The parade of political tourists to Iraq in recent weeks, during which easily impressed pundits and members of Congress came to be dazzled by the wonders of the troop surge, probably ensures that this murderous adventure will continue well into the next presidency -- even if the Democrats win.
For example, Kenneth Pollack, a top national security adviser in the Clinton administration whose 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, convinced many Democratic politicians to support the war, now finds renewed optimism after the surge. In a July 30 New York Times Op-Ed article, "A War We Just Might Win," which he coauthored after spending eight days in Iraq, Pollack gushed,
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi army troops cover the countryside.
So much so that a town 40 miles northeast of Tal Afar was the scene, on Aug. 15, of the deadliest attack of the war -- a quadruple bombing left more than 500 dead and 1500 wounded, and most of the buildings in ruin. What about those "reliable" police officers and Iraqi army troops whose presence in the area Pollack found so reassuring? If Pollack was asked about that on any of the talk shows that routinely feature him as an expert, I have not found the footage.
Other Democrats brought to Iraq for photo-op visits have similarly descended into total myopia. Take Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., who is suddenly more upbeat about the future U.S. role in the region: "If anything, I'm more willing to find a way forward," he enthused. Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla., proclaimed that the U.S. troop surge "has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels." Odd, then, that al-Qaida was blamed by the United States for that deadly attack near Tal Afar.
In the past week, two Iraqi governors have been assassinated in incidents attributed to intra-Shiite violence that is dramatically on the rise. But not even this bloodshed stops yet another Democratic lawmaker, Brian Baird, D-Wash., from proclaiming that he will no longer support measures to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, because "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground."
Contrast the rosy optimism of those day tourists with the assessment of seven active-duty soldiers coming to the end of their 15-month tour of duty on the ground in Iraq. They had an Op-Ed piece in the Aug. 19 New York Times entitled "The War as We Saw It":
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press reports portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.
Get their article -- excerpted quoting cannot do it justice -- and hand it to anyone who prattles on about how "our" leaving Iraq will only make matters worse. "Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence," they wrote. "In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to retain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal."
In the meantime, the seven soldiers urge that we let "Iraqis take center stage in all matters" and "let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities." The plea ends with "We need not talk about morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
And sadly enough, they will continue to be sacrificed to a policy that makes no sense to them as well as to most other Americans. As their Op-Ed piece recounts, "one of us, Staff Sergeant [Jeremy A.] Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a 'time sensitive target acquisition mission,' on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive." But what about the next good man sacrificed to the whims of politicians and pundits?
Senators Warner and Levin were not very pleased with what they found, but Senator Warner's well-earned respect may have allowed the two of them to get truthful answers and see scenes that were not staged.
Perhaps the administration is giving "misguided" democrats special treatment with a "Luxury Tour" aimed at opening their eyes to the mythical wisdom of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove.
Virtual reality has a place, but it is also known as propaganda and anyone who believes anything that comes out of this administration has been in Wonderland for seven years.
Today, we have a military of about one-thousandth of one percent of the population and most citizens are totally incapable of defending anything but their right to watch TV and eat Big Macs. We have grown soft, stupid, and shallow and are utterly incapable of defending our "way of life." We need to bring our best citizens (the members of the military) home to help us re-build our rotting infrastructure, including our worthless political system and all the parasites who feed on the good name of the United States. As for the "terrorists," let's treat them as a law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic problem. In one generation we could have our current enemies co-opted, just like we have done with so many other enemies. And given the history of this part of the world, we should never again use the words "Iraq" and "progress" in the same sentence.
But dignity was trounced from day one by our leaders who lied, subjogated and manipulated our country forward with this mission. Of course, they don't see it that way. They can't.
However, that's the true indication that there is so much seriously wrong here.
Let's be honest. What was it George Bush and his neocons envisioned? An easy conquest. A new democracy, with citizens liberated from a tyrant. Opportunity for involvement in creating dynamic infrastructures with vast resources and revenues (Which is why we placed our nation's premier oil and engineering firm, Halliburton, at the helm) thereby making everybody involved, including Iraq's leaders, economy, and our corporations commited to the task, extremely wealthy. A harbinger voice arose from Paul Wolfowitz at "MissionAccomplished" that Iraq's oil reserves would pay for America's involvement and deployment. We were going to make out like bandits... Smooth movers, those boys, Bush and Cheney.
It reads like a Tragic Comedy. It all goes back to the lies, manipulations, to see that NO,- THIS is what we get. Millions displaced. Thousands upon thousands killed, with little or no end in sight.. It'll never be right, because it was started for the wrong reasons. Control. Manipulation. Greed; an insurmountable, tremendous greed. A greed that tries to mask itself in the face of our country's integrity and its dying soldiers, almost 4000 now; My God..
No matter WHAT happens, we don't belong there. Their oil isn't worth it. Other countries will help, although once our leaders get half a brain and announce under no uncertain terms we're not there for their oil, 90% of tensions will cease towards us..If they then fight amongst each other, that's not our fight. It will NOT be a defeat. Simply a redeployment. There's no point in more soldiers dying, because this mission is absolutely flawed, and will never be right.
You can't polish a turd... It smears.
Have you stopped to consider in whose pockets all that money is GOING?
"Ike" Eisenhower tried to warn us, back in January of 1961. As he was leaving office, he coined the phrase "military-industrial[-congressional] complex."
Yes sir, he tried.
We're screwed. When we start bombing Iran in a couple weeks, we're going to set WWIII in motion, except this time, we're going to be the bad guys, and some of our enemies will actually have nukes (Russia, France, Pakistan, etc).
I just pray that when we do start bombing them, perhaps then the citizenry of this country will finally erupt and behead the tyrants.
!VIVA LA REVOLUCION!
the War On Iraq and the massive foreign debt that finances it has only accelerated the decline of the US financial and military empire. that wouldn't be a bad thing accept for one little problem. we the people choosing to dismantle the empire would mean we would choose the terms and conditions. since the patricians are choosing to fight the inevitable, the banquet of consequences promises to hold some interesting choices. would anyone care for a little turd soup with their shit sandwich?
we are, "led", by the least of us. good night and good luck.
I think not. This is a time when the most corrupt, anti-American fraud of an administration, which has yet to honor anything in the Constitution that gets in its bloodthirsty, avaricious way is literally and figuratively bleeding our nation into 2nd class status. There is NO TIME left for "walking a fine line." It's time to stand up and be counted!
He and the others have to suck up the moral courage and will to say, "I don't care that one town in Iraq has had some improvement in the last 7 months. No evidence exists anywhere to show that the surge has done anything positive anywhere else. The General's own counter-insurgency doctrine says we need 3 times more troops than we have. Logically, that means his doctrine is wrong and must be re-written, he is hiding the fact that a draft will be requested/needed, or he is lying about the progress thus far. This administration has created and submitted the report we have to judge. This administration has boasted about "progress" on countless occasions over the last few years, and all have been lies, exaggeration, and grossly misleading. If I or any other member of Congress were to now, in the face of 4 years of constant lying and stonewalling, believe that today, they are FINALLY telling the truth, then they are indeed the most gullible and incompetent of our society and voters need to step up and cast us out for such abdication of responsibility."
You are absolutely correct, the Democratic leadership intends to get their piece of the war pie, make *No* mistake about that.
They will "Stay the course". This war will escalate, the conflict will widen, and the Democrats will institute a draft for Men and Women, Hillary Clinton will lead the charge, as our newly place Puppet-In-Chief. Agape.
In this situation this country deserves what it gets, I guess
If Petraeus is successful with Clear, Hold and Build, it can only be in local situations. By any calculation we do not have sufficient troops available to implement this strategy in ALL of Iraq.
The question is, are we going to let these local successes become an excuse to keep 160,000 troops bogged down in an unwinnable war?
Bush and the Republicans will.
What about the other Democratic candidates?