SubscribeThe Iraq war is lost. Of course, neither the president nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this. Nonetheless, the specter of defeat shapes their thinking in telling ways. The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning -- a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes -- but by the consequences of defeat. As President Bush put it, "The consequences of failure in Iraq would be death and destruction in the Middle East and here in America." Tellingly, the Iraq war's intellectual boosters, while insisting the surge is working, are moving to assign the blame for defeat. And they have already picked their target: the American people...The Iraq War Is Lost by Peter Galbraith July 18, 2007
President Bush has mentioned Gen. David Petraeus “at least 150 times this year in his speeches, interviews and news conferences.” But some in the military worry that “the general is being set up by the Bush administration as a scapegoat if conditions in Iraq fail to improve. ‘The danger is that Petraeus will now be painted as failing to live up to expectations and become the fall guy for the administration,’ one retired four-star officer said.”Bush Leans On Petraeus as War Dissent Deepens.
"Voinovich added that other Republicans are close to speaking out against the President’s current strategy. 'I won’t mention anyone’s name. But I have every reason to believe that the fur is going to start to fly, perhaps sooner than what they may have wanted.'Watch CNN's report here.
In private, Voinovich is more blunt, using a profanity to describe the White House’s handling of Iraq by charging the administration 'fucked up' the war.
...A White House spokeswoman confirmed to CNN that Rove, who speaks with Voinovich frequently, had the phone conversation with the senator last week and they did discuss the President’s legacy. But the spokeswoman declined to provide further details, citing Rove’s desire to keep phone conversations with senators private."*
In June 2005, ThinkProgress noted the Bush was constantly revising the definition of our “mission” in Iraq.Yes, I'm reposting a comment I made this past weekend. I think it's appropriate here, as well.
Reporting on his escalation strategy this week, President Bush claimed “satisfactory” progress in many areas of the “new mission” in Iraq. Bush has changed the definition of our “mission” in Iraq so many times, he has made it impossible for the American public, U.S. forces, and the Iraqi population to have any confidence that the mission will be ever completed.
THE PRE-WAR MISSION WAS TO RID IRAQ OF WMD
Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.” [3/6/03]
AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED
Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” [3/22/03]
Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE
Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” [5/3/03]
BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN
Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” [7/30/03]
THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ
Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” [11/4/03]
Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.” [5/4/04]
AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS
Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” [6/2/05]
Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves. And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” [6/20/05]
THEN IT SHIFTED TO ADVANCING DEMOCRACY
Bush: “We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. … Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation — and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans.” [11/30/05]
AND PROTECTING AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS
Bush: “In the coming days, there will be considerable reflection on the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and our remaining mission in Iraq…By helping the Iraqi people build a free and representative government, we will deny the terrorists a safe haven to plan attacks against America.” [3/11/06]
Bush: “We will finish the mission. By defeating the terrorists in Iraq, we will bring greater security to our own country. And when victory is achieved, our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” [3/18/06]
THEN THE MISSION WAS PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE IRAQI POPULATION
Bush: “In fact, we have a new strategy with a new mission: helping secure the population, especially in Baghdad. Our plan puts Iraqis in the lead.” [1/13/07]
Bush: “[I]t’s the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we’re going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.” [4/10/07]
AND NOW?
Bush: “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war.” [6/28/07]
A six-member congressional delegation recently returned from a seven-day trip that included stops in Ireland, Germany, Pakistan, Kuwait and Iraq. While in Iraq, security conditions prevented them “from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight.” Additionally, the “congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip.”
I personally read through about 30,000 separate reports of civilian casualties in Iraq and put together a picture over a very long period of time, of the situation around Baghdad as far as what they call SECMAK now, which is sectarian murders and killings. After a month of reading through these reports, we started to get a picture of what was going on. Unfortunately, it was pretty much ignored by the chain of command... At the time we had concluded that there were close to 3/4 of a million civilian deaths over the course of the Iraq war. Now I would guess it is probably upwards of a million.Specialist Evan Knappenberger
Homeland Security Advisor
...Ali, whom I knew from a previous trip, had traded in his BMW because it was too conspicuous - residents of Baghdad have to consider how every detail of life could impact on their very survival. They assume as low a profile as they can, then wait fatalistically for the day that "something happens."Life in the 'red zone'
"The only sure thing here is that we have lost our trust. Can you believe that we are terrorized in our own homes?" Ali, 32, chose to remain in Baghdad while the majority of his friends and relatives joined the hoards of refugees in Syria and Jordan (for the less fortunate) or Sweden (for the others).
"I am Shiite," Ali said. "My uncles and cousins were murdered by Saddam's regime. I wanted desperately to get rid of him. But today, if Saddam's feet appeared in front of me, I would fall to my knees and kiss them!"
How much more do readers need to know about Russia's war in Chechnya? The unending suffering of distant innocents, the gutted cities and towns, the swollen refugee camps, and the daily outcroppings of terror and revenge all make it regularly into Western newspapers. But there is more, and Nivat -- a young French journalist who is fluent in Russian and was baptized in the first Chechen war -- provides it. As the conflict was beginning in fall 1999, she slipped into the war zone, clad herself as a Chechen woman, and for the next six months moved among the protagonists and those caught between.Chienne de Guerre: A Woman Reporter Behind the Lines of the War in Chechnya
Many times, President Bush has said that we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. It is an absurd argument in many ways. But the NIE reveals that the opposite is the case—that because we're fighting them in Iraq, we are more likely to face them here.Read It and Weep
Does this mean that we should stop fighting AQI or negotiate some separate peace? No, the organization's presence in Iraq—however exaggerated by some officials—is genuinely dangerous, and there is no negotiating with any al-Qaida affiliate in any event.
But it does mean we should do more to co-opt the Sunnis—even some of the Sunni extremists—that serve as AQI's base of support. (We have started to do just that, with some success, in Anbar province.)
And it also means—for yet one more reason, beyond the many others—that we should start to get out of Iraq. (The question, as always, remains how to do so without unleashing catastrophic chaos. One reasonable inference of the NIE is that we should seek a regional resolution of the crisis as a matter of great urgency to the security not only of the Middle East but also of the United States.)
Sure you can take Cheney out back; pop a couple of rounds into the back of his head and string his rotting corpse up outside the White House for all to see if it makes you happy - the guy is clearly a cunt with nothing positive to his name but stringing up the wankers who started it won't help the people of Iraq forgive us.If we executed Cheney for war crimes against Iraq, I think it would go a long way to getting forgiveness from Iraqis. If we strung Bush up along side him, it'd go even further.
"In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.' Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called 'war on terror' as nothing less than the cause of their time. Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. 'Medical reasons.' 'It's not for me.' These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them 'over there.' Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die."Video.
Police: Shoppers Stepped Over VictimAnd Kitty Genovese in 1964.
"Wichita, Kan., Store Video Shows Shoppers Stepping Over Dying Stabbing Victim, Police Say."
Pentagon: ‘Public Discussion’ Of Iraq Withdrawal ‘Reinforces Enemy Propaganda’
REPORT: Iraq War To Cost $550 Billion By October
U.S. Officials Say Iraq Gripped by Fear :"Iraq is a nation gripped by fear and struggling to meet security and political goals by September, U.S. officials said Thursday from Baghdad, dashing hopes in Congress that the country might turn a corner this summer. One general said not to expect a solid judgment on the U.S. troop buildup until November.
‘If there is one word, I would use to sum up the atmosphere in Iraq — on the streets, in the countryside, in the neighborhoods and at the national level — that word would be 'fear,'‘ Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
‘For Iraq to move forward at any level, that fear is going to have to be replaced with some level of trust and confidence and that is what the effort at the national level is about,’ he said by video link from the Iraqi capital.
In briefings to the news media as well as members of Congress, officials warned that making those strides could take more time than first thought.
Most lawmakers have hoped Iraq would show more signs of stability this summer, long before the 2008 U.S. elections.
For months, Republicans in particular have regarded September as pivotal. If substantial gains could not be found by then, they say President Bush would have to rethink his military strategy, which relies on 158,000 U.S. troops.
‘I'm not optimistic,’ Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said of the September assessment. She spoke after attending a classified briefing at the Pentagon by Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.
While bruised by the Iraq debate, Bush has thwarted repeated attempts by Democrats to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Despite wide opposition to the war, the administration appears confident that congressional Republicans will continue to stick by the White House to prevent a pullout.
The administration also tries to minimize the importance of the September report, trying to make clear it is not the final judgment. Beyond that, the administration is saying U.S. forces will play a role in Iraq through the end of Bush's presidency, in January 2009."
...the first component of a strategy to win in Iraq is to establish a rapprochement with Iran. That is, a general settlement of differences. The Iranians have offered us such a settlement—including a compromise on the nuclear issue—on generous terms. But the Bush administration, true to its hubris, refused to consider it, going so far as to upbraid the Swiss for daring to forward the overture to us. It seems, however, to remain on the table...William S. Lind: How to Win in Iraq
At present, the United States works to suppress any elements that challenge the al-Maliki government. We teeter on the verge of open war with the most prominent of those elements, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. On the ground, al-Sadr is the leader most likely to restore an Iraqi state, and thanks to his steadfast opposition to the American occupation, he has legitimacy. While he may not have the support of a majority of Iraq’s Shi’ites, majorities do not make history. He is the leader of the Shi’ites who count, which is to say the young men willing to fight...
The third and final element of a strategy for winning in Iraq is to withdraw all American forces as rapidly as possible, which means within 12-18 months. That is the only way we can create the space necessary for al-Sadr or someone else to re-create an Iraqi state. If we remain and work against him, a dicey task becomes that much harder, undermining both him and our strategic goal. And if we work for him, he loses legitimacy, the sine qua non for re-creating a state in Iraq.
In this strategy, our withdrawal is not that of a defeated army. It is a strategic withdrawal—a necessary part of our strategy. That distinction is a critical for our prestige in the world, for the future health of America’s Armed Forces, and for our domestic politics, which could be roiled beyond what any conservative would desire by a vast military defeat.
If our new strategy works and our withdrawal is followed by the restoration of a real Iraqi state, we will have learned our lesson about wars of choice, but avoided a catastrophe. If it fails and Mesopotamia remains a stateless region, Iraq is no worse off than it is now, and our troops will be safely out of the mess.
There is no chance the Bush administration, locked in a Totentanz with its dreams of world empire, will adopt this strategy. But... a bevy of candidates in both parties are looking around for something, anything that might get us out of the Iraqi morass without accepting defeat. If just one of them picks up on it, those yawningly dull debates might get a lot more interesting.
The first is the lesson of Nixon’s trip to China.China did not "export" the Vietnamese liberation movement, it was home-grown. The U.S. jumped into it because of a profoundly stupid idea of what would further its interests in the region. The problem with the 'brilliant' rapprochement with China is that we didn't make it a uniform policy. Where's the benefit to the U.S. of the embargo on Cuba, for instance? This "we're a superpower - we must play power games!" notion causes more grief inside and outside our borders than anyone can possibly justify.
That brilliant diplomatic move of establishing a rapprochement with China in effect won the Vietnam War for the United States. The threat that drew us into a major war was not North Vietnam, a power of purely local significance. Rather, it was Mao’s doctrine of exporting wars of national liberation. (The phrase at the time was “Two, three, many Vietnams.”) The new relationship Nixon established with China ended that threat, rendering our defeat on the ground in Vietnam irrelevant.
...al-Sadr is still alive, and he's still loose in Iraq. It would certainly be nice if he were behind bars (or six feet under), but what's mainly important is that his power is shattered. Iraq did not rise in revolt. What looked in March like a potential catastrophe won't end up being even a footnote in most history books. (Or at least, most honest history books.)USS Clueless - Moqtada al-Moore
A few days ago al-Sadr sounded his defiance and tried to look strong:
"We pledge to the Iraqi people and the world to continue resisting oppression and occupation to our last drop of blood," al-Sadr said in a statement distributed Sunday by his office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, where his al-Mahdi militia battled American troops until a cease-fire last month.
"Resistance is a legitimate right and not a crime to be punished," he said.
But his minders almost immediately "clarified" that to make clear that we're talking peaceful resistance here, guys, not armed rebellion, and please don't send 1st Armored after us again, OK?
Al-Sadr issued a statement Sunday from his office in the Shiite holy city of Najaf calling the new interim Iraqi government "illegitimate" and pledging "to continue resisting oppression and occupation to our last drop of blood."
But Sadr's spokesman in Baghdad, Mahmoud al-Soudani, called a news conference Monday to clarify that the statement was not a call to arms. He said that many of al-Sadr's supporters in Baghdad had begun taking up arms again and he needed to correct their misperceptions.
"We are still committed to the cease-fire," al-Soudani said.
Nope, no armed rebellion here. We're just another political party, OK?
The week before, the Coalition Provisional Authority handed over power to an Iraqi government, two days ahead of schedule.
The military response to his uprising ultimately has to be considered a victory by the only standard that really counts: achievement of political goals. al-Sadr hoped to inspire a general uprising and to prevent us from transferring power to an Iraqi government. We hoped to avoid a general uprising, and to transfer power to said government on schedule, without the transfer being seen as us cutting and running.
Whose hopes were fulfilled?
You have to keep your eyes on the true goal, and you have to be willing to be patient. Sometimes slow-and-steady wins the race, even though it looks as if you are falling behind at the beginning.
al-Sadr rallied his forces to Shiite holy cities mainly because of their symbolic value. He hoped that the devout would rally to defend those holy sites against the infidels. He also hoped that the Americans could be provoked into actions which would be seen as desecration by devout Shiites.
From a military point of view, however, they were dreadful places to try to defend against American soldiers, as the Mehdi Army ultimately discovered. He rallied the most violent amongst the discontented to his flag, and gave 1st Armored a concentrated target and a legitimate excuse to reduce it.
It isn't just al-Sadr who is now discredited. Any other Shiite firebrand who tries the same thing will have little luck. A lot of the Mehdi Army eventually got away, but how many of them are still dedicated to the cause? How many of them will rally the next time?
The twin uprisings this spring resulted in a lot of negative headlines (for the US), the now-traditional wildly inflated predictions of gloom and doom, and a lot of combat. But both threats were decisively defeated. The militants in Falluja have been reduced to use of car bombs, and most of their victims have been Iraqis, making them increasingly hated.
Al-Sadr is still loose, and he still has some supporters. But he took his best shot, failed utterly, and he won't get a second chance. He is now marginalized, little more than a leader of a criminal gang which once again rules over a couple of slums on the outskirts of Baghdad, a minor but tolerable pain waiting to be eliminated when the time is right.
« Older Anyone CAN Cook... | WIRED: A cell mobile phone hel... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 9:15 AM on July 18, 2007