Let's Talk More About 'Surges'

Ve haf von ze var?

That seems what the most obedient of the MSM would have the masses believe about Iraq. But it also seems as though we've heard such pronouncements before -- about a place called Afghanistan.

The Independent (U.K) reports that:

Violence in Afghanistan has reached record highs, with unprecedented numbers of civilian casualties and terror attacks spreading into areas once thought safe, a coalition of charities warns. In a damning indictment of the international community's effort to stabilise Afghanistan, more than 100 aid agencies claimed security is worse now than at any time in the past seven years.

"There has been a surge in the number of civilian casualties caused by all sides, a spread of insecurity to previously stable areas, and increasing attacks on aid agencies and their staff," the statement from their umbrella organisation Acbar said.

(The boldface emphases are mine.)

OK, these are different countries. But, one who's not wearing blinders, one not just following the GOParty line, can't help but notice parallels. We've heard all this before, regarding both places.

Mideast expert Juan Cole, writing on Informed Comment, noted some interesting things about the Iraq "surge" that I will summarize. Let's step back a moment -- in a country of 27 million people, the addition of 30,000 troops, from 130,000 to 160,000, made that much difference in the level of violence? No way.

Not that the violence was down all that much in a relative sense. It did reach a "low point" compared to other points in the war. But there were other factors that were probably far more important.

One that the U.S. has nothing to be proud of is a sort of ethnic cleansing that took place in many mixed Baghdad neighborhoods. The Shiite militias ran off (or killed) a lot of Sunnis. Baghdad is now much more Shiite in the absence of many Sunnis, and there are sharp dividing lines between the ethnic neighborhoods.

It's been said that there ain't nothing more peaceful than a dead man. The second most peaceful sort would be the one who ain't there -- he's split for Iran or Syria.

Another big factor was the bribery of a lot of Sunni factions to get them to join "us" and oppose the insurgents. That was a strategic move that started months before the U.S. troop "surge," and turned the tide in many parts of Iraq -- for now.

Here's the link to the Juan Cole article. Click on article.

Another interesting perspective on this issue is from former U.S. Sen. James G. Abourezk, D-S.D., "The Surge Has Worked?", writing for Counterpunch. Click on another.

In an election year, it wouldn't be proper to visit this topic without including something from Democratic nominee-to-be Barack Obama. Here's something pertinent on The Huffington Post.

What about McCain's views? Just turn on the TV, or pick up an MSM newspaper, and you can get that swill quite easily. This is an alternative medium.

I'm going to float a somewhat subversive idea, but one that should be mentioned sometime. Let's presume (probably wrongly) that the "surge" cheerleaders are right, and that the U.S. is within sight of "victory" in Iraq.

In the long view of history, it's not a good idea. I understand the argument that, once a course like this has been set, it's a good idea to see it through. Even if a mistake was made initially, it is imperative to "clean up the mess" as best we can, or so the argument goes.

The tragedy of that would be that it would embolden future U.S. administrations to undertake more such foreign misadventures. Let's not mince words here -- this was an invasion, an act of aggression, on the part of the U.S. Everybody knew that Saddam Hussein was a thug way back in the '80s, when the U.S. was arming him. What most of the world's people seem to realize now is that the contained Saddam was no real threat to the U.S., and that there's no good explanation for American actions there other than that Iraqis are sitting on an ocean of oil. There was no link to al Qaeda. No evidence of WMDs. All the rationale were hollow at the core, except for one.

I'm an American, and I hate to lose. But this is one in which "we've" been in the wrong, and "we" actually don't deserve to win. And, I'll make the comparison with Afghanistan and gamble -- over time, "we" probably won't. The best path seems to just find a way out and assess the damage over time.

There's more: "Let's Talk More About 'Surges'" >>

Teflon diplomacy

On Tuesday, Condi made an "unscheduled visit" to Iraq -- a "detour" that tore her away from the Riyadh horse-trading session -- to praise a new Iraqi law, which she described as forward progress toward national reconciliation. We can believe her because why?

First, Condi is speaking. Her "mushroom cloud" tendency toward hyperbole begs scrutiny of her every word. Second, the lack of political progress in Iraq undermines the Surge™ and Bubble Boy can't tolerate bad news. When an Iraqi opportunity arose -- the parliament passed a new law, yippee! -- Condi flew to the rescue to offer a glowing review. Typical lecondel, her trip was an exercise in teflon diplomacy, espousing unrealistic optimism that won't stick, denying dire consequences of the conflicts on the verge of igniting into renewed sectarian strife.

Since my B.S. meter cracked long ago from one too many WH lies, everything this administration says and does falls by default into one of two categories: Con Jobs or ITMFA. Reading Wednesday's Washington Post and the NYTimes accounts confirmed my cynicism. Each reported on Rice's remarks, the new law, and added interesting tidbits unique to their respective articles.

Beginning with the Washington Post (with emphasis):

In a 20-minute news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone, Rice said the recent passage of a law intended to make it easier for former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to return to civil service jobs would encourage Iraqi unity despite its potential shortcomings.

"This law, the 'accountability and justice law,' is clearly a step forward for national reconciliation," she said. "It is clearly a step forward for healing the wounds of the past."

Clearly, it is not.

[Keep reading... more after the jump.]

The law seeks to address the Bush administration's controversial decision in 2003 to force most Baath Party members, who were largely Sunni Muslims, out of government jobs. The decree helped give rise to the Sunni insurgency that continues to this day.

Some Shiite and Sunni lawmakers said the law would allow thousands of former low-level Baath officials to return to their government jobs. But critics, mostly hard-line Sunni lawmakers, say the measure could actually force out some former Baathists still working in the government.

The NYTimes offered more details and reactions to the new law. And they ain't so good (with emphasis).

...the new law has loopholes that some critics have said may ultimately make it more restrictive than the old one. Although Ms. Rice acknowledged that the new measure remained controversial, she praised it as an example of Iraq’s emerging democracy.

“I don’t know of any law that has ever been passed that is everything that everybody wants,” she said. “That’s the nature of democracy. The law will be more than some people wanted. It will be less than some people wanted. That’s the nature of democratic compromise.”

Some leaders said the law would give more jobs to ex-party members, while providing purged Baathists with pensions, which the old process did not do. But some hard-line Shiite politicians who supported the law, and minority Sunni political party members who did not, agreed that the legislation was even more restrictive than the original process, and that it would be used to justify further purges.

One clause prohibits former Baathists from working in several of Iraq’s most important ministries, including Foreign, Interior and Defense, despite American plans to integrate more Sunni Arabs into Iraq’s security forces. Critics of the law said it could have the opposite of its intended effect, and eventually rekindle sectarian bloodshed after the current lull in violence.

Unbelievable. Both Shiites and Sunnis concur that the new law is worse than the old version that sparked the insurgency. But Condi? Her teflon diplomatic reflex shrugged off the negatives in favor of platitudes, smiles, photo ops, and enthusiastic attaboys. Shouldering the tough work needed to achieve sustained détente -- not her mission.

Promoting the success of Bush's Surge™ and manufacturing good news out of Iraq is Condi's Job One, an endeavor the mainstream press readily undertakes. The Iraqi government accomplished something political. Oh, call a press conference, start spreading the news, ignore the dark clouds breaking the horizon, and keep the message upbeat. If bad stuff happens -- and it probably will -- the Administration will move the goal posts and stall for time. Meanwhile, Bush can count on Rice to spread happy talk, words rolling off the lecondeling tongue like water ricocheting off a duck's ass.

Google News headlines about Condi in Iraq

Observe the following lecondeling spin for the sheer audacity of its robotic Bushie loyalist script. From the WaPo article:

"When I hear that the surge was to give the Iraqi people a chance for political reconciliation, I say that's absolutely right," Rice said, referring to last year's U.S. troop buildup. "And while it hasn't always moved as fast as some of us sitting in Washington would like, it has certainly moved."

Like Cheney's bowels after a bagel binge. Now read Bush's remarks from the NYTimes:

“A political system evolves and grows,” he said. “It grows when people have confidence. It grows when the grass roots begins to agitate for change. It grows when there’s alternatives. There’s competition emerging.”

Is "competition" George's quaint term for "purge"?

The NYTimes article also delved into "a national oil revenue sharing law and an agreement on the contested northern city of Kirkuk," added cause for worry. Snip:

On Sunday, a broad swath of sectarian, ethnic and secular parties formed a coalition to push for greater central controls on regional hydrocarbon resources and to set aside a planned popular referendum on the status of Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that Iraq’s powerful Kurdish alliance regards as part of the semiautonomous region of Kurdistan.

The coalition pits nationalist interests against the Kurdish and Shiite parties, including the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, which have pushed for more regional power. Competing Kurdish and Arab claims for Kirkuk, which remains among Iraq’s most troubled areas, remain a particularly delicate problem, which American officials have compared to a ticking time bomb.

I don't know who the "American officials" are but Condi "clearly" avoided the controversy. A happy face applied to her diplomatic excursion, she willfully deceives us (and herself as role of Bush enabler) by negating the downside of the volatile situation in Iraq.

The WaPo report ends with a curious episode -- a raging fire required an Iraqi oil refinery "shutdown." A military spokesman disavowed that the fire ignited due to "coalition overflight" contrary to what "Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani suggested... ...An engineer at the refinery said employees suspected that followers of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were behind" the inferno burning at the facility "near the southern oil-rich city of Basra."

An investigation has commenced but I doubt we will hear much about it. The investment in "the success" of the Surge™ and our Big Media shills won't bother most of us with full details. The incident could simply drown in the hum of progress in Iraq and Condi's refrain, "clearly a step forward."

There's more: "Teflon diplomacy" >>

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Neighbors who'd still like to kill you, of course, if not for said fences.

...more on the flip...

Shorja, Baghdad's largest market, is back in business and it's booming. Vendors tout their wares screaming discounts at full volume: "Big sale, everything at 2,000 dinars ($1.60)!" yells one.

Everything a $1.60? Quick, someone tell Lindsey "I Bought Five Rugs for Five Bucks" Graham!

There hasn't been an attack on the market since last February, when more than 70 people died in a series of bombings. Today the market is secured with concrete barriers and checkpoints manned by the Iraqi army. Everyone entering gets frisked, bags are checked, vehicles are banned and all goods must be carted in by hand.

Shoppers here take a risk every time they visit. Since February, at least 48 people have died in bomb, gun and mortar attacks in the area surrounding Shorja market.

Just another day at the mall, right?

It's a similar story across Baghdad. There are pockets of security where life is starting to get back to normal, but it's not normal by most standards. Across the city Sunnis and Shiites live in sectarian enclaves, many walled off.

Sunnis fear visiting Shiite areas and vice versa, even if it is just a few blocks away. Trust has broken down so much that a stranger in a neighborhood can arouse enough suspicion to warrant an attack.

So, the good news is that sectarian violence in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq are down. The bad news is that sectarian walls are (literally) up. Who would've guessed that the way to quell violence in Iraq was to rebuild Berlin between the Tigris and Euphrates?

There's more: "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors" >>

The “Petraeus report”: my professional take

Note: the following is adapted from my most recent newspaper column, written about Gen. Petraeus’ report on the “surge.”

First, it isn’t a report on conditions in Iraq nearly as much as it is PR flak. Independent studies have shown that violence in Iraq in general is up — well up if you adjust for the summertime slack-off in 120-degree heat.

The Government Accounting Office has said this. But, not just the GAO.
Our own, Bush-sized embassy in Baghdad has said this. So has the Congressional Research Service. And, so has an independent private-world think tank

From the Congressional Research Service study, as reported by the New York Daily News:

“My assessment is that because of the number and breadth of parties boycotting the (Iraqi) cabinet, the Iraqi government is in essential collapse,” said Kenneth Katzman, the author of the report. “That argues against any real prospects for political reconciliation.”

Without that political infrastructure, Katzman said any military progress would be short-lived.

That is, if there actually is any military progress, which Katzman doubts.

“I would even question the military progress,” he said.

Because of the political instability, and the lack of military success, Katzman said he agreed with many senior State Department officials in Iraq that a political solution to the war is now “hopeless.”

And, Stephen Biddle, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of Petraeus’ advisory panel, said (expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years — and event then would be a “long-shot gamble.”

Twenty years? Talking about Vietnam comparisons, that’s twice as long!

But, President Bush is apparently determined to have a successful report, whether it’s reality-based or PR-based. And Gen. Petraeus, from what I’ve read, has been willing to salute whatever his commander-in-chief ran up the flagpole from the time Petraeus was named ground commander in Iraq.

Especially as Petraeus isn’t even putting anything in writing himself for Congress, we should more accurately call it the Bush report anyway.

And, contrary to a popular straw man, red herring, or whatever, no, the terrorists are not going to follow us home if we leave Iraq. Nor is al-Qaeda going to then topple Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Many people have compared this war to Vietnam. One of the closest comparisons is these two statements closely track the “domino theory” about South Vietnam, how if it fell to the North, Laos, then Cambodia, then Thailand, then all of southeast Asia would go Communist. Eventually, the theory went, we could be fighting them in America, a statement no doubt used to justify CIA domestic spying and a host of other evils.

Well, Vietnam was as much, if not more, a nationalist war than a Communist plot. And, nobody “followed us here.” So, too, is Iraq a nationalist revolt more than a religious one. Plus, given the almost mythical al Qaeda in Iraq accounts for less than 10 percent of violence there — probably less than 5 percent — nobody there is in a position to “follow us here.” Besides, with the degree of factionalism there, that country is likely to enter something like the Thirty Years War when we leave.

So, let’s leave, already. The notion that we can actually change anything — change for the long term, certainly — in Iraq would be laughable if not already tragic. As for the claim the “surge” has rediced Iraqi civilian casualties, the independent studies paint a different story. And, since the Pentagon won’t even declassify how it determines causes of different casualties, its methodology has to be considered suspect because it lacks transparency. (To put it bluntly, from where I sit, the Pentagon is cooking the books, and for political reasons. Does anybody remember the inflated body counts of Vietnam, and for similar reasons?)

Beyond all of the above, there’s too great a danger that too much of the general populace will take the Bush-ghostwritten Petraeus report at face value. That, in turn, could lead to knee-weakening of too many Democratic Members of Congress.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

There's more: "The “Petraeus report”: my professional take" >>

Mad Jack McCain: Countdown to Irrelevance

Go sell crazy somewhere else, Jack. We're full up here.

This anniversary week of 9/11, John "Mad Jack" McCain is vying for as much media face time as possible, to shore up his ever-waning prospects of capturing the White House in 2008. Speaking to reporters in California over the weekend, he said:

"As president of the United States, I will get him, and we will enact justice against Osama bin Laden."

He repeated this boast in an interview segment on this morning's The Early Show on CBS. This claim reveals at least three delusions that Mad Jack is currently belaboring under: that he'll gain his party's nomination for President, that he'll actually defeat his Democratic opponent for President, and that he'll be able to divorce himself sufficiently from the clusterfuck that is the War in Iraq that he can extend the intelligence & policing forces necessary to bring him to justice.

Since he goes on to claim that Iraq is his "primary focus," why should we believe that he'll be any more successful in his boasts than his frat-boy predecessor?

There's more: "Mad Jack McCain: Countdown to Irrelevance" >>

Spinning Right Into the Ground

Another month of missed benchmarks, another "surprise" visit from Il Douche'™, ("surprise" as in if we announced beforehand, too many people would try to kill us, so "shhh!") into Iraq. What's running through the spin cycle this time around? "The Surge is Working, The Surge is Working!" To illustrate how well the "Surge" is working, he landed in Al-Anbar province, which not only was not part of the surge, but has been largely handed back over to local Sunni leaders to pacify. In fact, Bush met with a number of local Sunni leaders, to thank them for their help in beginning to stabilize the region. Yeah, just one problem with all that; these leaders may have American blood on their hands.

But, seriously, ya gotta do what ya gotta do, right? Otherwise, you know the "terrists" will follow us home (yeah, he's still saying that).

Crossposted at Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus Central and Welcome to the Revolution

There's more: "Spinning Right Into the Ground" >>

Your Pentagon Iraq War Room PR $$ at work

Those Sunni insurgents we’ve been giving a shitload of arms to be nice to us and shoot the guys we call Al Qaeda in Iraq? They’ve been rebranded as “concerned local nationals.”

“These are patriots who have come forward and have joined the security process. They are working with my soldiers and they are working with the Iraqi security forces,” Col. David Sutherland said.

Hell, why don’t we just call them the Sunni Department of the Iraqi national police force while we’re at it?

There's more: "Your Pentagon Iraq War Room PR $$ at work" >>

Cry me a river, Michael O’Hanlon

I won’t eat up too much space here on his , puerile response to critics of his and Ken Pollack’s original op-ed saying everything is hunky-dory in Iraq.

I will quote one comment, though:

Unfortunately, much of the blogosphere and other media outlets have emphasized the wrong question, challenging the integrity of anyone who dares to express politically incorrect views about Iraq. (My emphasis)

His views aren’t politically correct to the Bush Administration that he and Ken Pollack try to give intellectual props to, every chance they get.

And, this bullshit that somehow, after hunkering down in the Green Zone in Baghdad for a week, he and Pollack are somehow “daring,” is ludicrous.

I’ve said more than once that Brookings is NOT a liberal think tank. It could prove otherwise by canning people like O’Hanlon.

There's more: "Cry me a river, Michael O’Hanlon" >>

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: SNAFU in Iraq

According to the No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, there has been a "significant improvement" in the aim of attackers in the past three months because of training from Iran.

"We have seen in the last three months a significant improvement in the capability of mortarmen and rocketeers to provide accurate fires into the Green Zone and other places and we think this is directly related to training that is conducted in Iran," he said.

Coincidentally, according to the White House progress report released July 12th, the Iraqi military readiness to operate independently has declined since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January.

Combat losses, a dearth of officers and senior enlisted personnel, and an Iraqi army that has expanded faster than the equipment available for it have resulted in a "slight reduction" in the number of units designated at Level 1 status, or "capable of independent operations," the report said.

Odd that, according to the Bush Administration, the Iranians have successfully trained insurgents while the Pentagon can't seem to get the Iraqi military to "stand up" so we can "stand down."

One reason may be that only a little more than one third of the equipment promised to the Iraqi security forces has actually been delivered.

The Pentagon said that just 14.5 million of the nearly 40 million items ordered by the Ministry of Defense for the Iraqi Army have been delivered. And 22.7 million items have been delivered to the Ministry of Interior for the police, out of 48.1 million ordered.

Of those totals, the ammunition ordered but not delivered yet to the Iraqi Army is in Iraq at a depot and has not yet been issued to individual military units.

Perhaps the Iraqi military would be able to counter the better aim of the insurgency if it had some of that ammunition. All this, of course, is simply further evidence of the utter incompetence of the Worst President Ever.

There's more: "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: SNAFU in Iraq" >>

November is the new September for Iraq surge analysis

MSNBC notes that November is now September for assessing the Iraq surge of additional troops:

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters after a Senate hearing Thursday that he would need beyond September to tell if improvements in Iraq represent long-term trends.

“In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November” said Odierno, a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq.

Come November, January will be the next September, according to Odierno, Petraeus or Ryan Crocker, all singing from the Tom Friedman/Herbert Hoover hymnal that old neo-con standby, “Victory is Just Around the Corner.”

No, victory isn’t. But more bullshit is. So is more lying. More dysfunctionality. And more needless, senseless death. Remember, Petraeus has already made noise about a second surge next year.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

There's more: "November is the new September for Iraq surge analysis" >>

Bush self-delusionally opted for surge despite CIA pessimism

Last November, CIA Director Michael Hayden threw a bucket of cold-water reality in the face of Bush’s delusional “Churchillian victory” in Iraq. The details:

Early on the morning of Nov. 13, 2006, members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group gathered around a dark wooden conference table in the windowless Roosevelt Room of the White House.

For more than an hour, they listened to President Bush give what one panel member called a “Churchillian” vision of “victory” in Iraq and defend the country's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. “A constitutional order is emerging,” he said.

Later that morning, around the same conference table, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden painted a starkly different picture for members of the study group. Hayden said “the inability of the government to govern seems irreversible,” adding that he could not “point to any milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around,” according to written records of his briefing and the recollections of six participants. …

According to the written record and others in the room, Hayden at one point likened the situation in Iraq to a marathon. He said there comes a point in each race when the runner knows he can complete the challenge. But Hayden said he could see no such point in Iraq's future.

To me, this only further underscores the delusionary state of Bush’s mind on Iraq, combined with his dry-drunk stubbornness on the issue. It’s a deplorable combination that has been, and continues to be, deadly.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

There's more: "Bush self-delusionally opted for surge despite CIA pessimism" >>