It's been one of the Right's favorite slanders since the war began: that the Democrats are 'betting on failure' in Iraq, while Administration supporters are 'betting on success.' Democrats and war opponents haven't responded as they should. They should articulate the harsh but simple truth: Where Iraq is concerned, there is no 'success' to be had. There is only damage to be contained.
It's no more possible to 'succeed' in Iraq than it would have been to 'succeed' in Waco after the David Koresh compound burned to the ground. The tragedy has occurred, the lives have been lost, the effort and money misdirected. The only question now is how to minimize the ongoing catastrophe.
There is now a ghastly and permanent Iraqi apartheid, and mixed-ethnicity neighborhoods are a relic of the past. As a result, deaths have diminished somewhat. The administration has taken to arming bloodthirsty sectarian militias, who have used American weapons to impose a Pax Sunniicus or a Pax Shi'iticus on their regions. This warlordization of Iraq has also contributed somewhat to a lowering death toll.
Our soldiers have been used as a Baghdad police force, and they've also helped contain the violence. They're brave and skilled fighters, but their impact on the violence will only last as long as they continue to fight and die. There has been no political progress during their period of sacrifice, so they're doing little more than keeping a finger in the dike.
Public health is a nightmare. There is a national 'brain drain' as the best and the brightest leave the country. Women are oppressed to an extent that was unimaginable a few years ago.
Now some refugees are trying to come back to Iraq, lured by the easing of the Baghdad death toll. That's an opportunity for healing -- but there's a problem: their homes have been occupied by members of the ethnic group that drove them out in the first place. And who's supposed to fix that problem, according to the administration? Wear a hat so your head doesn't explode before reading the answer:
That's right. The gangster/huckster who helped engineer the lies that got us into Iraq in the first place -- the one who can't return to Lebanon because he's a convicted felon -- is the man we're entrusting to solve the refugee problem in Iraq.
Author Nir Rosen is curt on the subject of that nation. He says that "Iraq doesn't exist anymore." There is certainly very little of it left. Is that "success"? Let's take a look:
- We're arming militias that will fight the central government in the future.
- Pro-Iranian Shi'ites now dominate the region, compromising our national security.
- The U.S. is isolated internationally in its struggle against terrorism.
- Huge numbers of Iraqis of all ages have died.
- Tens of thousands of young Americans are maimed or dead.
- More than a trillion dollars is being spent.
Here's the bottom line: If fatalities dropped to zero today -- something we would all celebrate -- the war would still have been a hideous and tragic mistake. The death toll is down in Waco, too. Does that mean the operation was 'successful'?
When the dead come back to life, when the maimed are healed, when our national security is restored, when we get that trillion dollars back to help the suffering at home and abroad -- then we can talk about 'success.'
Until then, we need to do the wise thing and stop causing further damage. "Betting against success"? The phrase is meaningless. What's more, it's a calculated insult to the 71 percent of Americans who recognize that this war is a tragedy that must end.
People understand that this war isn't about 'success' or 'failure.' It's about doing what's necessary to repair the damage. When will the politicians catch up?
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
I read your piece in Tricycle, and was amused to find out that we started blogging at precisely the same time--and for the very same reasons. I faced the same dilemma, too, starting out with The Bush Diaries and, after two and a half years, realizing that the blog itself was running counter to my efforts to practice in a non-religious recognition of the wisdom of Buddhist teachings. Once I woke up to this understanding, The Bush Diaries morphed into The Buddha Diaries, which has been thriving ever since. Thanks for your insights.
*****
U.S. assertions about the growing independence of Iraqi security units are often based on conflicting claims or assessment methods that do not allow for "independent" ratings, a U.S. watchdog agency said on Monday.
A report by the Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department and top military officials including U.S. Commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus have sought to show progress by repeatedly citing numbers of Iraqi Security Force (ISF) units deemed "independent" or "fully independent."
But it is unclear how the Pentagon and its officials have reached those conclusions, according to the GAO.
****
Here's a thought. Maybe they just make them up.
The murderous attack on the Koresh compound was one of the most despicable acts of cowardice to ever occur on US soil. Of course it was enabled by the most amoral and corrupt administration in US history, and by a President who still doesn't know the meaning of the word shame. To compare this heinous event to the ongoing campaign to keep Americans safe from terrorists is disingenuous at best.
it's scary to think that if Violence in Iraq dropped enough for a significant draw-down of our forces, the right wing media machine will spin Bush into a genius. And the news-industrial complex will fall all over itself trying not to disagree. I can hear it all now: A major victory in the war on terror; He stood up to the terrorists and won.
If you try to show that Iraq has become a worse humanitarian nightmare than it was under Sadam, you'll called anti-American.