QUOTE
The only way to make sense of this is to examine the alternatives, or rather, the alternative. Withdrawal from Iraq following the necesary humiliating negotiations with "the terrorists" to enable safe passage out would mean nothing less than the end of the globalisation project, the collapse of the dollar and the collapse of US/UK credibility. It would also leave the architects of this war facing the abyss. The neocons have constituted themselves as the "no way back tendency": they've put all their eggs in the basket of "war without end" and anything so much as a whiff of peace would leave them reeling as from the effects of some alien and toxic vapour. Peace is not an option. Nor is defeat in Iraq; but that is inevitable
UNQUOTE

Want to know why Blair is going to win? Because the vast majority of his opponents, people of average intellect, all themselves to be mostly informed by the very organs that Blair uses to control, namely the press. Like SELWYN FROGGITT, dim bulbs read BIG newspapers to make themselves feel smarter. Their so-called arguments then become the idiot planted pseudo-logic laid down by their masters.

Take the pure dribble from the quote above. This time, genuine in intent, but an idiot jumble of well instilled control ideas from the media.

1) withdrawal from Iraq is very difficult, because economies would suffer. PURE GOLD THIS ONE. Especially since it goes hand in hand with the same person also believing what he is also told about the daily COST of occupation.

2) withdrawal is difficult, because leaving would be DANGEROUS to Western forces. More comedy gold. The simple minded are making analogy to Vietnam, where the departing US faced an approaching army of conquest. You may have just noticed that the occupation in Iraq is NOT facing any army!!!

3) leaving Iraq would remove power from Western Leaders, and damage the people behind the invasion. This is a lot like saying that a Bank Robber who stops robbing banks will stop getting free cash. Actually, Iraq is neither here nor their beyond being a means to an end.

4) Iraq is just a stepping stone, but notice the author CANNOT bring himself to comprehend the REAL meaning of this. Go back to Nazi Germany. Germans may well have debated Hitler's stategy in his EARLY invasions, but those that refused to acknowledge Hitler's greater plans were missing the point and wasting their time. What use would have been served by constantly dribbling on about "the Nazis will eventually be defeated in Poland".

5) "no way back tendency"- the classic get the LITTLE MAN to feel like a BIG MAN by having him say, "my masters, what a bunch of misguided fools they are". When people are executing a well designed plan, and it is going perfectly, why on Earth would they EVER consider going back???

6) The greatest point is noticing the refusal of the anti-war forces to think with any clarity. Either events in Iraq are BAD or GOOD for those that have caused them. The anti-war movement is 'encouraged' by everything they read to choose the BAD option. However, if Iraq is a stepping stone, and the people of Earth would NOT relish the prospect of future wars, then they must be MADE to think that war beyond Iraq is impossible politically, so that they will relax, and not confront their current leadership effectively.

On the other hand, if things in Iraq are made to look TOO BAD, then a backlash could sweep the responsible people out of power. A careful game is therefore played out.

To perceive reality is really not difficult. Collect facts, and ignore the commentary and analysis of the biased (Mass Media).

-The losses suffered by the invaders are minimal (much higher than publically stated, but far lower than initially feared). The UN has given every 'fig-leaf' the invaders demanded, including total immunity for ALL crimes carried out there. The co-operation by the Iranians has been outstanding, given on the basis that control of Iraq moves from Sunni to Shi'ite. The cost of the operation is largely offset by standard (peacetime) military budgets, and access to the whole of Iraq's oil revenue.

-propaganda control over events in Iraq have been near perfect, with the vast majority of mankind receiving its information from a totally fixed Mass Media. Rogue journalism has been kept to an absolute minimum, and true reporting falls almost entirely in the domain of the internet, where it can be dismissed as in the domain of conspiracy cranks.

-the level of conflict in Iraq has been minimal, and entirely within acceptable US military parameters. It is the US that chooses areas that will become major combat zones, and decides how long that target will be struck. Resistance activity is carefully maintained. Thus Iraq provides an extensive representation region of EVERY kind of LIVE-FIRE training grounds. The WHOLE of the US military ground forces (and MOST of the airforce, and much of the navy), including reservists, have been placed in appropriate REAL combat situations, to ensure that as much of the US military aspossible consists of COMBAT VETERANS.

If you do not get the significance of giving your army combat experience, for god's sake go read up on military strategy and tactics. Human history is a history of war, and EVERYONE that participates in the debate needs to learn something about the nature and requirements of war.

For Blair, and his allies, the NeoCon 'crazies', Iraq has been a 100% success. Drunken puppet Bush is much LESS sure about this, but the game is not his. For Putin, and the Chinese, well they are neither quite in the loop, nor out of it.

Iran is a different issue, and a much more complicated prospect. However, you already get this by the very nature of the constant propaganda that prepares for war, but never quite seems to say how this way will happen. This is the idea that somehow the damn will burst if only a great enough pressure of water is created. One thing is certain. The men and women of the US army have been as well prepared for war with Iran as possible, by their experiences in Iraq. Everything else now is political, with the US military planners informing their masters that an Iran war is probably a full blown Middle-Eastern war, and can ONLY be executed with the political willingness to FULLY account for all that will entail.

Believe me, this is the jist of what the planners are saying. Given that the Iran war will certainly put the US in conflict with most of the Middle East, the US MUST be prepared to use NUCLEAR STRIKES as terror punishment to eliminate well organised opposition. This means that as a region starts to go hot, a major town or city must be nuked as an example, and a discouragement. This strategy must be repeated as many times as required. People of the Middle East must be made to understand that the cost of opposing the will of the US is death on a massive scale.

Do you think the above will be easy to sell, because I don't. Blair, and the NeoCons would be ecstatic at reaching this stage, but sadly for them, others need persuading too.

Terror is always a part of greater war, and usually the greater part. However, in these so-called civilised times, we like to pretend otherwise. The most awful acts of warfare in WW2 were carried out by the US and UK, not Nazi Germany. However, I don't think that the policy of exterminating cities and their civilian populations could have been sold politically to the peoples of the UK/USA.

Blair wants to edge his way there. US military planners want a realistic plan signed off, that incorporates the genocide option from the beginning (because the oil MUST keep flowing, and the US army could not take on the whole of the Middle East and guarantee that in the short term). Bush wants an easy life.

Be realistic about what is happening, and why. Comprehend the historic problems faced by each of the groups involved, and understand they actually have different goals and ideas. Understand the true forces that are driving our destiny, and use analogy with the past to identify likely methods, strategies, and outcomes.

Blair is NOT going to give up. It is just possible (although I think that is a dangerous delusion) that Iran will prove impossible as the next target. ***IF*** this does become so, we'll know in an instant, because there will be a 'sea change' in the propaganda.

Please remember that Hitler had to face the most extraordinary hurdles in the early days of his wars- but he overcame each of them. Blair has a power that Hitler could not have imagined, and an apathetic public weaker and more supine than any faced by a dictator.