Illuminati Conspiracy Archive

The Ghost of George A. Carver is Haunting Bush 43

- by Joseph E Fasciani ©, Jan. 22nd, 2004

Iraq The Internet (for a long time) and some of the USA press (only very recently) are taking Bush 43 to task for his fatally cavalier imperialism in Iraq. As in Vietnam, the inevitable withdrawal and end are still far off, while more death and destruction lie ahead. Occupiers will never cease to be targets of guerrilla resistance fighters, while the entire misadventure was foredoomed to implode in religious and civil war.

Bush 43 and his supporters behave as if this was not an expected outcome: prior to the invasion, they insisted that Iraq's long-suffering populace would embrace the US and UK military as liberators. True, in Basra and a few other areas there was some celebration, but it evaporated when the "liberators" were perceived instead as imperial occupiers sent to enforce the theft of Iraq's resources.

This was further confirmed when, after more than a year supposedly rebuilding Iraq's devastated infrastructure, the only fully functioning and supported construction the natives see are fourteen new military bases, US built, foreign fortresses of Mid-East domination.

To add insult to injury, this huge imposition of permanent fortresses took place while what's left of Iraq barely exists, devastated as if hit by the same tsunami that swept SE Asia on Boxing Day, 26 December 2004. If you need documentation of these deficits, start with Jack Dalton, a Vietnam veteran now become an editor at The Project for the Old American Century, in his article "America's Corporate 'Cash Cow'--Iraq". [4]

Next, go to Dahr Jamail, a reporter from Alaska, US of A, who writes a summary at rense.com [07 January 2005] of his first year inside Iraq:

“So Iraq is now a liberated country. I've been in liberated Baghdad and environs on and off for 12 months, including being inside Fallujah during the April siege and having warning shots fired over my head more than once by soldiers. I've traveled in the south, north, and extensively around central Iraq. What I saw in the first months of 2004, however, when it was easier for a foreign reporter to travel the country, offered a powerful--even predictive--taste of the horrors to come in the rest of the year (and undoubtedly in 2005 as well).” [6]

Bush 43 never ceases to claim he does all the right acts, for all the right reasons. If contrary evidence arises, he and his accomplices savage their critics, insist their deadly course is correct, and continue to sail their derelict ship, The USS Record Deficits, to some vague victory.

Yet, as Archbishop-soon to become Saint-Thomas a Becket's great soliloquy warns us in T S Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral", "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

According to John Foster Dulles, "The measure of success is not whether you have a tough problem to deal with, but whether it's the same problem you had last year." Dulles was, above all, an utter realist. Iraq, more than a year after Dubya declared, "Mission accomplished!" is still the USA's "tough problem."

All governments need and use both individual advisors and corporate research for intelligence to guide them in making effective choices. They do not wish to fail, or pursue policies that may be self-defeating. How, then, did the regime in Washington get it all so very wrong, to where the world sees that everything in Iraq has gone from very bad to impossibly worse?

How could the counsel and intelligence given to Dubya and his accomplices been so entirely wrong?

But was it?

What if it was simply ignored, or simply cynically manipulated for private political and financial ends?

The USA has spent more than $3,000,000,000,000.00 since the end of WW2 to create itself as an absolutely secure state, yet its foreign policies rarely produce desired results: Vietnam, Grenada, El Salvador, Columbia, Haiti, Bosnia, and so on, until returning to Iraq, its disaster du jour.

Was it not possible for at least one person to understand the heart of the matter, one who could give his government its most effective course of beneficial action? Truth to tell, there were many; one in particular structured an analysis so accurate and so far-sighted that whenever this author reads it, it gives me an eerie sense of prophetic foreboding.

That person was Dr George A. Carver, Jr., both an eminent Mid-East historian and political analyst, whose unexpected death in 1996 cut short a long career of federal service.

As a Senior Fellow of The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC, he authored many insightful strategic analyses. This present article, based primarily on his monograph "Light from the Thirties on Lines in the Sands: The Challenges Posed by Saddam Hussein, and How They Can Best Be Countered", will review Dr Carver's analyses and conclusive counsel. [3]

A lifetime student of the Mid-East, Dr Carver knew its histories and cultures well. The unending complexities of the area are difficult for even the best-motivated students and researchers, but to Bush 43, these facts are merely annoying insects, to ignore or eradicate in one's drive to the East.

Dr George Carver embodied the polar opposite of Dubya's cavalier attitudes and life. His training, coupled with several decades of learning, made him infinitely aware of the long and convoluted history of the Middle East. If asked, his counsel as to action would always be carefully balanced with highly realistic, detailed cautions as to expectations and probable outcomes.

Dr Carver did counsel the planners who successfully assisted Bush 41. Had Dubya heeded these insights before military action, it is highly probable Iraq's present chaos would not have come about. Let us see if "Lines in the Sands" can tell us what Bush 43 believed he didn't "need to know.

In Chapter III, The End Game, Dr Carver set out probable outcomes. Had Bush 43 done nothing more than read the opening paragraph, he would have had this prophetic counsel before his hurried rushes to disaster:

“America is not a nation of chess players. In conducting foreign affairs, American governments and presidents are sometimes superb-as was George Bush [Dr Carver here refers to Senior, not his son. JEF] - at reacting to immediate demands or crises; but they often do not think more than one move ahead, and seldom give thought to what their next move is likely to do to America's board position several moves hence. Furthermore, American governments and presidents tend to be very weak at end games; and as a result, frequently let the fruits of hard-won success elude their grasp, or sour, before those fruits can be harvested. Here, Afghanistan is very much a case in point; but unfortunately, far from the only one that could be cited.” [3]

For Dubya, who claims not to read, this caution based on history's hard lessons could have stayed the immense loss of life now wreaked upon friend and foe alike in Iraq. Dr Carver was also prescient in his references to Afghanistan history and the disaster that befell the USSR, when it attempted to control that much smaller and less developed nation. Bush 43's wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq produced precisely the paralytic outcomes Dr Carver forecast, none of which are useful for the USA or its allies.

Indeed, Dr Carver's first point is pre-eminent in Arab relations:

“The one given in the otherwise infinitely variable Middle East equation is that the future, in at least some significant respects, will be markedly different from the recent past-though at this writing, that future is not foreordained. What the United states must do…is endeavour to ensure that in the Middle East at least the next several decades are considerably more benign than the half century since the outbreak of World War II has been-less racked with discord and wrenching strife, capable of damaging or engulfing the entire world….” [My emphasis, JEF] [3]

Events have shown that by his ignorance of history, his casual discard of traditional allies, and addiction to faith-based actions, Dubya has brought about the very worst possible outcomes George Carver feared likely to arise.

As Dr Carver pointed out, "In today's Arab and Islamic world…the United States, together with America's ally, Israel-which many in the Islamic world regard as an American creation…that the United States is reluctant to censure or restrain" is now deemed to be the cause of virtually all of the area's many problems. While this is not universally true, the problem remains foremost in the Arab-speaking world's perception, and has led to our present grief.

“For such reasons, a number of deeply felt, and deeply resented, Arab 'grievances' can not be erased; but those which can be ameliorated need to be addressed, for prudential as well as altruistic reasons-far from the least of these being the need to minimize the risk of America's again having to face an 'August 1990' situation engendering the distinct possibility of serious armed conflict and requiring the immediate dispatch of American naval, air, and ground forces to the Middle East.” [3: pp. 36-37, my emphasis. JEF]

Well, as we used to say in VietNam, "There it is!" This is exactly what many say led to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The failure to first ameliorate Arab nations' legitimate problems, as Dr Carver advised, is exactly Osama bin Laden's chief complaint, along with the previously mentioned US-Israel alliance.

Dr Carver's second point is equally crucial and foreboding: "…even if extensive military force is required to defeat Saddam, a draconian peace settlement must not be imposed on Iraq; for any such peace will inevitably erupt again into war in a few years…." [p.37]

This is precisely the unfortunate situation deliberately created at the Versailles Peace Conference by vengeful French and British diplomats. They actively defeated Wilson's "Fourteen Points", even though Europeans hugely welcomed them. Many recent historians now see this as one of the first assertive acts by the elite group later known as creators of and fostering a "New World Order". [9]

The resentment created by these scheming minds laid the groundwork for Hitler's rise to power and WW2. Because Dr Carver's strong sense of history was aware of this, the reader will see that he gave Bush 41 clear and precise advice, yet Dubya chose its opposite course of action.

If one aspect of Dubya's life has been consistent, it is in his rejection of his father's accomplishments and refusal to learn from them. In theology classes, one learns early on that, according to traditional Christian teaching, Satan can be counted on to deceive us by saying one thing while doing its opposite.

Dubya and his Cabal-the self-designated group of Israel-biased advisors who surround him--claim the native Iraqi resistance to their illegal war was completely "unexpected"! Instead, they want us to believe this is the result of inaccurate intelligence given by the agencies responsible for gathering it.

Clearly, this bunch never read-or else deliberately ignored-the counsel given by the nation's best intelligence people and agencies. When every aspect of this invasion turned against them, they rushed to blame others for their own stubborn refusal to look hard at what is real. Do they truly believe-as the newly nominated Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, proclaims her right to-that they can have it both ways?

Let us move on to Carver's third point of caution: if Hussein possesses any weapons of mass destruction, these must be eliminated, and their suppliers-"including France, Germany, Great Britain, the peoples Republic of China, the Soviet Union, and also the United States-must act in concert to stop any further proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons capabilities… by taking whatever steps are necessary to keep their own nationals from engaging in the future, as they have done too often in the past, in activities that abet this proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and of complementary, long-range delivery systems." [p. 38]

By now, readers may wonder why Carver was ignored, when it is painfully obvious he was superbly qualified to both understand and counsel how to act appropriately in foreign affairs. Instead, we now have the exact downward spiralling civil war he most dreaded would result. How can such self-destructive behaviours on the administration's part come to be?

This last leads directly to Carver's fourth point: "Consequently, Saddam must be driven from office, and from power-preferably by Iraqis. He must be humiliated and disgraced-but not Iraq, the Iraqi military establishment or, least of all, the Iraqi people." [p. 38, Carver's emphasis.]

Astounding as it now appears, Bush 43's approach violated every one of Carver's concerns:

  1. The US and the UK took it upon themselves to depose Hussein.

  2. Iraqis who had maintained some semblance of order were hastily dismissed, simultaneously creating both vast unemployment and an army of potential resistance fighters.

  3. Not only did this humiliate the Iraqi military, the methods used by the US violated every norm and moral of Arabic, Islamic, and Iraqi society. This led immediately to immense hatred of what was done to them in the name of "democracy" being imposed.

  4. Craver's most emphatic caution is this: "No foreign power or consortium of foreign powers, including the United Nations, should attempt to impose a political system on Iraq's people-even "for their own good." [My emphasis re the UN. JEF]

A long-time master of history and political behaviours, George Carver wisely knew that the resentment engendered by an imposed solution would negate whatever "good" occupying forces claimed to deliver, even if such were possible. Were Dubya truly a conservative and a Christian, he would know that humans do not dispense democracy, goodness, or grace: those are God's gift, not humankind's works. In the Islamic world, failure to deliver on a promise is one of the gravest moral and ethical lapses.

The best option was quite clear to Dr Carver: "Iraq's people should be left to sort out their own political arrangements. …foreigners should refrain from interfering in Iraq's internal affairs, and let the Iraqis resolve their many internal problems in the manner they feel is most likely to resolve them" [p. 39, Carver's emphasis.]

No matter how violent and deadly that aftermath might have been, it could never involve the huge loss of lives and wealth presently suffered by the armies of the occupying powers and native Iraqis. These losses-more than 12,000 wounded and 1300 dead for the US, according to the figures released by the Pentagon-now seriously demoralize Dubya's domestic voting public. Many say the evidence shows that these figures are too low, and do not account for all types of death and injuries.

As of 17 January 2005, one veteran's estimate of US casualties is as follows: "…the true casualty figures of Iraq is [sic] around 6,000 servicemen killed and 48,000 wounded, totalling 54,000. If my figures are accurate, then the Pentagon is only reporting 20% of the casualties." [1] Historically, this ratio parallels the Pentagon's release figures for Vietnam.

Polls by highly respected Zogby International Research reveal that 56% of interviewed US residents no longer believe the war in Iraq is worth its cost in blood and treasure. The figure is far higher, 84%, in those who lived through the Vietnam era. As of December 16, 2004, Zogby found Bush 43's approval rating had slipped to 49%, its lowest since the previous low, just before September 11, 2001. [8]

To date Dubya's Iraq War 2 has cost more than US $200 billions, with no end in sight. The Pentagon recently estimated another $100 billion a year is needed to continue occupation, bring in 30,000 more troops, and staff the fourteen new bases. Audits by the General Accounting Office and others reveal that more than $20 billions "disappeared" and cannot be accounted for in any way.

Imagine if that money had developed Alberta's oil sands, which hold many times more oil than all the Islamic nations! For more than sixty years, Canada has shipped oil to the US: no wars were needed for a continuing, reasonably priced, virtually unlimited long-term oil supply to the USA.

So why was one initiated by the Bush-Cheney administration?

This is the second most important question of the new century, after "Who profits most from the attack of September 11, 2001?" to which it is intimately related. Two questions, one answer, and that one is found most succinctly in Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon. [7]

Funds earmarked for Iraq, more than ninety billion by some estimates, went to a handful of the US military-industrial complex and a few oil companies. This created a conflict-of-interest from the top down in this Administration, as individuals enriched themselves by tens of millions, especially if connected to The Halliburton Corporation or to The Carlyle Group. The Bush family fortunes began before with WW2, with the rich profits made by grandfather Prescott Bush laundering money for Adolf Hitler, Alfred von Thyssen, et. al., via their private Union Bank of New York. In turn, these were later invested in oil, offshore entities, various multi-billion dollar frauds, and finally to The Carlyle Group, now the fifth largest weapons maker in the USA. [8, 9]

At a stubborn $45.00 a barrel, oil is fifty percent higher than before September 11th; no sensible analyst projects a significantly lower cost in future. Instead, the past year has brought a new concern that we now live in the age of Peak Oil, and its end is near. This is accelerated by incessant and growing demands from China and India, projected to become the second and third largest consumers of oil imports in 2005, removing Japan from second place after the USA.

After witnessing two immensely destructive wars waged by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamic nations with or without petroleum reserves now worry that the US will invade any of them at any time, as part of a greater war against Islam, a so-called clash of civilizations," something Carver discusses in ways too subtle for Dubya to comprehend.

Most-if not all-Islamic nations believe the US has been coerced by Israel to support that unhappy mini-nation as the only Mid-East power with nuclear weapons. Even if they wished only to preserve their petroleum by changing over to nuclear power generation, they are condemned out-of-hand as preparing to make WMD and carry out terrorism. Damned if they do, and damned if they do not, with fewer and fewer options left open, they find themselves painted into one more corner of war by Dubya and the Cabal.

What's worse is that the US and Israel validate this belief every time they demand Iran dismantle its nuclear facilities, or that Syria and Iran give up alleged "weapons of mass destruction." Although this claim formed the basis for the US and UK's second war on Iraq, a nation devastated by more than a decade's economic sanctions, no such weapons were found, contrary to the strident rhetoric made by the US before the United Nations, that these weapons could be launched on very short notice at the US. [2]

Near the end of Dahr Jamail's article he writes: "Despite a media blackout in the aftermath of the recent assault on Fallujah, stories of dogs eating bodies in the streets of the city and of destroyed mosques have spread across Iraq like wildfire; and reports like these only underscore what most people in Iraq now believe--that the liberators have become no more than brutal imperialist occupiers of their country. And then the resistance grows yet stronger." [5]

Just how strong is this attraction to a most likely fatal membership in the resistance? Estimates are that there are now 200,000 resistance fighters with some 5,000 to 8,000 of these from outside Iraq [There were none before the invasion. JEF], Even if we discount by half the resistance leaders' claims of 5,000 "volunteers" monthly from outside Iraq, that leaves 2,500 multiplied by twelve months, more than enough to infinitely tie down an occupying army, as our military estimates 20 men to each insurgent.

Michael Gaddy is another veteran turned journalist. He served in Vietnam, Beirut, and Grenada, so he knows well whereof he speaks and writes. Here is his estimate, from his article of 14 January 2005:

“The Pentagon, and this administration's compliant media, has consistently told us our military is facing forces that number from 5,000 to as high as 20,000 of the enemy in Iraq. President Bush says there are a 'small number of insurgents opposing the election, because they fear freedom.' Compared with the statement by Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani, it is not hard to tell something is seriously wrong here. 'I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people.' General Shahwani said the number includes at least 40,000 hardcore fighters but rises to more than 200,000 members counting part-time fighters and volunteers.”

Repeatedly in his December 1990 monograph, George Carver prophesied what we now witness: "It is now too late to debate what should have been done, or should have been done differently…. The issue has been joined, our hand set to the plow; and if the furrow is not properly finished, our harvest will be bitter indeed."

"Should a resort to arms prove necessary, no one should labor under any illusions that victory can be quickly achieved, at modest human cost, through air power or technology…. Since our and our allies' sanctions will have to be augmented before they stand any chance of being successful, it would be far wiser to try augmenting them with an adroit mix of psychological warfare, propaganda, and covert political action before letting slip the dogs of war…. Indeed, if that result can be achieved before anyone's sons, brothers or fathers, including Iraqis, have to be committed to combat on desert killing fields …the whole world will have cause to rejoice." [3]

It has become horribly clear that Donald Rumsfeld--more and more become Robert Strange McNamara reincarnated--never read this, or if he did, he quickly put it out of mind. He chose to act against advice from both the CIA and NSA communities, as well as the military commands he is the ultimate director of and responsible for! However, it may be that he too, as Dubya claims for himself, has God giving him superior intelligence. If so, the first eighteen months of faith-based military occupations in Iraq cannot be of divine origin, though they may well be Satanic.

Let us conclude with Carver's now tragically proven correct analyses and forecast outcomes:

The stakes for which President Bush is playing are almost incalculably high. The situation created by Saddam's aggression clearly contains the seeds of a devastating war. Such a war is by no means inevitable; but should one erupt, many American Voters, not to mention future historians-fairly or not-are likely to blame George Bush more than Saddam Hussein.” [My emphasis. JEF]

Truly a stunning insight and forecast, although its total truth would be delayed until a greater fool took the Presidency to depths of corruption and incompetence not seen since Harding's era. Today's historians agree that Bush 43 is certainly among the worse-if not the worst-in the history of the USA. His blood-soaked-and, if even half of what Michael Ruppert has exposed is true--treasonous disaster in Iraq demonstrates this ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Yet, in spite of this, he is eager to get on with expanding his wars as widely, as quickly, as possible.

In his Inaugural Address today, Bush 43 exclaimed his intention to pursue more-much more-of Dick Cheney's "forever war." At least three times, he declared the US must continue its self-appointed role as dispenser and exporter of democracy to the world. Unfortunately, except for the CBC and the CTV, not many newscasters mentioned his approval rating on this most auspicious of days was the lowest of any recorded US President in history! In Dubya's murderously narrow and confused world-view, democracy is something he plucks from the shelves of his 24/7 Ideology Convenience Store, to be delivered by B-52s and smart bombs until the natives "get the message." Functioning as an over wound automaton unable to stop itself, in the space of a twenty-one minute speech Dubya repeated "freedom" twenty-seven times and used "liberty" fifteen times. In this bizarrely dysfunctional administration, the rule is that when reason fails, repetition may yet win the day.

Free from the fetters of historically informed, cautionary people such as George Carver, Dubya now believes he reigns evangelically triumphant. How much more of this fool humankind can suffer remains to be seen. This author, however, is positive that, had George Carver lived to witness this abomination on the hill, he would have shuddered, pulled his coat more tightly around himself to keep out the windy cold, then walked away as quickly as possible from the madness of King George.


In the Sources that follow, please note that my references range the entire realm of political and social thought, from true conservative to true liberal views. You will not find raucous screamers of extreme views at any point on the spectrum, if that's what fascinates you.

As an aside, few people know from whence this arrangement of views originated. When the National Assembly of France was established under the old regime, they sat in a chamber which had benches fixed to the floor in a series of concentric half-circles, so the attenders had to face the speaker's podium.

For the sake of more conveniently recording their votes, delegates decided to rank themselves by their political party or belief group. Seating was initiated from the extreme right, where the Monarchists sat, to the extreme left, where the revolutionary and nihilist parties more or less sat.

This proved such a useful arrangement that many other assemblies copied it, thus giving rise over the past two centuries to our notion of right and left as being significant.


Note: It is appropriate that the author recognizes the considerable assistance and many insights of Lewis Ellmore in the writing of this article.

My thanks are inadequate to express my gratitude for his patience. What errors it may contain are solely those of the author, and not Lew Ellmore.

Quick Links