What's That Sound? Why It's the Further Lowering of the Bar on Iraq
In Sunday's New York Times U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker was quoted as saying Iraq is "going to be a long, hard slog."
Sound familiar?
It should, because here was then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- four years and one month ago:
"It will be a long, hard slog."
This thing has been going on for so long, the administration is reusing excuses. But hey, at least the administration can now claim it's no longer hostile to recycling, right?
Even more staggering was the rest of the Times piece, which was part of the administration's quarterly Lowering Of Expectations. It's like clockwork: if there's a piece in the Times quoting unnamed "leaders" in "both capitals" who "continue to hold out hope", an "elated" White House, and mention of "positive signs" all around, you know the seasons have just changed. It's sort of like the solstice, only profoundly depressing.
What else did we learn this time out? That "with American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country..."
Really? So we can all stop holding our breath about "quickly" unifying the country? I'd say the "quickly" ship sailed four years ago. Now it's no longer about quick or not-so-quick, it's about ever or never, as in: will we ever leave Iraq?
But the purpose of the surge was not more "military success" but political stability. As Matt Yglesias notes:
"...its goal was to create an improvement in the security situation in Baghdad which (it was hypothesized) was the necessary precondition for a political resolution to Iraq's fundamental conflicts. The surge was tried, and American casualties went up and violence stayed at the same level and then violence declined and then US casualties decline and then it turned out that the surge had failed and the political situation was the same as it had been at the beginning."
So what's the goal now? Instead of actual political progress the new goal is... convincing everyone political progress is being made.
I am not making this up.
Here's how the Times describes it:
"Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote."
How much lower can the bar get? Though, on the upside, maybe the Bush administration will strike oil as it digs lower and lower to move the bar.
Now the surge was apparently implemented so "American officials" could focus on "pragmatic goals like helping the Iraqi government spend the money in its budget."
That's right: our new definition of success in Iraq is helping the Iraqi government spend money.
So as you see the administration and the GOP presidential candidates give high fives to each other and declare "mission accomplished" this week because only 30-50 American soldiers are being killed every month, it's worth remembering (because the media have apparently already forgotten) that the purpose of the surge was never military. Opponents of the surge were not skeptical that it would pay military dividends. They were skeptical that the surge would magically translate into political success.
But, of course, war supporters are off the hook, because every four years one of them comes out to tell the American people that Iraq is going to be "a long, hard slog."
So who is it going to be in November of 2011?
Guesses anybody?
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
With key Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham threatening to cut off money unless the Iraqi Government steps up to the plate, It puts the White House in a very akward position. The Republican Party is in such disarray, and forth coming elections, they face their worse nightmare. Having a Democrat in the White House, and Democracts controlling both houses would change the political landscape for generations. Liberals controlling the courts. But, I still don't get these people. They have been brazen crime lords, they've thumbed their noses at the very Constitution. They have totally raped the economy. They have no honor and with the countless debaucles, saving face is no longer an option, nor do they care. Their arrogance is really sociopathic in nature, they are quite simply scarry.
They are arrogant idiots. Its embarrasing to even watch them. Sort of like a bad accident, your horrified but you can't look away.
LEAVE IRAQ? When the cows never come home and the chickens won't roost, whatever, is more like it. No administration and Congress can pull that one off. GET OUT! ALL OF IT! ABANDON SHIP! I don't think so. Too much INVESTMENT. Making both sides of the aisle people beholding to WAR PLANS and the MONEY to gain to be able to have the guts to shift practically 180 and really make a almost bloody attempt to legislate things right.
We got 4 huge bases there. Hundreds not so big. We got the biggest EMBASSY in the world there. Out of which To work close the rest of the neighboring Middle East. Forget the coming up near 4000 dead soldiers, ours. And tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqis. They, all of us, be the fodder make this OIL and it's first in line manipulating it their way without thought of lives ruined to achieve their agenda work. Too much GOLD (oil) in them thar IRAQI FIELDS to let our REAL BANKERS, the big boys and girls with the ultimate money and require influence in CONGRESS to get their big edge forthemselves alwasy passed for their favor. The people more and more screwed. The last folks who really rules, our carefully architecured GREEN ZONE, our beautiful dues paid for, our military won, now assured, stronghold, let that go? Never! Until the OIL and ANY RESIDUAL positioning for our Middle East Allies means nothing. Far as MONEY is concerned.
Before the Surge, U.S. Generals thought their biggest challenge in Iraq would be winning over the Sunni militias. Hence the presumed need for political inducements for the Sunnis to reconcile. That problem has pretty much solved itself.
The biggest remaining challenge is either disbanding or absorbing the Shia militias into government forces. Political inducements are not necessary for that because the Shia already control the government.
Raising the bar is the wrong metaphor here because the problem is now "water under the bridge."
Brilliant! The game plan all along was to remake Iraq into another Turkey, only oil-rich.
The Bush administration cannot be so stupid as to think the Shia warlords will stop acting like Shia warlords. A majority of the population of Iraq has wanted a complete US withdrawal for the past several years. The effort to retain permanent military bases for the next 30 years or more, to "protect" Israel, is economically reckless even if one ignores the political imbecility of the plan.
There is only one way to stop the Robber Republicans from continuing their frenzy feasting of our manpower, resources, and future:
No matter who is elected President in 2008 s/he will be a continuation of 'Stay the course'. Our only hope is to elect enough anti war congressmen and Senators to override the president's vetos.
This is a very viable solution. All the contributions should go to Anti-war candidates for Congress and the Senate.
Forget the Presidential candidates. Whoever is president, can be castrated by an overwhelming majority of Anti-war congress wo/men in 2008.
Focus on the anti-war congressional candidates for 2008.
We are not fighting a war. Iraq doesn't even have a military. We are sustaining a war for profit & the idea is to keep it going as long as possible. I use to be a Dem, campaigned for Clinton, expected big change. But now I can't tell the difference between Dem or Repub except for Dennis Kucinich., & he's so popular he's being censored, cut out of pics, cut out of time in debates. He's our Abe Lincoln. Check out his site & listen to his amswers. You will see he really is the only voice of "the people". I turned Independent. I want to vote "My Way". Wonder why they're working so hard to make Kucinich disapear? In fact, almost everytime I bring up his name, my posts get deleted.
And what about the ominous "long term relations agreement" that the Bush administration has been hammering out with the al-Maliki government? Thiis is to pave the way for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq long after Bush and Cheney are out of office. It also calls for permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
None of this surprises me. It once again reflects the complete arrogance of this Fascist regime: it's Bush and Cheney thumbing their noses at the American people.
Everyone has seen Cheney's 1992 apologia about why H.W. Bush did not march in to overthrow Sadam, "There would have been civil war and chaos", but how many remember Henry Kissinger saying, (and i paraphrase), "Chaos in the middle-east might be a good thing for the west's geo-political interests". Looks as if Cheney came round to Henry's way of thinking.
The war's opposition found it almost immpossible to understand the complete cynicism of this White House. This is where we were deluded. Most people on the left assumed the civil war in Iraq was viewed with the same dismay by this administration as it was on the left. We assumed Cheney and Rumsfeild were horrified about civilian and military deaths, but they didn't look horrified, did they?
Events prove they were not. Oh, it would have been fine if the Iraqis had fallen in with the plans Cheney had for them, but chaos fit the plan too. As a matter of fact chaos provided cover for the ONLY things getting done in Iraq.
To whit...? Fourteen permanent bases and one Crusader castle (an embassy the size of the Vatican).
Notice...? When the voters finally threw a hissy fit and demanded the pullout begin, that's when the surge happened and some level of order has evolved, but it is only then, only with a lull in the violence, that the media, casting about for a story, tuned in on the permanent bases and castle. We finally saw the pictures and pictures do not lie. We are there to stay as far as oil and right-wing "mideastern peace" interests are concerned (there's code, for you) So chaos was excellent cover for their true intention.
At this point we are basically paying groups to stop the violence.
Anyone… we don’t care who they are, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, or private warlord,
Be nice and we’ll give you money and arms and power.
Give us an oil agreement and we’ll give you the government.
Unbelievably we are once again working with the Mahdi Army in Baghdad, and groups like the MEK, who we use for incursions into Iran. Let’s face it, at this point the terrorists we support are virtually indistinguishable from the ones we are fighting.
Leave Iraq? … These idiots are still sorting out whom they want on their team.
Victory in Iraq will be victory in '08. Thanks for the help politically, but the Iraqi people you put at greater risk with your defeatism are not pawns. Cutting and running from Iraq will not make the world safer. The surge is working. Petraeus for VP in '08.
Thanks for mentioning it. Unbelievable isn't it. Of course we're not leaving, look at the incredibly pricey palace our tax dollars have built- the swanky, elegant U.S. Embassy. Only project finished on time in Iraq.
Surely it looks like we're making ourselves very comfortable. Isn't it obvious that the intentions were to invade, subdue and OCCUPY?
Pretty Blatant. But who is noticing?
Leda, Los Angeles
The reality of this issue is that it does not matter that the war in Iraq is illegal, immoral or unjustified. The only thing that matters to the politicians is that the war profiteers such as Halliburton and Blackwater continue to rake in obscene profits. The fact that this is blood money is also of little or no concern to most politicans.
Impeachment of Bush and Cheyney is the only viable solution to the mess that this once great nation is in. Unfortunatley Nancy Pelosi along with a lot of other democrats neither have the integrity or the courage to begin the process!
What the lessons of Iraq should be is that money and power is all that matters to the American politicians. The Constitution has been downgraded into a worthless piece of parchment as the Executive Branch continues to dominate the Congress and even the Supreme Court. He continues to break the laws of our nation as well as of the world, because people like Pelosi have allowed him to do so!
Not voting is not a waste! The time for voting the scoundrels out has long passed and the 08 election may not even be allowed to occur! Have we forgotten our history? Have we become so complacent that we now allow politicians and the government to determine for us what our options are? For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I pray to God this is not true!
Dear All:
The discussion missed the most important motive for the Iraq occupation: The U. S. government now supports the cartel OPEC by being a de facto member of OPEC via the Iraq occupation. The costs are in the tens of billions of dollars to the American public annually.
You may know that when the U. S. government occupied Iraq in March 2003, it took over all the functions of the government, including the membership in OPEC. The US/Iraq delegate to OPEC has always voted for the price-raising oil production cutbacks.
You may also know that the U. S. government in Iraq has contributed to these cutbacks by reducing the oil production from the pre-invasion level of 3 million barrels per day to the current level of less than 2 million.
The U.S. government provides intelligence and enforcement support to OPEC and its allies—as a duty” for its occupation.
The antitrust laws need to be amended to prevent the U.S. government from helping any cartel anywhere in the world, including OPEC and its allies. Without this cartel enforcement by the U. S. government, the price of oil will fall precipitously.
The publics of the world are losing tens of billions of dollars monthly, and money is going to dubious regimes on the Persian Gulf and their allies such as Russia.
Congress needs to investigate. The Presidential candidates need to be grilled.
Carl Olson
Chairman
State Department Watch
www.stated
Somebody said (and I wish I had been the one to coin the coin the phrase) that the Iraq war would be a quick victory followed by a long defeat. The vaunted "shock and awe" tactics which destroyed the infrastructure, such as the electrical system, which powered the sewer system and many other things, which would have made life for the Iraqis better, post-Saddam, is a perfect example of the failure of the Bush Administration's policy. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.) All the money and effort was supposed to have made life better for that country. Instead, they are worse off now. Do they have democracy? No, not really. They voted, but what were their options? As the Rolling Stones said in "Salt of the Earth", they had "the choice of cancer or polio". The Iraqi government in a kleptocracy and this Administration is feeding them OUR blood and money. They are bleeding us to death and have led us to bankruptcy.
On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, we're not seeing the big picture. Perhaps this war is really great for the U.S. With all our jobs being shipped out of this country, at least the jobs in the defense industry are staying put.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
