The days dwindle down to a precious few...not.
It's September, that magic month when the "Surge" was either going to show some real political and military results, or the Washington Punditocracy assured us the withdrawals would begin. So what are they saying now? Behold...and marvel.
The GAO says that Iraq is failing 15 of 18 benchmarks. (That's a test score of 17 out of a possible 100, for the arithmetically inclined among you -- and 70 or below is usually considered flunking.) We're empowering Shi'ite sheikhs to scour Al Anbar province while al Maliki cozies up to Iran. But the response to this total political failure is not a bipartisan, Dave Broder-led call for withdrawal. (Anyone surprised?) Instead, the call is for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in favor of Allawi - a move which renders the September date meaningless, and which was given bipartisan cover by Sens. Clinton and Levin.
Oh, it's a long, long while from May to December, says the old Kurt Weill song, but the days grow short when you reach September.
What about the other measure of "Surge" success - the death rate? The LA Times writes:
Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.Pretty clear, right? Seven-plus months into the Surge, violence is going up. Obviously the Times reporter hadn't received his spin memo, but it was a different story at the Associated Press. Here's how the AP rigs the numbers:
A huge suicide attack in northern Iraq caused civilian deaths to rise slightly in August despite security gains elsewhere, making it the second deadliest month for Iraqis since the U.S. troop buildup began, figures compiled by The Associated Press showed Saturday ... The August total included 520 people killed in quadruple suicide bombings near the Syrian border on Aug. 14, the deadliest day since the war began in March 2003...U.S. deaths last month remained well below figures from last winter, when the U.S began dispatching 30,000 additional troops to Iraq.Let's list the deceptions this article throws our way, shall we? (The text has been annotated for easier deciphering.)
They imply that if not for those August 14 bombings the picture would be rosy: 520 in a country of 20 million (and falling rapidly). For them, that's the equivalent of two or three 9/11's. Should we forget about 9/11, too? That aside, without Aug. 14 there would have been 1,289 deaths that month, less than July - but more than June.
They ignore seasonal variations in death rates: We've been through this before. Death rates in an insurrection have seasonal variations, so comparing July to December is deceptive. Kevin Drum has provided seasonally-adjusted figures to show just how bad the situation has become.
And, of course, they're only counting U.S. death figures, although the goal of the "Surge" was to reduce Iraqi deaths and pacify the country.
They ascribe all the changes in death rates to the "Surge," when other factors are involved: This is especially true of those "security gains elsewhere" the AP mentions. They mean Al Anbar province, which is being "pacified" as the result of a Faustian bargain with tribal forces -- a process that was underway before the Surge -- and one that will have disastrous long-term political consequences. More here.
"Slightly"? Nice rhetorical touch. And they're right, mathematically. It was an increase of 1.14 percent. But guess what it wasn't? It wasn't a decrease. And if you could somehow isolate the 20 extra people killed in August, it wouldn't feel slight to their families.
The AP goes on to say that "American officials have maintained that violence is declining in Iraq in the run-up to a series of reports to Congress this month that will decide the course of the U.S. military presence here."
Yeah, they do maintain that...but the numbers says that violence is going up. How's a reporter going to maintain access with an inconvenient fact like that to report? You've just seen how.
When the autumn weather turns the leaves to flame, the song says, one hasn't got time for the waiting game. But then, Kurt Weill was never a D.C. insider. The "Surge" will continue.
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
And if the other shoe-- military action against Iran-- drops, no champion of decency and honor will emerge to stop it before it hits the ground.
And the corporate media has long since been embedded along for the ride.
Besides, the news will be full of billowing clouds of hot air over which one of the Democratic Mod Squad of pre-favored candidates will end up running against... Fred Thompson, maybe? It's like a perpetual season of "American Idol", except on the political stage and screen.
And what's up with the Associated Press? For months now, I've noticed headlines and stories with a decided wingnut spin. I remember when AP (along with UPI) were reliable, generally trustworthy, plain-vanilla reporting services. Apparently it's devolved considerably since then-- another boon of the free market and totalitarian corporate commodification.
I'm a cranky 60 year-old man and easily roused to outrage, or at least I used to be. Thanks for not getting numbed and reminding the rest of us, or at least me.
Actually, US deaths in July and August 2007 were 79 and 81, respectively, compared to 83, 81, and 81, respectively, for Jan, Feb, and March of this year. Last year the numbers for July and August were 43 and 65, respectively.
There. All better. Same show. Same machine. Same strings. Same masters.
AP must not understand how truth finds it's way out on the Internet, and how instantaneous penetration of the bull shit makes liars glow in the dark like black-lighted semen stains.
Patterns of behavior appear. AP and FOX lose credibility as news sources. Simple.
How I love the Internet.
Because as it's hitting the media, booscheneyCo is planning to attack Iran as a means of distracting from Iraq and forcing the dems to take a more warlike posture(they already have Hil, as was mentioned).
This is beyond pathetic.
You are exactly correct, the war will continue, it has to, because Iraq was just a steppingstone to Iran, Iraq was and is strategic and tactically necessary, both as a buffer and a base of operations.
Furthermore the attack on Iran is growing close because of the UK's withdraw from Basra, they had to be removed from the line of fire, so to say. Plus that is the region of Iraq that has always had the closest ties to Iran, it allows the Bush administration a catalyst to strike Iran. Fact is, the line in the sand was drawn long ago, for better or worse the Shia and Iran have drew the short straw, they will be on the receiving end of the mayhem.
And George W. Bush's protest of the UK's withdraw from Basra, is, the most telling, a read, as they say.
So I say, to anyone that has a plan for Iraq, the first thing that has to be done is, stop the current plan. BTW good luck in doing so, I would say to them. Agape.
A force of about 160,000, plus 30,000 private sector mercenaries, coupled with air superiority, is enough to enable our army to go anywhere in the country they want to (provided they don't care how many die.) A troop surge is not going to stop the people of Iraq from wanting an end to colonialism. We do not have the right to dictate to anyone how they should live their own lives, from closet homosexual Republican Senators in our country, to Iraqi nationalists in theirs.
Does anyone doubt what conclusions the Bush sponsored "report" will give us? It will be just another part of the spin and lies this administration has used since before the invasion to get their own way, regardless of the facts. Bush decided before increasing the troop levels that it was the right thing to do, and he will see to it that his sense of "reality" is reflected in his handpicked general's report. Anything else would be blasphemy in the church of neo-con imperialism.
Isn't the Brookings Institution "left leaning"? in other words, biased? Not that I'd trust the Heritage Foundations numbers but replacing one propaganda for another isn't the way to go. Any appropriate numbers from an objective source?
Almost everyone seems to be operating on the fundamentally and fatally flawed premise that a strong central government is possible. In other words, there is NO REASONABLE PROSPECT, whatsoever, that a strong central government in Baghdad, that has the trust of Iraqis - all factions - and the capacity to provide security and services throughout the country, will materialize now, or in the lifetime of anyone reading this blog.
The only political solution that has any hope at all of bringing the sectarian and tribal violence to an end in Iraq, and of putting that country on a path toward stability, is one that is based on federalism, as set out in the Iraqi Constitution.
Presumably, everyone understands, including General Petraeus, that a political solution is the only way out of this tragic mess. But, a political solution is NOT about to magically and spontaneously develop as a result of the various factions in Iraq miraculously coming together to work out, amongst themselves, their political differences. Unfortunately, the real world, in which we must live, does not work that way.
A political solution in Iraq will require strong US leadership in facilitating a process that brings together all warring Iraqi factions for intense negotiations to reach a political accommodation, and that brings together the regional and international powers in an effort to support and secure any political power-sharing arrangement that is achieved...all under the auspices of the United Nations.
This process, by the way, is the Biden strategy...in a nutshell.
ABSENT a process like this, the only option will be a complete withdrawal of US forces and civilians from Iraq - and must include ALL of those Iraqi civilians who have assisted coalition forces - and a new strategy for containment of the sectarian and tribal violence to within Iraq’s borders in an effort to avoid an unpredictable regional conflagration.
From January to July of 2007 (I've not had a chance to check out August), US combat deaths have exceeded the death toll from the corresponding month in 2006. Put in Wall Street talk, there has been a year-over-year increase in US combat deaths each month this year. Truly a performance only a financial analyst could appreciate. The chart of the 12-month moving average of US combat deaths shows a very steady, almost constant, climb.
When doing that, the Summer of '07 has been bloodier than the Summer of '06. But when comparing July '07 to January '07, there has been an improvement. It does not take a great deal of familiarity with the Bush tactics to realize that the "Petraeus" report was scheduled in September because they knew that casualties *always* fall in the Summer.
It's funny that when dealing with the serious issues of corporate profits, they understand how ridiculous it would be to compare July 2007 with January 2007 to get meaningful information.
What if we looked at Iraq as a startup company, or an IPO? Surely the venture capitalists would have pulled the plug long before now.
Maybe the next Secretary of Defense should be the CEO of Merril Lynch.
Lies from the corporate media too.
Mustache guy (sorry, his name escapes me) on Washington Week last night said something like "we all know the security situation has improved..." before raising the political problem issue.
The really interesting story will be to watch the pro-war Democrats like Hillary, Pelosi, Baird, Reid and Levin try to spin it in a manner where they appear to oppose the ongoing occupation while continuing to facilitate it.
The corporate media has trouble resisting the savory "trouble with the left wingers" stories when it comes to Democrats. The anti-war "fringe" anger at the DLC Dems makes for a nearly irresistable juicy headline... I wonder if they'll be able to resist their urges in order to provide cover for the Democratic warmongers.
The last thing the establishment wants to do is scuttle Hillary's nomination, so they'll have to sacrifice other DLC'ers to get enough votes to pass the funding allowing her to speak out of both sides of her mouth yet again.
I wonder if voters will ever put two and two together and realize that her "tactics working, but too little too late" comments are oiling the cogs of the war machine.
However, I think you'd be better off crediting Sherwood Anderson for the words to "September Song". After all, he's the lyricist. Kurt Weill wrote the music, a task he performed hundreds of times for his most famous writimg partner, fellow German Berthold Brecht-- but that's another story.
As for what should be obvious, perhaps. But as long as they write this garbage I feel compelled/obligated to correct it, much as I'd rather be doing something else.