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!

A Country of Laws

Despite the passage of three new laws by the Iraqi Parliament, Iraq still remains a very divided place and now that our brilliant strategy of arming both parties in the civil conflict is about to explode in our faces, it is about to become a very dangerous place again. As our national history and the recorded history of many other countries can attest, nations are more than just laws. Nations are people, people with feelings and memories. These feelings and memories are not always subject to the ways of legal justice and have a way of causing people to implement laws in some unexpected ways. The Iraqi people are many years from national reconciliation and we are not even sure that they want it, the more we ride herd over the process and inject our own sensibilities into the process the more we prolong the day of reckoning.

Several legislators emphasized after the voting on Wednesday that achieving true sectarian reconciliation was far more complex than simply passing a law.

“Reconciliation will hang on more than a law, it needs political will,” said Mithal al-Alusi, a Sunni legislator. “I believe there is no political will to achieve reconciliation. The law of amnesty is good, but not enough.”[1]

The Iraqi government has no incentive to reconcile so long as we continue to play powerbroker not only in Iraq but in the region as a whole. As long as we continue to provide political coverage and cannon fodder the deeply held sectarian rifts will continue to acerbate under the surface. You cannot force people to like one another or to respect one another, that has to come from a common desire and goal for a people. I do not see that commonness of purpose for the Iraqis at this time.

While the laws put in place can lay the groundwork for change or reconciliation, they still require the trust of the people that they will be enforced in an equitable manner. There has to be an underlying trust within the people to submit to the laws on the books. Can we say that the Iraqis have this underlying trust in each other? I doubt it, we can’t even say with confidence that we have it in each other. Laws are merely the framework, the skeleton that holds the society together. If the people do not have a faith in those executing the laws, there can be no peace or any justice.

An example of this would be the Amnesty Law recently passed as part of the three new laws from the Iraqi Parliament, there are tens of thousands, mostly Sunnis that are being held without charges. The Amnesty Law was suppose to help ease the over-crowding and the appearance of revenge by the Shias, the problem of course is in the details. While the central government may have one definition of who the law would affect, you still have local and provincial officials who may have a different interpretation. Because of the central governments lack of any real power of enforcement the locals will still have the last word. How many of those tens of thousands of prisoners are there due to some local vendetta? The sheer numbers make it next to impossible to fully investigate each individual case, thus leaving many to rot in the jails and prisons of Iraq.

Thanks to our “surge” strategy we have increased the numbers of imprisoned to well past the breaking point. It seems we have not only exported democracy, but also our penchant for locking people up. It is also a documented fact that many of the Sunni detainees have been tortured and killed by their Shia guards. The Amnesty Law will do nothing to correct these injustices and only serves to reinforce in the mind of the minorities in Iraq their need to continue to fight the majority’s dominance.

While the passage of these laws will provide political cover for the Republicans and war mongers in America they will actually produce little in the way of reconciliation in Iraq. The current administration and the Bush-lite nominee waiting in the wings will state that this is a good sign that the Iraqi’s are making progress on the “benchmarks”, the true test is not in the laws we are forcing them to enact to meet our own political agendas, but in the trust created and developed by the opposing parties. This trust cannot be legislated or thrust upon them, but must be developed over time. If Iraq remains a sovereign nation in its current form, it will be up to the Iraqis to make this happen. It will not be at the behest of an occupying army, the history of the colonial powers should make this fact abundantly clear. The nations that they fashioned for their political expediency decades ago are still suffering from the tribal and secular fragmentation of trying to create nations from groups who do not share a national identity.

The war in Iraq will continue to define not Iraq’s but our national identity for years to come. Make no mistake about it the war in Iraq was not and is not about al Qaeda or terrorists, it is about one nation imposing its will over another nation. We can decorate that fact with the bouquet of spreading democracy and freedom, but the stench of imperialism will not be easily covered. How can a nation that violated international law now claim a moral superiority to bring law to the lawless? One must first remove the log that is in one’s own eye before trying to remove the splinter in another’s eye. Are there times when compassion and the acts of blood thirsty tyrants require action? Of course there are, we are confronted with them daily in Darfur, in Bosnia, and Rwanda. Iraq however was not one of them.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?pagewanted=2

Read more!

Blackwater Highlights Bigger Issue In Iraq

The incident with the Blackwater Security Corporation in Iraq has been well documented. I certainly would not want to retrace the many stories detailing the charges and counter-charges. The Iraqis have completed their investigation and have concluded the attack against the civilians was unprovoked. The government of Iraq has asked the State Department to remove Blackwater from Iraq. It seems that the government of Iraq is tired of having its citizens being used for target practice for trigger happy mercs. This case and the findings of the Iraqi investigation brings up what I believe is the crux of the problem in Iraq. I think it is why the Iraqis have not worked harder at resolving their differences and trying to meet the benchmarks set up by the US.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Iraqi investigation into last month's Blackwater USA shooting is complete, and it proves that the private contractors committed unprovoked and random killings in the incident, an adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Tuesday.

Adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN al-Maliki has asked the U.S. State Department to "pull Blackwater out of Iraq."

Al-Askari said the United States is still waiting for the findings of the American investigation, but the Iraqi leader and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings of their probe and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country.[1]

The fly in the ointment is sovereignty. The Bush Administration is big on talking about Iraqi sovereignty, but the truth of the matter is they don’t have any. This administration talks about how they are the guest of the Iraqi government and that government can request the US to leave at anytime, but this is false. Here is a government under occupation; they can’t even prosecute the random murders of 17 of their citizens. The government can’t kick the perpetrators out of the country and so they appear impotent and unable to protect their citizenry.

The government on the other hand refuses to honor any timetable placed upon them by the US. Their only form of protest is to delay reconciliation and prolong the conflict. So you have the government we put in place fighting against the aims of our government. What is rarely reported on by the US media is the pride of the Iraqi people, that pride has been repeatedly ravaged by our insensitivity to their culture, their women, and their religion.

The government of Prime Minister al-Maliki is caught between a rock and a hard place, on the one hand they have the Americans dictating that they must meet this goal or that and then they have their people who want and expect them to show independence from the occupiers. The next election, if we get that far will be a real eye opener for Washington whoever is President. I have a feeling the Iraqi people are going to send a clear message to Washington by electing a nationalistic candidate, a candidate who will distance himself from the US and demand the removal of US troops. By our refusal to allow the al-Maliki government the semblance of sovereignty we are setting the stage for the next radical leader to ascend to the throne. You cannot continue to stick your thumb into the eye of your host and not expect there to be a backlash.

The blowback of the Iraqi people will take the form of a conservative Islamic militant leader, who will play to the Iraqis desire to remove the US occupying army. The one thing most Iraqis agree upon, whether they are Sunnis or Shia is the desire to have the US troops gone. The next leader will campaign on the weakness of this government and its inability to rein in not only US troops, but US civilians as well. The rage of the Iraqi people is seething just below the surface and is never reported by the US press, so to most Americans the results will come as a surprise and they will view the Iraqis as ungrateful and uncivilized. Because of the lack of security the US press doesn’t have a real sense of the mood of the Iraqi people; it is pretty difficult to gauge the mood of the average Iraqi from behind the Green Zone barricades.

The problem with Iraq is even if we accomplish our goals, we still lose. Eventually the “warm welcome” we have received will turn sour and no matter how big or secure our embassy will be it won’t be able to withstand the will of the Iraqi people. Once again we will overplay our hand and overstay our welcome and the end will be worse than the beginning. Instead of having a secular government open to relations we will have a fanatical Islamist in power who will overturn all of our “progressive” agenda and return Iraq to another Middle Eastern theocracy. How’s that for a legacy Mr. Bush and your Neo-Con friends?

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/index.html

Read more!

The New Chalabi?

Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections.

"Our adversaries in Iraq are heavily supported financially by other quarters. We are not," Allawi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "We fought the elections with virtually no support whatsoever, except for Iraqis and the Iraqis who support us."[1]

An attempt is being made to develop a campaign to replace the current Iraqi PM, al Maliki with the former Iraqi PM, Allawi. The above quote came from an op-ed piece written by David Ignatius for two purposes. The first is to lay the groundwork for Mr. Allawi’s return and the second is to put some positive spin on Mr. Bush’s floundering record as Commander in Chief. This subtle change is probably orchestrated by the CIA and Neo-Cons who are tired of waiting for the current government to get itself together by Washington standards. I can see a no-confidence challenge being made against Mr. Maliki’s already weak position. Hoping to defy the reality of internal secularism that defines current Iraqi politics there are those who believe we can still control the outcome of this fiasco.

Why would they want to bring back Mr. Allawi? There are many very good reasons for his return to lead the Iraqi government. But first let’s look at his claim about being deserted by the US government during the election in Iraq that brought the current government to power and caused Mr. Allawi’s departure. According to my research this claim is false. The US government spent over 800 million dollars on the elections in Iraq and out of that Mr. Allawi’s government received 41 million.[2] This is from the State departments figures and does not include moneys supplied by the CIA and other “so-called” pro democracy groups. Two of these shadowy groups provided another 80 million dollars for pro-democratic and moderate politicians. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) are two organizations that sought to provide support to “further America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of citizens in the developing world.”

So, on the surface for Mr. Allawi to claim that his government received no support during the election process seems disingenuous. The real issue is whether the CIA and the US government should have rigged the election to prevent the Shiites with historical ties to Iran from seizing power. Fortunately at the time the answer was no, today I am not so sure it would be the same result. Mr. Allawi’s main complaint is that we did not subvert the democracy we had just fought a war to secure, how very American of him. Where do they get these guys from? Is there a central casting office for these clowns created in Langley?

It wasn’t enough that Mr. Allawi was handpicked by Paul Bremer, who at the time was the Emperor of Iraq, and given the reins of government to create popular support for his party and his policies. Because he had no popular support and was seen by many Iraqis as the puppet of the occupiers, he had no chance of victory in the election no matter how much was spent on his behalf. Then of course there were the two invasions of Iraqi cities (Najaf and Falluja) which alienated him from both the Sunnis and the Shiites.

And of course there was his history of spying, first for the British and then for the CIA. Mr. Allawi was just another attempt to impose an American strongman with no local support on the Iraqi people. The fact that he is making these claims is merely an attempt by him or his handlers to try and rehabilitate himself, an attempt to distance himself from those handlers, atleast publicly. The end result of course will be an attempt to return to power, but how can this be after his government was repudiated by the Iraqi people in the elections; winning only 14% of the vote? Here is where we get creative, the current government of Mr. Maliki is on life support and without the support of the Kurds and the few Sunnis he was able to marshal support from he cannot continue to govern. If through some backroom deal we were able to get the Kurds to pullout, then the government would collapse and plunge the country into chaos. At that point we could insert Mr. Allawi to once again restore order.

Allawi said he is trying to gather support for a new coalition of Kurds, Sunnis and secular Shiites as an alternative to the Shiite religious coalition that installed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power. Some commentators see Allawi's recent decision to hire a Washington public relations firm as a sign of the Bush administration's support, but the opposite is probably the case. If Allawi had U.S. government backing, he wouldn't need the lobbyists.

Future historians should record that the Bush administration actually lived by its pro-democracy rhetoric about a new Iraq -- to the point that it scuttled a covert action program aimed at countering Iranian influence. Now the administration says it wants to counter Iranian meddling in Iraq, but it is probably too late.[3]

The PR firm of course is not for the Iraqis, it is for the domestic politics here. Mr. Allawi is about to be repackaged and resold, just like old Coke and new Coke

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
[2] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/37319.htm
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901930.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Read more!

The Little Engine That Couldn’t

The memo said there are reports of "intervention by the prime minister's office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq's most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries."

The report said it isn't clear that al-Maliki is "a witting participant" in this push for Shiite power, but "the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."

"The information he receives is undoubtedly skewed by his small circle of Dawa advisers, coloring his actions and interpretation of reality. His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change," the memo said. It was referring to al-Maliki's Dawa Party, one of the major Shiite political movements in Iraq.

Because of such problems, the memo concluded that "we returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others."

"Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?" the memo asks.[1]

These are excerpts from a memo by National Security Advisor Steven Hadley dated 11/08/2006, after meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister. In the memo he discusses if Mr. al-Maliki will be able or willing to reconcile the people of Iraq. This administration has been playing this back and forth game of support and non-support with al-Maliki from almost the beginning. One moment they are lavishing him with praise and the next they are fermenting a coup against him.

It appears that Mr. al-Maliki has had about enough of the American politicians calling for his ouster or interfering in his government. It is reported that he has become angry and frustrated with the American's criticism and has spoken out against it.

Maliki fired back at his U.S. critics at a news conference Wednesday, saying the United States has no right to impose a timetable on his government.

"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at the end of a three-day visit to Damascus, according to the Associated Press. "Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere." Maliki said.[2]

Once again this administration and the war planners don’t have a clue. First of all, al-Maliki was a compromise candidate for prime minister. He was the guy with the least amount of baggage and had no direct ties to Iran. He did not come in with a mandate or a majority of support. His control of the government was tenuous at best. In order for anyone to make the wholesale changes that are needed in Iraq, he is going to need more support than this guy has. Just because Bush felt like he had a mandate even though he lost the popular vote in an election doesn’t mean that logic is going to work in an infant democracy. Mr. al-Maliki was chosen to be a caretaker at best, until there could be a candidate who could garner broader support to be able to pull all the factions together. Remember, it took a dictator to hold the country together before, so some compromise choice is not going to have the necessary credibility to unite so many different factions.

I don’t think that al-Maliki is incompetent, he is just being asked to do a job that I believe is currently not humanly possible. You have all of these warring factions and all of these personalities who have been exiled from participation in their homeland, all wanting to get a piece of the action. There can be no unified government without some unity. About the only thing the Iraqis are united about is wanting us out of their country. It will take a dynamic and charismatic leader to unite all the Iraqis, the problem is they don’t have time to wait on him to come. This is why liberation must be homegrown and come from within; it builds credibility for the leadership to govern. Mr. al-Maliki has no credibility to govern short of what we give him; he has not won any popular support through commanding battlefield operations. Where does his authority to lead come from? He has no standing in the community at large; he is not a figure to rally around.

To lead a fledgling democracy requires deft political skill and charisma, Mr. al-Maliki does not seem to possess either. In order to get the people to sacrifice their sectarian loyalties for the good of the country, the leader has to be someone that commands the respect of the people or he must be someone the people fear. I do not believe that Mr. al-Maliki is capable of doing the job he has been asked to do, there will be no unified government under his leadership. I believe that he wants to unite his country, but as much as he tries this little engine can’t get over the mountain. We should be considering other options, this government will not stand for long.

---

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/hadley.memo/index.html

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082200323.html?sub=AR

Read more!

Let’s Blame The Iraqi’s

There is a growing chorus here in the states to blame the Iraqi’s for the strife and suffering that they are now experiencing as a result of the invasion and subsequent occupation. While this attitude is becoming politically popular, it undermines the real problems that were uncovered by the invasion. It also belies the terrible job that was done with post invasion planning and reconstruction.

I have stated previously that the military phase of this adventure ended with the taking of Baghdad. At that point it became a political and a logistical problem. How best to relieve the human suffering that was indeed to come should have been foremost, instead what was foremost was the “neoconservative agenda”. How to help the Iraqi’s to overcome the physical and emotional scars of repression in a constructive way should have been the mission. Let’s face it, the majority of people in Iraq have been raised under the tyranny of a dictatorship, to expect them to become young George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s overnight was irresponsible and overly optimistic. It was unrealistic to believe that after years of abuse that they would take the high road and let bygones be bygones. This goes against human nature and human history.

You have two majority groups who have been shut out of the political, social, and economic fabric of a country for decades. When given the opportunity to exact some retribution would anyone think they wouldn’t? To believe this is to know nothing about the region or its customs. In societies that have experienced these types of trauma there is always a need for healing, a national reconciliation and recognition of the tragedies of the past. Rather than assist the Iraqis in their efforts to accomplish this we were pursuing our own agenda. It was just assumed that once we “liberated” them they would sign on to our goals and agenda. Well, time has shown that nothing could be further from the truth. Not only have they not accepted our agenda, they have gone so far as to have an agenda of their own. How dare they?

The violence must and should end and the outcome of this must be completed by the Iraqis. Being responsible for the future and taking blame for the past are two distinct things. It is like blaming the rape victim for being raped, because they haven’t healed as fast as we think they should. Blaming the victim is always easy; it removes any responsibility for our actions and feelings. It makes us feel safe. The victim obviously did something to cause the misfortune, so I am safe so long as I don’t do what they did. Unfortunately, life is not as simple as a Karl Rove sound bite and sometimes bad things happen to good people.

All the troops in China are not going to fix Iraq. What Iraq needs is the international community and that means the UN and the Arab League. Neither of these institutions can bring their power to bear until we leave. It is time for us to acknowledge the fact we don’t have the expertise for nation building. The last time we did any nation building it was 60 years ago and I don’t think we have anyone left around who remembers how to do it, definitely not in this administration.

Thanks to our constant bombing and sanctions the infrastructure in Iraq was already demolished prior to the invasion. With the invasion, we come in and destroy what little bit of social fabric they were left clinging to. We terminated their legal, political, and security systems without any thought as to what we were going to replace them with. Instead of securing the people, we secured the oil. The Iraqis with the help of the international community have to learn to trust each other and their government to get things done. Right now that government is failing them as a nation and must learn to overcome sectarian interests for national interests. Are we any different, consider the current regime in Washington. Have they allowed sectarian interest to cloud what is best for America? We have had a few centuries to practice and we still need work, so all those thinking that after decades of corruption, torture, repression that the Iraqis are just going to start espousing liberty or death are delusional. And as that delusion comes crashing down around them there has to be a scapegoat.

Unfortunately, there are some hard days ahead for the Iraqi people. Starting a country from scratch with three different factions, each with their own agendas is a monumental task. This is their legacy to write for their children and generations to come. Despite our best efforts, we cannot control the pace or the outcome. Conflicts in the Middle East have their own timetables; some have even lasted a thousand years. The deep seated animosity and mistrust between countrymen will take years to overcome and will come with a price; the tree of liberty and all that.

Are the Iraqis responsible for their country? Yes, but are they guilty for what it has become?

Read more!

Quantifiable Results

I need some help. I need for someone to tell me what is so wrong with setting up demonstrable criteria to gauge if a program is successful or not? Either something is working or it isn’t. Would we just accept the findings concerning some new drug based on the claims of the maker without any verifiable proof that it works? Oooops, forget that one.

How can we as the American public know what progress is being made in Iraq without some type of measurement. Are we to rely on just the word of this administration and its apologists? What a minute isn’t this the same administration that said Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attack, that there was going to be a smoking gun “mushroom cloud, and that there is no scientific basis for global warming? Oh yeah, I can see how we can just take their word for it.

News flash, there will be no military victory in Iraq. There will be no treaty signed or surrender to accept. Those who believe there will be are not living in reality. We need to develop some definable and verifiable criteria to gauge our continued presence in Iraq. There needs to be security and political objectives that are transparent. Not the kind we have now that no one is really sure what they are. All parties involved need to publicly acknowledge they understand the benchmarks and accept their ability to reach them at their appointed time. These vague and ambiguous goals must no longer be allowed to determine our presence in Iraq.

Along with these benchmarks there must be consequences to inaction. Currently the Iraqi government, the militias, and the insurgents know that they have Mr. Bush over a barrel. He can no longer pressure any of these groups to do anything. They know that he is committed to this war and our presence there and that is why no one is taking him seriously. Mr. Bush can no longer deliver in Iraq; he no longer has any leverage to pressure them with. The only pressure that can be exerted must come from us the American public. We must become mobilized behind a workable strategy to begin our disengagement from Iraq. We must have standards that are either being met or they are not. If not, here will be our response, end of story. This situation is no longer about America or Iraqi freedom; it is now about Mr. Bush and history. He has proven that he has no objectivity to the issues on the ground. He and Mr. Cheney have created this “Neverland” where all news is good news and anyone with the nerve to introduce reality is to be unmercifully bludgeoned.

The reason that the supporters of this debacle refuse to publically state any benchmarks they claim to have is not because it aids the enemy, but because the Iraqi government cannot or will not deliver on them. The current Iraqi government are the ones playing the waiting game; while our troops are there they are consolidating their power and carving up their sections of a soon to be divided Iraq. This government does not appear to be directed by an overriding desire to create a new Iraq for all Iraqis, but instead are too enmeshed in sectarian and clan loyalties to overcome the tremendous problems that they face. Tribal interests have outweighed national interests. As with any recently freed people there is a tremendous amount of distrust and seeking of self-interest. Unless they are forced by circumstances or political expediency they are in no hurry to seek unification. The Shia finally have the political, social, and material advantage they have been denied for years and the Kurds believe they have a chance at creating the nation of Kurdistan which they have sought for centuries. Neither group has much incentive to resolve this impasse or to extend the olive branch. Unless we hold their feet to the fire there will be no political resolution.

Therefore we need to negotiate achievable goals between all parties that are verifiable and transparent. These goals should be tied to economic as well as security incentives. There has been too much strife and mistrust for us to expect these groups to be able to come to some sort of equitable arrangement. To expect these groups to display altruistic motives at this stage would be irrational on our part. It is time to pull back the generals and insert the diplomats into this quagmire to negotiate the best terms for the Iraqi people that we can. We are no longer in control of this situation and anyone who thinks that we are is displaying that American arrogance we are so known for throughout the world.

“To prove something, first measure it”

Read more!