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 Janus of Brian Baird

Ugh. Brian Baird (D – WA Vancouver), as I’m sure you’ve read here, here, or maybe even here has had a change of heart, of sorts, over the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. “We’re on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work” he says, “People may be upset. I wish I didn’t have to say this.”

Well, I’m not so sure he does.

First, he basically calls for another Friedman Unit which will, so the story goes, bring about a miraculous change in the situation in the Middle East. Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing it. Six months will not be enough to change anything in that country. It wasn’t true six months ago, it wasn’t true twelve months ago, and it wasn’t true eighteen months ago. What makes him think anything will be different now? As Blue Girl pointed out earlier today, the surge doesn’t seem to be having any significant effect on U.S. troop deaths for this summer relative to other summers during this occupation. The difference between the winter, spring, and summer months has been, largely, attributed to the increased difficulty of combat during 120 degree afternoons; when seasonal variables are controlled, the combat deaths are on a steady rise.

Second, he suggests that we’re making “real progress” in Iraq, and that the “consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility.” Real progress? What’s that mean? How do you measure that? How do you know? Oh, the military told you? Well, I think the Brookings data casts a shadow of doubt on that claim. And anyway, as many people have noted, the military is all but powerless to end this conflict without the support of political progress. So, Rep. Baird, what political progress have you seen? The loss of the Sunni partners in the Iraqi governing coalition? The failure to pass a national oil law? Or is it the increasing balkanization of Iraq into ethno-religious enclaves? I’m not suggesting that, once we leave, it’ll be all gumdrops and lollipops for the Iraqis, but our presence just seems to be exacerbating the problem. I am sure there will be blood shed in Iraq once we leave, maybe even a surge of bloodshed, but our occupation is only putting off the inevitable. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU INVADE COUNTRIES AND DESTROY THEIR INSTITUTIONS.

Third, what was so awe inspiring about your trip to Baghdad, Rep. Baird? Did you really get down and dirty in Baghdad? Did you take coffee with shop keepers in some backwater market place and discuss the shining prospects of the new influx of FDI into the country? Did you really get to smell the people? Take them in? Let them cry on your shoulder? Or did you get led around by the nose by some military PR officer or a 20-something lackey from the State Department who introduced you to all kinds of Iraq translators who just love the American occupation? I’m sorry, but I’m just not convinced.

To Baird’s credit, though, I’m sure that he must really believe all this, because it certainly isn’t in his political best interest to reverse his position this way. Baird represents Washington’s 3rd district, which includes the cities of Olympia (very anti-war) and Vancouver, two cities (and counties) that tend to vote strongly democratic, and are (if the polling holds true) strongly anti-war. Of course, given our political institutions, Baird is unlikely to suffer for this policy position, as no Republican is going to beat him on the war issue, and no Democrat is likely to win the nomination from a pretty popular incumbent. However, in two weeks, I will be moving from Bellingham, WA, to Olympia, and Baird will be my new representative. You can rest assured that once I’ve got that new zip code attached to my voter registration card I’ll be sending a steady stream of e-mails and letters his way.

UPDATE: You should all check out Switzerblog's post on the trouble with moral clarity over at Evergreen Politics. He engages the the idea of our moral responsibilities in Iraq pretty well.

There's more: "The Janus of Brian Baird" >>

H Con. Res. 63 - Washington's Delegation

The House earlier today passed House Concurrent Resolution 63 246-182 with 6 abstentions (including Dennis Hastert).

Here's how Washington's delegation voted:

Brian Baird (WA-3 D) Abstain
Norm Dicks (WA-6 D) Yea
Doc Hastings (WA-4 R) Nay
Jay Inslee (WA-1 D) Yea
Rick Larsen (WA-2 D) Yea
Jim McDermott (WA-7 D) Yea
Cathy McMorris (WA-5 R) Nay
Dave Reichert (WA-8 R) Nay
Adam Smith (WA-9 D) Yea

No real surprises there. All of the Democrats voted yea, with Baird abstaining (which is interesting, as he spoke so passionately on its behalf), while all the Republicans voted nay. McMorris and Reichert are both Republican light-weights who relied heavily on the Republican National Committee for their re-election bids. Doc Hastings is a total hack who was named chairman of the House Ethics committee after the former chair was sacked by Hastert for supporting the investigations into Tom DeLay, so his voted against was as predictable as the sunrise.

While the party identifiers, by an large, indicated how a given Representative would vote (within the Washington delegation and otherwise), it's important to note that a good deal of the Washington delegation originally supported to war. I believe Norm Dicks, Brian Baird, and Jim McDermott were the only Washingtonians in the House to vote against (Murray voted against the war in the Senate, while Cantwell voted for it). To their credit, Larsen and Inslee came out as critics of the war pretty early, before it was absolutely safe to do so. Both of their districts (WA-1 and WA-2) have large military communities, so I imagine they were playing to those constituencies (no excuse).

There's more: "H Con. Res. 63 - Washington's Delegation" >>

That answer wasn't an answer, Mr. President

Ryan Schmidt has some questions.

Spec. Schmidt is one of the Minnesota Guardsmen who will be retained in Iraq for an additional four months to comprise a part of the shell-game that makes up the "surge" of troops to stabilize Baghdad and Anbar.

Tuesday, one of the extended Minnesotans got to ask a question when NPR's Juan Williams interviewed President Bush. Spec. Ryan Schmidt asked if the president had a plan if his troop surge didn't work. Here's what the president said:

"Well, I would say to Ryan, I put it in place on the advice of a lot of smart people, particularly the military people who think it will work, and let us go into this aspect of the Iraqi strategy feeling it will work. But I will also assure Ryan that we're constantly adjusting to conditions on the ground."

We asked Spec. Schmidt if he was satisfied with the president's answer.

"No, it did not answer my question," he said. "I would have liked to know more so that there will be a plan if this does not work. For some of us that are over here, particularly me, my unit, we all feel, what's the point of us being extended if your initial plan to send more troops over here does not work? What are you going to do, Mr. President?"

This whole thing is getting out of control. (Prolonged war has a tendency to do that.) The troops are questioning and signing an Appeal for Redress from the war in Iraq. They have a right to have their questions answered and their concerns addressed, not blown off and dismissed.

Ryan Schmidt should keep asking his question, and we should be asking it too, until it is answered to the satisfaction of the soldiers in the field.

(Listen Here)

There's more: "That answer wasn't an answer, Mr. President" >>

Marcus Welby He Ain't

Blue Girl's prescient entry (two) below got me thinking.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush made clear on Saturday that he was going ahead with his plan to send more troops to Iraq despite an angry reaction in Congress, and accused his critics of failing to offer an alternative

So ya go to the doctor. He tells you about the dark spot on your x-rays. Serious stuff. He outlines what he wants to do. High risk, no guarantees, in fact….

You mouth is dry, pulse pounding in your ears. You finally speak, “Can we please consider something else?”

“Fine!” your doctor snaps, tossing your record on his desk. “You tell me. What are we doing to do? Tell me now.”

There's more: "Marcus Welby He Ain't" >>

Soldiering Opinion.

Notice how these boys do not have the willingness, ability or desire to defend Bush’s policy. For them, war is about being at their buddy’s side at crunch time.

Click Here

No greater point here. God love and bless 'em.

There's more: "Soldiering Opinion." >>

Handicapping the 110th

So far I'm cautiously optimistic with the job Congress is doing, though I'm not crazy about Kennedy's idea of trying to defund the troop escalation-- sledge hammer driving a finish nail. Murtha's proposal (not surprisingly) sounds much better.

But we're finally in the ball-park of sanity, so it's a start. And props to Blue Girl for getting this blog rolling from her Red State.

There's more: "Handicapping the 110th" >>