thing and this may be why he had Maliki test their defenses in that ill fated attack on the city.
So the question is, will Petraeus leave that threat to the rear as he invades Iran, or will he have the residents of Basra slaughtered before invading Iran?
What happens next is up to our owners. Pray with me, that this works out the best way that it can, for all concerned.