Hoagland: Bush’s ‘Plan B’ May Be Attacking Iran, Overthrowing Maliki

[CatWoman]

During a private White House meeting earlier this year, President Bush and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace were asked by a group of governors about their backup plan for Iraq. “The conclusion they took away, the governors later said, was that there is no Plan B.” Pace reportedly told them, “Plan B was to make Plan A work.”

But according to conservative Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland, Plan B may be something far more dramatic: “Using Iraq as a springboard and rationale for an American military strike into Iran,” and “strong-arming the admittedly faltering government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki out of office and replacing Maliki with a U.S.-anointed Iraqi savior.”

Hoagland writes:

Arab allies are urging such a course on Bush and would not object to U.S. military action against Iran. There is growing concern in Baghdad that Washington is developing a “Plan B” that involves both hitting Iran and ousting Maliki — who ironically was brought to office by American pressure to force out Ibrahim al-Jafari, Maliki’s predecessor. The concern is augmented by demands from both sides of the aisle in Congress that Maliki meet obviously unrealistic benchmarks quickly or face a cutoff of U.S. support.

Hoagland says such a plan would only “expand the current disaster,” and CentCom Commander Gen. William Fallon reportedly “expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.”

But the administration continues to rattle its sabers, most recently when Vice President Dick Cheney “used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 150 miles off Iran’s coast as the backdrop…to warn the country that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or ‘gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.’”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/20/iran-plan-b/

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Im gonna nit[ick

Fallon is NOT a General, he is an Admiral... small but important difference

[aquart]

2. Attack Iran? With what army?

I am SURE that Bush would like to attack Iran. I have absolutely no doubt of it. But he has successfully destroyed our military and he ain't got the stuff. First strike? Sure. But he's even gutted our air power. Pilots retrained as truck drivers. Air force skilled ground crew used for street patrol. Officers leaving as fast as they can find an excuse. Spare part replacement screwed to the wall except we're short of screws, too.

Let him rattle his sabre. It's all we have left except the atom bomb.

[seemslikeadream]

3. except the atom bomb.

[aquart]

5. I know. I know.

Is it foolish of me to harbor the belief that if he gave the order, it would be disobeyed?

[cliss]

4. Even if there is only a shred of truth to this story,

or if it's just speculation, look at the implication of this.

The US is going to overthrow Maliki, who was a hand-picked "puppet" even though he has tried to do what's best for his country. he's been "fence-walking", or governing with his foot in two boats.

The fact that they're entertaining this notion just goes to show you how desperate they are.

Fact: the US has lost in Iraq. They knew it was a wild gamble, not unlike Dad going down to the Dog Races with the mortgage money. They knew it was such a slim chance of succeeding, and now it's final: there is no salvaging the plans to sign contracts for all the oil.

Reason: There is too much instability, too many divergent interests & groups who all want to govern. The US is in no position to try and impose its will over them.

Get Rid of Al-Maliki
If we get rid of him, the next one will be just as "ineffective" and unable to do the US's bidding.