In a fresh Weekly Standard article those two great warmongers and Likudnik operatives, ex-trotskyite William Kristol and Napoleonic War expert Fred Kagan have taken the proverbial hickory stick to Democrats and Republicans who disagree with the neo-con notion that until Iraq and Iran are reduced to a vast area of goat herders, all of mankind is in jeopardy. Their chief argument: LTG Petraeus must be allowed to decide how many troops to use. That is the substance of the lede head.

All We Are Saying . . . Is Give Petraeus a Chance

Following this there is a blatantly dishonest misstatement of the Democratic Party’s position of escalation (you expected otherwise?) and most specifically an outright attack on Senator Clinton’s public statements about the proposed escalations in Mr Bu$h’s ego-war.

Beyond that, Clinton's statement completely ignores the significance of a congressionally mandated cap on troop strength. American forces are fighting in Iraq every day. They do not have enough strength to control the violence they are facing. The efforts of Clinton and others would prevent the new commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, from working effectively to bring the violence under control. There is every reason, therefore, to imagine that violence would continue to increase. This would be the effect of Sen. Clinton's legislation

Let me make one point here. For three years Bu$hCo tried sporadically to contain the violence of a resistance against a cruel and ignorant occupation which slowly morphed into a brutal civil war, while refusing to supply sufficient troops, or to dedicate the resources necessary to quell the resistance and civil war. (Those resources, by the way, would include honest bookkeeping and adequate spending. Instead, Mr Bu$h insisted that his family’s taxes must be significantly lower, and by all means, let’s share the largesse with all the other American millionaires and corporations.) What we got was deliberate off-the-books accountancy a la Enron and WorldCom, and deficit spending that our grandchildren will be paying off.

During this time period the Generals in charge, Chief of Staff Pace, Abizaid, and Casey insisted time and again that they didn’t need more troops to accomplish the mission. Now, suddenly Messers Kristol and Kagan have decided more troops are needed, and Abizaid and Casey are gone.

All generals are subject to the demands of military service, including obedience to the chain of command. Whatever the man (or woman) above you says is what you agree with. As a hypothetical thought experiment, consider this: If George Bu$h woke up in the middle of the night, a line of dried white powder covering his upper lip, and, stumbling out of bed tripped and fell over four empty Jim Beam bottles, and then rose with the realization that the way to victory in Iraq demanded a battalion of left handed red headed Bulgarian acrobats, LTG Petraeus would enthusiastically agree. LTG Petraeus is most likely an excellent officer, a fine tactician, and a warm human being, but he will do as he is told.

Enthusiastically.

Glen Greenwald has handled Messers Kristol and Kagan in a far more diplomatic manner than these sleazy warmongers really deserve:

[O]nly blind obedience to the decrees of Gen. Patraeus is acceptable because he is the commander on the ground and thus Knows Best. And, of course, unquestioningly cheering on the "surge" plan is the only thing which responsible, serious and patriotic people would do:

Republicans should not hesitate to point out how irresponsible their Democratic colleagues (and some Republicans) are being. Senator Clinton's troop cap is dangerously foolish. The nonbinding resolution of disapproval Senator Biden has proposed is irresponsible. The fact is that President Bush has, as he was widely and correctly urged to do, changed strategy. He's put a new commander, General Petraeus, in charge. Petraeus thinks the new plan can work, with the support of additional troops. He'll be confirmed by the Senate and sent out to the theater this week. Members of Congress should ask themselves, "What can we do to help Petraeus succeed?" Or would Senator Clinton and the Democrats just as soon lose?

We have here the standard tactics of the warmonger -- namely, anyone who opposes Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan's latest video game fantasies are, by definition, unserious, irresponsible and want America to lose. But what is uniquely and appallingly dishonest about their new rhetoric tactic -- that we must all defer to the General -- is that Kristol and Kagan have spent the last two years, at least, insisting that Generals Casey and Abaziad, the commanders on the ground, had no idea what they were talking about because they resisted the neonconservative demands for escalation.

This little sidetrip into BizarroWorld highlights the dangers of allowing operatives loyal to another nation to fashion your foreign policy. You become a tool.

It is true that US geopolitical interests are best served with a military presence in the Middle East string enough to control the mineral and petroleum resources of the Middle East, reserving them for our own use, and denying them to economic rivals, such as Russia, China, and India. Coincidently, that’s also very good for Big Oil, where Mesers Bu$h and Cheney’s primary loyalties lie. Sadly, the neocons are too dishonest to publicly admit, “Yes. Israel’s future security demands a very weak and fragmented Iraq and Iran.” Thus, we get sold we get sold a series of lies based upon the moving goalposts of WMDs, and WMD facilities, then WMD programs, and finally dreams of WMD programs.

Now we are being set up with another series of lies, this time about Iran’s alleged nuclear power program.

Recall that, according to the neocon-friendly New York Sun, Bill Kristol was urging the White House back in September to obtain from Congress an Authorization to Use Military Force against Iran when the Republicans still controlled Congress, and he even argued that doing so was the only way to swing the election in favor of the Republicans. The people who want a surge are the same people who want a war against Iran, and the latter is what is driving the former. It is all part of the same worldview and agenda and it is one the President has embraced. Here is Kagan last August in an AEI article where he first laid out his "surge" plan in detail:

The United States has ground and air forces stationed on both the western and eastern borders of Iran at a time of crisis over Iran's nuclear programs. In principle, that presence should give the United States leverage in Tehran; the Iranians clearly feared this in the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.But the oft-repeated American determination to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan as rapidly as possible, together with the continuing violent insurgencies in both countries, has turned the tables. . . .

As we consider the alternatives, with the possibility of conflict with Iran ever on the horizon, it would be well to ensure that we are not overlooking the option that would best serve our strategic needs.

An Iran shattered by a massive bombing campaign (including the proposed use of nuclear warheads,) its infrastructure in shreds, does not serve America’s strategic needs, but it will help some other Middle Eastern nation handily.

Israel has been a loyal ally to the US, and we have loyally supported her, and protected her in the past. Now that military technological equality has begun to erode her supremacy over her neighbors, it is time for diplomatic solutions rather than military ones. She is not the 51st state.

Neither are we one of Israel’s administrative districts.