The Latest Surge News

For those who have been captivated by the Hillary, Obama, and Reverend Wright debacle unfolding before our very eyes you may have missed the latest surge news. It appears that the ill-advised strategy of Prime Minister al Maliki to disarm the militias in Southern Iraq is having unintended consequences in Baghdad. What many considered a heavy handed attempt by the Iraqi Prime Minister to weaken his political opponents has awakened the sleeping dogs of Sadr City where al-Sadr’s militia has held sway. What the offensive has demonstrated is how fragile any gains from the surge have been and how at any moment they can be reversed, it has also demonstrated how unprepared the Iraqi army and security forces are at being able to secure their nation.

BAGHDAD, April 29 -- A four-hour battle Tuesday between U.S. soldiers and Shiite militiamen left at least 28 Iraqis dead in the capital's Sadr City neighborhood, making it one of the bloodiest days in a month of sustained street fighting.

The clashes underscored how deeply U.S. forces have been drawn into heavy combat in the huge Shiite district since Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unexpectedly launched an offensive in southern Iraq last month against Shiite militias, primarily the Mahdi Army of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.[1]

April will now be the deadliest month for US casualties since September of 07 and is harbinger of many more deaths to come. The fighting in Sadr City has led to 50 US deaths for the month of April, as the US has been drawn into a larger role in taking on the militias. The US military has become the big brother who has been drawn into a fight by a younger sibling (al-Maliki) knowing that his actions will be defended no matter how foolish. The original strategy was for the offensive to highlight the improvement of the Iraqi military and its ability to fight independently of US forces, needless to say that has not been the case. Once again the Iraqi forces are on the outside as the American forces carry the fight to the militias.

As we here in America revisit the infamous “Mission Accomplished” moment of George Bush aboard the aircraft carrier the USS Abraham Lincoln, the current increase in violence has underscored how foolish that declaration was then and how foolish any “surge is working” declaration is today. While much has changed since that “Top-Gun” incident, much has stayed the same. What has changed? There have been more deaths of innocent Iraqis and US service personnel, there have been more people injured, and there have been worsening economic consequences for America. What has stayed the same? We are no closer to liberating Iraq than we were then, the Iraqis are no closer to taking responsibility for their nation, and of course we are no closer to defeating the so-called reason for the war al-Qaeda.

I find it very interesting that as the level of violence increases and the US forces are poised to begin house to house missions in Sadr City that the military leaders who were suppose to bring victory are being promoted even though we are no closer to victory. I find it hard to believe that now is the time to make a change in military leadership in Iraq when there have been no concrete gains and the level of violence is increasing. I wonder what General Petraeus has done worthy of a promotion on the ground? Maybe it isn’t what he has done on the ground in Iraq, but on the ground in Washington. Since May 1^st 2003, the Iraqi War has changed from a fighting war to a political war. The war is driven not so much by the results in Iraq, but how they play in the US. The thing about a fight against an insurgency or an occupation is that the enemy does not have to score a convincing military victory, all they have to do is give the impression that they are invincible to the folks at home.

If the offensive against the militias, especially the ones in Sadr City continues to be pushed by US forces the number of casualties will continue to increase. What is taking place in Baghdad today is precisely what the independent military leaders have feared; urban warfare against an entrenched enemy that enjoys popular support. Even if we are able to dislodge the militias, the cost could be the loss of the populace from heavy casualties or heavy-handed tactics. The other problem that the US troops will face is that the militias had been filling in for the government by providing badly needed services and if they are removed and there is no replacement of services by the Iraqi government then we will have to worry about more than the militias.

---

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042900560.html?hpid=sec-world

Read more!

Some Would Rather Switch Than Fight

It would seem that the Iraqization of the war is not going quite as well as planned. After 5 years of training and billions of dollars, the Iraqi Army and police forces are still a long way from standing on their own. There had been rumors and reports that it took the American and British forces to provide much needed support during the Iraqi government’s badly planned, badly executed offensive in Basra against the “criminal element” that had taken over the city and the oil rich port. Many have reported that the offensive was designed and executed by the al-Maliki government to weaken possible rivals in the upcoming elections. The main target appeared to be the Mahdi Army militia, the militia formed by the powerful cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

According to reports, at least 1300 Iraqi police and armed forces refused to fight or deserted during the offensive. This has to be troubling news to the White House, General Petraeus, and the Republican war cheerleader and nominee John McCain. The reason it is troubling is because at some point the American public is going to expect the Iraqis to shoulder more of the responsibility of rebuilding their country and at least providing for its security. There are few things Americans detest more than cowardice. In a country where the national icons are John Wayne and Ronald Reagan there is no place for deserters and cowards, especially among those whose country we are “liberating”. I almost wish that I watched the talking heads and pundits on this one; I would love to hear how they reconcile the exploits of the Iraqis with the John Wayne narrative. Or about how much American blood is being spilled for their liberation.

BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials said Sunday that they had fired about 1,300 soldiers and police officers who refused to fight Shiite Muslim militias during the recent government crackdown, desertions that raise questions about the likely performance of Iraqi forces as U.S. troop levels decrease.

Whatever the reasons, the desertions are a sign of what critics have said were broader problems with the offensive ordered by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, including overly rapid deployment of shaky troops and lack of planning. Some say this points to weaknesses in Maliki’s leadership and portends ongoing problems as future American troop levels continue to be a focus of debate in Washington.

“There’s a certain bravado to the current [Iraqi] leadership, believing they can come into a difficult situation and just with a show of force make things happen the way they want,” said the American military official, who spoke anonymously because of his critique of the U.S.-backed Iraqi leader.

“There’s so much that it takes to plan a military operation. All that stuff had not been done,” the official said.[1]

For those with eyes to see it is becoming ever more apparent that the reason we must remain in Iraq is not to fight al-Qaeda, but to ensure the survival of whatever puppet regime we install. The wing-nuts have no intention of spending all that coin and expending those lives for the Iraqis to choose their on way of government. We came to spread democracy and damn it that’s what we are going to spread. Could you imagine if after all the lives and material we have expended and we end up creating another Iran what the fall-out to the Republican brand would be? This is no longer about al-Qaeda, oil, or democracy; it is now about the future of government in America. The Republicans can not leave Iraq and have any hope of ever gaining a majority again. They know this and that is why regardless of their personal feelings about this fiasco they will continue to stay in lock-step with their leadership.

The Republicans have staked their long-term political future on the “war on terror” and as long as they are hitched to this issue they will not go quietly into that good night. The war on terror has morphed into just plain terror, no war or enemy to fear just be afraid; be very afraid. With the latest performance of the Iraqi military and government I can see why they are afraid, but why are we afraid? Anyone who still buys the notion that the terrorists will have a victory if we leave Iraq or that they will follow us home seriously needs to have their Thorazine dosage increased. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there and there will be none left when we leave. They will not follow us home either, hell I’m a black American citizen and I can barely get back into the country from Mexico. Is this to say there won’t be anymore attacks? Of course not. If someone is willing to die to further their cause there is no defense against that, despite all the Republican wing-nut rhetoric.

However, there is some good news to report from the Basra debacle. It seems that we are actually making progress in training and preparing the Iraqi troops. According to reporters who have been reporting from Iraq since the beginning of hostilities the number of desertions has actually gone down. So at this rate we should be able to field a full cadre of Iraqi forces in another 10 years. Thank God for progress…

There are sure to be more volleys, though a comment last week on the PBS program Charlie Rose added some perspective to the number of desertions — 1,300 — that has provided so much fuel for the debate. Rather than being surprised, Dexter Filkins, a Times correspondent who reported from Iraq between 2003 and 2006, called the desertions “remarkable” for being so limited. Here’s why:

In 2004, when they tried to push the Iraqi army into battle, it disappeared. They all defected.

“Progress has been made,” Mr. Filkins continued. “Whether it’s enough progress” is another question entirely, he added in a joint appearance on the program with John F. Burns of The New York Times.[2]

[1] http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8272/
[2] http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/back-and-forth-and-back-again-on-iraqs-deserters/index.html?ex=1208836800&en=a16567ed8115a889&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

Read more!

Mission Accomplished?

I just have one question for the architects and proponents of this global war on terror, how will we know when it is over? Who will sign the treaty papers for the terrorists? Will it be Osama bin Laden? The truth is that there will be no surrender ceremony because we are not really fighting a war. We are not fighting a war in the conventional sense. It is sort of like the “war on poverty” or the “war on drugs” there is no identifiable point of success or failure. Because our enemy is undefined and really impossible to defeat there are no “benchmarks” to gauge our successes or failures. We have been fighting the war on poverty since 1964 and poverty has not surrendered yet. We have been fighting the war on drugs since 1972 and drugs have yet to surrender. In fact in both case we have actually lost ground to both enemies. The problem with declaring war on these types of enemies is that you become entrenched in the mindset of the original declaration.

For instance, we are still fighting poverty and drugs in many of the same ways we were when the wars were declared. Even though we know from study after study that we are not fighting them efficiently or with any great success, we continue doing the same things. In the war on poverty there were some initial large scale successes, but a lot of that was due to the severity of the problems. Poverty had been so widespread in many parts of America that any efforts to alleviate its effects brought welcome change to those suffering its ill-effects. However, due to a relentless campaign by the Right to vilify the poor a lot of the gains that were made were lost to inertia and false propaganda. There are those who have even falsely reported that poverty no longer exists in America. The war on drugs has produced similar results, the biggest fallout being the new prison industrial complex that now houses over 2 million Americans. The largest number of an imprisoned populace in the industrialized world.

Which brings us to the war on terror, due to the nature of the conflict we have the potential of an endless conflict. For the sake of argument let’s say we “win” in Iraq, will this be the end of the war? What about Pakistan? Iran? The Philippines? The definition of terrorist has become so generic and nonspecific that anyone can be classified as one and any conflict can be recast as an insurgency. Those who are now classified as terrorist for the most part are those who have not accepted globalization and the Western civilization model. So we have an unlimited supply of enemies and potential trouble-spots, the question now becomes how can the American public be persuaded to continue their unwavering support for a war that can not be won, against an enemy that cannot surrender?

I read a commentary a few days ago about the situation in Iraq. In it the author discussed how the war in Iraq has already been won as much as we can win it from a military standpoint. Our troops did an outstanding job of doing what armies prior to the war on terror were supposed to do. They routed the Iraqi army and deposed a dictator. So from a military standpoint the military did what it was created to do. The problem is that since then we have asked them to do what they were not created to do and the results have been well documented. The job of the military is to launch an attack and defeat a known enemy. Our military did an amazing job of carrying out it’s role in this ill advised invasion, they crushed the Iraqi army and rolled into Bagdad in less than two months. No one can argue that our military did not complete the mission it was designed to do. The Bushies have placed the military in an untenable position.

The military is stretched beyond any sustainable level with no end in sight, enlistments are at all-time lows, and we have yet to feel the healthcare crisis from the long deployments of our military personnel. And yet despite all of these facts, we have Senator McSame and the General claiming that victory is at hand. My question is victory over whom? The victory is not ours to declare in Iraq, our victory has already been completed. As long as we continue to define victory and loss in obsolete terminology we will be destined to repeat the same mistakes we have made in the our other two ill-fated wars. We constantly read and hear about how the war on terror is a new type of warfare, yet we continue to define it in antiquated terms. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror and the sooner we force our politicians and our military leaders to separate them the better off we will be as a nation. As long as we allow them to keep the two connected, we will continue to spend billions on a war we can never win.

Imagine if we had taken all the money that we have spent fighting the war on terror in military terms and had spent that money actually improving the lives of the people in these countries. We could have declared victory in the war on terror without ever firing a shot. But lets face it, there’s no profits in peaceful resolution of conflicts. There is profits in armaments. There is profits in reconstruction of the damage caused by those armaments. We spend billions of dollars destroying countries and ruining lives, money which could be used to renovate and rejuvenate these ailing societies. But just like the war on poverty at home has been fought with little enthusiasm, so has our efforts abroad to actually overhaul these societies through peaceful means.

I know it hasn’t been reported yet but the terrorists have surrendered. There was just no one at the table to take their surrender. We were too busy fighting the crusade to fight the real war. We were too busy invading and occupying the wrong countries to address the real terrorists. So the next time someone says that the mission was accomplished, they will be telling the truth. The problem is the mission that was accomplished wasn’t the mission they were sent to do. What should have been a military operation under George Bush became a political operation and we continue to deal with the fall-out.

Read more!

Napalm In The Morning

It’s time for another round of “a funny thing happened on the way to al Qaeda” starring the latest in a long line of political military men General David H. Petraeus. It seems surprising that in the midst of a hotly contested election the General received little fanfare this trip. There were no full page ads, no massive protests, or no political lynching. Can I say the word lynching when talking about a white man or would that be construed as racist since I am black? Oh well, let the rhubarb begin. How long will we continue to accept no answer as an answer? The last General that provided fewer details about a war effort, it’s eventual conclusion and was able to keep his job was also a Republican military hack by the name of George McClellan.

WASHINGTON — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, recommended on Tuesday halting any additional withdrawals of American troops after July for at least 45 days and possibly more, telling Congress that progress there was “fragile and reversible.”

General Petraeus said that security progress has been “significant but uneven.” Under questioning, he declined to estimate American troop levels beyond the withdrawal by July of five additional combat brigades sent to Iraq last year. And he acknowledged that the government’s recent offensive in Basra was not sufficiently well-planned.[1]

I don’t know if ever a man was brought so far to say so little. We know absolutely no more today than we did 15 months ago when this General who “wrote” the book on terrorist and counter-insurgent warfare began his crusade to liberate the Iraqis. The refrain from these guys is always the same, we just need more time. I don’t get it we defeated two enemies in two different theaters in the past with a lot less sophisticated weapons and systems than we have today and in less time. It appears that Bush’s war of attrition is working, the problem is it isn’t working on the insurgents in Iraq it is working on the American public. It is difficult for many Americans to deal with the tanking economy, the housing crisis, and general uneasiness of our job markets to have much time left over for an unpopular war over there.

I am surprised by the reactions of many to the news that the General has to offer, we must remember that he is the commander of troops who are in a deadly conflict and regardless of the situation he must remain positive. Do we really think he will come to Washington and say that we are in a situation that we can not win? It isn’t going to happen. What we must do as a nation is to listen to what he is saying and put it into context of what we know to be true. The problem with the politicians and the military leaders involved in this conflict is that they have allowed the Bushies to define the nature of the conflict, irrespective of the true facts on the ground. By not understanding or discussing the true nature of the conflict we can never define victory or defeat.

Our political and military leaders would like us to believe that the war is about al Qaeda, that this is just an extension of the “war on terror”, the truth is that it isn’t. The biggest obstacles to Iraqi unity and reconstruction is not al Qaeda or Iran, it is the tribal divisions of the Iraqis themselves. We do not and cannot control the events in Iraq and anyone who believes that we can is either ignorant of the precarious position of occupations or worse they are deliberately being disingenuous for political goals. We do not nor can we ever have enough “boots on the ground” to control the events in Iraq, no more than we control the events in Korea, Japan, or Western Europe. Would anyone claim that we control the events in any of these regions? Of course they wouldn’t.

We need to move beyond the unrealistic goals being discussed in our political and military circles. We need to move from trying to control the events in Iraq and to influencing the events. Currently, we do not influence the events in Iraq because we have leveraged ourselves with the war on terror rhetoric and the Iranian demagoguery. Instead of continuing the imperialist strategy of empire building, we need to adopt a more reserved role similar to the Europeans. Our greatest efforts on the world stage have come not from controlling events, but from influencing events. We cannot offset the Iranian regional expansion through control, every time we have tried to control events in the Middle-East, we have failed miserably.

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton reserved their real fire for each other. Shortly after the hearing began, Mr. McCain was out of the gate with an opening statement that called on Americans to reject the calls for a “reckless and irresponsible withdrawal of our forces at the moment when they are succeeding” and that promising such a withdrawal, “regardless of the consequences,” was a “a failure of political and moral leadership.”[2]

What is a failure of political leadership is to use our troops for political gain by relying on the fabrication of the al Qaeda in Iraq and the Iranian training grounds myth. We cannot begin to exert influence in Iraq and the region until we disengage from this crusade mentality and instead of becoming of a dictator we become a partner. Until we do this, no surge or temporary decrease in violence will be worth it’s weight in salt.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/world/middleeast/08cnd-petraeus.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/washington/08cnd-scene.html?hp

Read more!

The Shell Game

I finally understand what President Bush has been up to. These guys are good. When everyone was calling for a reduction in troops, Mr. Bush chose to increase troops. Why? So that he can reduce the troop levels without reducing the troop levels. Let’s say that he agrees to reduce the levels by the 30,000 increase for the surge, he still maintains the same number of troops prior to the surge. He can appear to be following the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and yet keep the same number of troops, brilliant. Let’s say that he reduces it by a more modest number than the 30,000, he will actually have a net gain and still appease the growing uneasiness of the American public. He gets the best of both worlds, he can seem to be heeding the advice of other experts and the American people and yet keep the same number of troops indefinitely. He can argue I reduced the force by X number of troops didn’t I?

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, has told President Bush that he wants to maintain heightened troop levels in Iraq well into next year to reduce the risk of military setbacks, but could accept the pullback of roughly 4,000 troops beginning in January, in part to assuage critics in Congress, according to senior administration and military officials.

General Petraeus’s view is considered overly cautious by some other senior military officials and some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said. But they said it reflected his concern that the security gains made so far in Baghdad, Anbar Province and other areas were fragile and easily reversed.[1]

This is the same strategy used by marketers for years, increase your prices before a sale and then reduce them modestly. The customer thinks they are saving 50% when they are actually paying more than they would if it were not on sale.

General Petraeus is considering making some troop reductions to relieve Congressional pressure. How about making troop reductions because the surge is not working? Despite the coming dog and pony show the surge has not been the success being touted. I read an article in the McClatchy News discussing the figures being used to claim the success of the surge. There is talk that because there are fewer US casualties then the surge is working, even though they had predicted that there would be more casualties if the strategy was working. There are those that argue it isn’t the surge it is the normal summer reduction in casualties that has been there since the beginning, it appears the insurgents also need a summer vacation. Then of course there is the argument that the insurgents have just decided to wait us out, they have decided not to engage the US troops. To me this seems the more sensible argument and can be easily proven by the number of insurgent casualties, but also by the number of insurgents captured.

It would seem pretty obvious that if the number of insurgent encounters is lower, then either one of two scenarios is true, that we have in fact defeated the insurgency or they have gone underground. The thing about fighting a war of this type is that progress is next to impossible to gauge. The ordinary benchmarks of a conventional war do not apply, the objectives are completely different. Why we are spending time with these progress reports is a mystery to me.

Our goal in Iraq is complete; it was complete when Saddam Hussein was dethroned. To ask anymore of our military personnel is suicidal, because now it becomes an international mission. Rebuilding nations belongs to the international community and rightly so. You cannot expect to destroy a society, even for humanitarian reasons and then not expect the people to resent it. It will always change from liberation to an occupation in the minds of many of the people. Iraq has shown that there is a fine line between freedom and tyranny. So far in the mind of many Iraqis we have not been able to distinguish the two. We have replaced the tyranny of a dictator with the tyranny of occupation.

We of course may not believe that, but it doesn’t matter what we believe or what our motives were. What matters is what the Iraqis believe and right now they believe we are more of a hindrance than a help. The thing about the shell game is that it is rigged and so are these progress reports. The real progress can’t be measured until we leave and many years down the line from then. It is foolishness to set these arbitrary timelines that are not connected to reality.

Democracy and nation building is a process and it cannot be accomplished by outsiders. Look at America we have been at it a lot longer than the Iraqis and we still have a lot to learn. To expect the Iraqis to overcome their fears and prejudice is not realistic. All one has to do is look at the current climate in America; we still have black and white shade trees for God’s sake.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/washington/07policy.html?hp

Read more!

The Pot Or The Kettle

There has been a lot of hubbub recently due to the ad taken out by MoveOn.Org in the New York Times welcoming home General Petraeus. The chickenhawks, phony patriots, and the usual assortment of right wing mouthpieces have jumped all over the ad. In their usual shrill they are claiming that because General Petraeus is a military man his credibility is unimpeachable and the ad is once again giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”.

I would whole heartedly agree with those sentiments except for a few minor details that they fail to mention in their condemnations. The first is that I am old enough to remember Vietnam, I remember the Generals back then, especially Westmoreland testifying to Congress in a manner that was not truthful. Their rosy scenario of the war did not correspond to the pictures being beamed back to American via satellite from the war zone. For many years they were given the benefit of the doubt and the respect accorded their position in the military, by doing so Congress and the American people allowed the carnage to continue in SE Asia. So for them now to say that military men are beyond reproach flies in the face of reality and our shared history. Of course many of them were too busy ignoring Vietnam to have been aware of the dishonesty that was being perpetrated against the public.

The second minor detail involves the role that General Petraeus has assumed; he is not some objective military man simply following the orders of his Commander in Chief. No, the General has taken a political position in regards to this conflict.

Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.

It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote.

Beyond taking a political position in a way that an active-duty general should never do, which demonstrates political tendencies that in truth trouble many of the highest ranking military officers today, his forecast and analysis turned out to be almost completely, catastrophically wrong on every level.[1]

Also, the General was an advocate of the surge strategy and so he shared the goals of the Bush administration in escalating this conflict. He also signed off on the insurgency manual now being used to train US forces, again giving him a stake in the surge strategy. So you can’t have it both ways General, either you are partisan or you are objective, which is it?

The third minor detail that fails to get mentioned in the rightwing talking points is the small matter of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that labeled former Presidential Candidate John Kerry as a fraud and a coward for his service in Vietnam. Senator Kerry was a decorated war hero who for political reasons was slimed by these same right-wingers who are crying foul today for the General. I would assume that Senator Kerry would be afforded the same respect due the General.

Truth: That's the biggest lie of all. Here's the evidence. Until he suddenly resigned, Ben Ginsburg, chief attorney for the Bush campaign, was legal adviser to the Swift Boat gang. The ads were paid for by Bob Perry, big Bush contributor and buddy of Karl Rove. They were produced and marketed by the same production and advertising companies that prepared Bush's attack ads against John McCain in 2000. And, until he resigned, one veteran who appeared in the swiftboat ads also served on Bush's campaign advisery committee.[2]

The wingnuts have requested that all Democrats denounce the ad and distance themselves from MoveOn.org. I wonder where all this outcry was when Senator Kerry was falsely branded a traitor? The people at MoveOn.org have every right to question the integrity of any official testifying before Congress, it isn’t like no one has ever lied and misled them or the American people before. I am all for respecting the military and its leaders, but at the same time I support the right of people to question authority. Questioning authority used to be a valuable trait in this country before the Imperial Presidency. So which shall it be wingnuts, the pot or the kettle?

[1] http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/61390/
[2] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40169

Read more!

General Petraeus Pulls A Freidman

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 — The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

General Petraeus, whose long-awaited testimony before Congress is to begin today at about 12:30 p.m. Eastern time, has informed President Bush that troop cuts may begin in mid-December, with the withdrawal of one of the 20 American combat brigades in Iraq, about 4,000 troops. By August 2008, the American force in Iraq would be down to 15 combat brigades, the force level before Mr. Bush’s troop reinforcement plan.[1]

The strategy for Iraq for the remainder of President Bush’s term is clear, delay, delay, delay. Taking a page from the syndicated columnist Thomas Freidman, the administration is going to prolong this surge six months at a time. Reminding us of the infamous Freidman timetables for Iraq, on fourteen different occasions Mr. Freidman predicted that the next six months were paramount to our success in Iraq and with every passing deadline a new one was inserted. This of course went on for two and half years, I wonder how many Freidman’s the General has planned for us?

Mr. Freidman was able to pull it off for over two years, the Bushies unfortunately have got only eighteen months. The refrain however is clear, we just need to stay the course another six months and progress is at hand. I don’t know how many of these “reports” it is going to take to get the message through, President Bush is not going to heed any advice but his own. To listen to others in his mind, is weakness. Forget the fact that this administration has been wrong in every major area of this conflict, forget the fact that all objective, bi-partisan observers have refuted his reasoning, he is right and everyone else is wrong.

The saddest part though is not Mr. Bush and the General; they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. For anyone to expect Mr. Bush to change course now after all these years of seeing him in action is foolishness. It is the Democrats that have no excuse, by their inaction in my mind they have lost any legitimate claim to govern. Governing by polls is not leadership. In this country’s darkest times when we have needed an actual opposition party, we have been left with a party of “do nothings”. It should be noted that when this administration was using torture, curbing our democratic freedoms, and instituting the “Bush Doctrine” these guys stood silently by acquiescing to a President that had no clear majority or mandate. Imagine how bad it would had been had Bush actually won an election?

There are many who believe that the Dems should just wait and let George Bush continue to create a majority in the next election cycle. They argue, if the Dems just don’t do anything stupid the White House and Congress is theirs for the taking. I however do not accept such a strategy, if the Democrats continue to politicize these issues that are tearing our country apart at the seams, what makes them any different from the Republicans? At least the Republicans are willing to take stands on issues even if they are unpopular. It used to be that the Democrats stood for certain values, now it appears that those values have been compromised by fear and inactivity.

The best we can get from them today is a lot of self-righteous howling and indignation, but very little action. It appears that they have abdicated their role as the opposition party in favor of a don’t rock the boat mentality. Rather than challenging the status quo they have chosen the path of least resistance. It’s no wonder this President has no fear of them and continues to push his un-mandated conservative agenda.

Who speaks for the dead and dying in Iraq, who speaks for the uninsured, who speaks for the working poor? It certainly isn’t these Democrats, they are too afraid. The current strategy appears to be that the election is theirs to lose, so don’t do anything stupid. The sad thing is that they also won’t do anything brave and heroic either. The thing about living in fear is that it may keep you safe, but it also keeps you from displaying any courage. Courage is not that I am never afraid; it is that I am afraid but I do what is required anyway. I do not expect to see any courage in the coming eighteen months and it will say a lot about those who will want to govern this country.

So, we only have 3 more Freidman’s to go. I wonder how many US troops and Iraqis will not live to see the end of the Freidman’s.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10cnd-Petraeus.html?hp

Read more!

September Mourn

Many believe that come September the debacle that is now Iraq will be ending or at least beginning to end. Those who believe this still do not understand who or what they are dealing with. This administration will stop at nothing to further its agenda and the continued occupation of Iraq is a major part of that agenda. So what can we expect to hear in September from General Petraeus when he makes his report on the progress of the “surge” strategy?

Here is what I think is going to happen. The good general will appear before Congress and will be very polite and very engaging and will state unequivocally that the “surge” has had mixed results. That there will be enough meat on the bones to allow them to continue to follow this inane strategy is almost guaranteed. Why my cynicism you ask? Because this war serves the political agenda of both sides and no one in politics that can stop it wants to really stop it. All one has to do is to listen to the rhetoric of both sides to understand the political stakes at risk. There is an ongoing chorus echoing throughout the halls of power concerning Iraq. Just look at all the blog posts that are dedicated to it, if someone were to land from outer space they would think this is the only thing in the world happening.

How does this serve the powers that be? The Republicans still believe that they can salvage their grand plans of installing a client regime in Iraq and extending America’s colonialist power in the Middle East. Can you imagine the influence of having large military bases in the Middle East without the populace screaming “bloody murder”? I guarantee you they have and the possibilities are endless and much too rewarding to just give up. This war is not about Iraqis or freedom or anything else for that matter. It is about the grand scheme of domination by the wealthy using as proxies the poor. Do not be fooled there are more than a few Democrats that would accept this scenario as well as long as it’s somebody else’s idea. With bases in Iraq, America could extend its collection services on behalf of the large corporations and hold a mighty big stick over the uncivilized Islamist.

This world view has been spelled out over and over by all the neo-con thinkers and corporate apologists. America must exert its muscle to subdue an unruly world. The only small problem is that the world does not want to be subdued by America. If our involvement in Iraq continues at its current rate, I think the populations of the world will protest vehemently and could topple some governments. These protests will not be able to be contained by our “friendly” dictators and could spill over into regional violence. Make no mistake; this is no longer just about Iraq to many this is part of a larger global resources grab by the “greedy” Americans. There are many in these worlds that are willing to sacrifice themselves to right a perceived injustice. We have never been able to grasp this about our enemies. True strength is not in the type or amount of weapons one possesses; instead it is about being willing to do what the other guy won’t do. Anyone ever unfortunate enough to do any street fighting can tell you that.

We can see the Republican explanation for further bloodshed, but what could the Democrats possibly get out of our continued involvement? The answer to this is two-fold and depends on which side of the party you reside on. Believe it or not there are some “hawks” in the party who also share a similar world view as their Republican counterparts. There are some Democrats that are in bed just as deeply with corporate lobbyists as the Republicans and have the same agenda. It would be quite a coup to be able to inherit the Middle East at the Republicans expense, all the benefits with none of the bashing. If you listen to some of the Democratic candidates you can hear them laying the groundwork for continued involvement, if only in some limited capacity. Do not be fooled anyone that is not calling for the complete withdrawal from Iraq is playing both sides against the middle. They can claim to want to end the war and still for humanitarian reasons keep US forces in Iraq to continue the same agenda.

The other side of the same coin for the Democrats is that as long as the war continues the base and many independents have been whipped up to a seething rage. Fund raising has never been easier. It is so heady that many believe it doesn’t matter who is nominated, they will trounce the Republican nominee. This is fool’s gold. Not being George Bush will not get anyone elected. I caution the Democrats to take seriously their candidate and not be overwhelmed with the desire to see America as they want it to be and not as it truly is. It is one thing to have a friendly discussion about the merits of electing women and minorities to the office of President in June, it is an all together different matter in November. I know no one wants to talk about it, but there is a reason we have only had white males in that office and don’t see any compelling reason for that to change, even if it is on the heels of George Bush. We have had incompetent before.

In the final analysis the war will continue after September and there will be outrage, but not enough to change the course. The blogosphere will scream to the rooftops and the rest of the country will continue to be more concerned with “American Idol” than with “American idols”…

Read more!