Slicing Through 'Surge' Propaganda: Haven't We Heard It All Before?

Full disclosure: I have no military background. I do have 30 years of experience as a professional journalist, and have known enough U.S. history, for long enough, that at 17, I earned 6 hours of college credit in that subject just by taking a test. Take those for whatever they're worth.

My perhaps-risky thesis: The "surge" in Iraq, now being touted as some kind of unequivocal success, is yet another deception in a military campaign that will be remembered as the war that keeps on costing.

Granted, al Qaeda in Iraq has apparently been dealt some crushing blows (for now), and U.S. military casualties are sharply down. These things are being widely reported as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Baghdad to take stock of things.

But, the latter point, about the decline in U.S. casualties, reflects the ethnocentrism with which Americans tend to look at foreign conflicts. Juan Cole, writing on Informed Comment, points out:

Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.

To read the entire Cole article, click here.

What we seem to be hearing is that when fewer Americans are being killed and maimed as a result of the "surge," that makes it an unequivocal success. When the furrenurs is gettin' whacked a little faster than they wuz two and a half years ago, well, that's their tough luck. It's an A-Murkan world.

And, we've heard all this before, at other times and in other places. And it hasn't been so long since we've heard it. I seem to recall that "we" (in the editorial sense) were supposed to have pretty much routed the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan. Been reading or hearing any news from there lately? It ain't over till it's over. And that one, the war "we" actually have reasonable justification for, is far from over.

I also seem to recall a day in 2003 when, just weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Il Doofus staged a landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared major military operations in Iraq to be over.

The MSM mouthpieces remain very much on the Pentagon bandwagon (not to mention the Straitjacket Express), with a mantra of "Obama was dead wrong" on the outcome of the "surge."

True, Obama didn't call it right in predicting that the "surge" would bring an increase in violence.

But, given the continued toll on Iraqi civilians, reports of success seem greatly exaggerated. I think the "surge" could be pronounced a success on the day that there are no unusual civilian deaths in Iraq, that the millions of refugees can return home safely, and that a stable Iraqi government can be elected without being propped up by a U.S. military presence. Perhaps in 100 years?

I'll venture a possibly risky prediction, but one firmly based on recent U.S. history.

In January 1973, the Nixon administration finally reached that elusive "peace with honor" deal with North Vietnam. The "peace" lasted a while. Then, a couple of years later, communist troops were overrunning South Vietnam. The American people were so sick of that bottomless pit of lives and money that they said a loud and resounding "NO" when the Ford administration had the nerve to propose that "we" go back in there.

The bottom line is that the U.S. is an occupier in a land generally hostile to the occupation. And, it should come as no surprise that the resistance will hide and play possum with every "surge" that our taxpayers can be conned into bankrolling. That's the name of the game in guerrilla warfare.

I'll gamble, and predict an outcome similar to the previously cited ones. For Americans, this will be the war that keeps on costing.

There's more: "Slicing Through 'Surge' Propaganda: Haven't We Heard It All Before?" >>

The answer to the Clinton and Obama nomination issue

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

The round table discussion threw out the obvious solution on Meet the Press this morning when they suggested the following:

1. this is the history-shattering ticket, either singularly or combined.
   


2. both candidates have now received more primary votes than any other democratic candidate ever.
   


3. however, the votes are so close that it means only half the party (despite record numbers) has chosen either candidate. (Why does it seem like we've been through this before?). That is a lot of votes to lose if half of the democratic-leaning electorate isn't happy.
   


4. Glen Ifill mentioned that the Clinton campaign thinks that Clinton supporters are more likely to support Obama... than Obama supporters backing Clinton... pointing toward a stronger reason for Hillary to get the nod of last minute deciding super delegates.
   


5. if you drop Hillary from the ticket, what happens to the older generation female voters that are backing Clinton in large numbers? Do they go to McCain rather than Obama?
   


6. if you drop Obama from the ticket, what happens to the younger generation or independent voters who were exciting about a fresh start in government (the change voters)? Do they even vote at all?
   


7. Sam Brownstein said during an interview on the National Review Radio Show, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) suggested that the race
   
   

"is so close that whoever wins should have to offer the Vice-Presidency to the loser and the Party should pressure the loser to take it."

Here's my $2 worth:

this is the obvious answer. To maintain stability and progressive solutions in the Democratic party, the Party MUST combine the ticket.

The Party MUST pressure the runner-up to take the Vice Presidential nomination.

And the runner-up MUST play ball and take the consolation prize.

Besides, doesn't that set the stage... not just for 4 or 8 years of Democratic leadership... but perhaps 8, 12 or 16? Seems like a smart move either way.

There can be no mistakes with this ticket. Or else it will be back to square one if McCain takes the Oval Office.

You can watch the very interesting and thoughful conversation between Governor Rendell and Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) below:

There's more: "The answer to the Clinton and Obama nomination issue" >>

What Economy, Stupid?

Yeah, the title is an exaggeration. But it comes just after a day of very bad economic news. The recession is not yet official, but I think the question is no longer if, but when. Here are a few news nuggets from Thursday:

-- For the first time since World War II, U.S. homeowner debt now exceeds home equity.

-- In the fourth quarter of 2007, the percentage of U.S. homes caught up in foreclosure proceedings reached a record 0.83 percent.

-- The benchmark crude oil price climbed to a record $105.47. The prices of staple
groceries -- bread, milk, eggs and such -- have been been climbing in tandem.

-- The Dow Jones industrial average fell 214 points Thursday and is flirting with a dip below the 12,000 mark.

I would dare say that Republican "free" market economic policies have been given every chance to work and have proved wanting. I got my "tinkle-down" in the '80s. I'm still waiting for the "trickle-down."

Onward.

The Bush "stimulus" tax sweetie-pie has yet to make its way into the economy, but don't look for it to be an answer. It will add to the deficit; and it won't help people who are about to lose their homes, their jobs, and their cars, right now. It won't help those who have been waiting for years to qualify for SSI disability or Medicaid because of the enormous backlog of applicants facing pared-down skeleton crews. It won't help the millions of medically uninsured, a number of whom are simply sent home to die.

I could stretch this litany on and on, but I won't belabor it. It should be clear that the U.S. has gone through an almost 30-year robber baron revival, a Gilded Age redux. This year, the electorate has one more opportunity to put a stop to it.

Fasten your seat belts. As Bette Davis once told moviegoers, it's going to be a bumpy ride. There won't be anything meaningful done this year because Big Business has just the cretin they chose in the Oval Office. We're looking to January 2009 for any genuine solutions.

One thing that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton more or less agree on is that taxes on the rich will have to be raised. Clinton, in one of their numerous debates, suggested that the tax structure should be returned to where it was at the beginning of 2001, before George W. Bush pushed through his sweet tax meat for the wealthy and big corporations.

That was the tax rate passed in 1993, the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency, by one vote in the House. It got no Republican votes. The marginal rates were raised, but not even close to what they had been 12 years earlier.

I'll rehash something from a previous post: You remember what happened during those '90s, the Clinton era? Republican opponents of his program predicted economic collapse ...

Unemployment rose to 25 percent. Inflation went double-digit, and interest rates topped 20 percent. There were food riots in the streets of heartland cities. Teenagers, put out of their homes, rode the rails, stole and ate yard chickens and prostituted themselves to degenerates.

The Bonus Army marched on Washington ...

Sorry -- wrong presidents, wrong eras. Seriously, the Clinton plan brought a dramatic turnaround in the federal deficit, because the government was finally collecting enough tax revenue to fund what was needed. The relatively modest tax increase on wealthy individuals somehow accompanied years of strong growth. Future generations will have reason to be grateful -- the national debt would likely be around $12 trillion now, instead of $9 trillion-plus, if it hadn't been for those eight years.

One president we wouldn't likely get any meaningful change out of is John McCain. The leader of the Straitjacket Express appears to have sold out to the Bushies on economic issues. He's committed himself -- pardon the expression -- to the Bush tax smoocherama with the rich and Big Business, pledging to make Bush's bonanzas permanent.

An important thing to remember is that the division in the Democratic Party is going to have to end soon. We're at a critical juncture in the nation's history, and we simply can't afford any more Republican economic policies. We need voters to expand the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. And, we need a Democratic president -- yes, I know there are differences between the candidates, but one or the other will be essential -- to sign the bills.

The big word is November. I hope you can pay your mortgage until then.

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "What Economy, Stupid?" >>

Clocking in from Chicago

Hey, y'all.

Like Keith, I'm humbled to be in the company of folks whose posts have so informed, moved and entertained me on other blogs.

I'll be helping to keep an eye on the Illinois delegation, including engaging in regular mockery of Denny Hastert's facial demonstrations of poor sportsmanship. Of course, I wouldn't presume to claim Majority Whip (mmmm, it's fun to say that) Durbin and Rock Star Obama as my personal territory.

Blue Girl also has asked me to keep my antennae on the House and Senate ethics committees, the official names of which I might learn and use.

Now I'll show what a big slacker I am by leaving town for a couple of weeks. Anyone in Chicago reading this: please move my car if they have a street cleaning day. See you soon!

There's more: "Clocking in from Chicago" >>