Pablo versus Powell and the Power of Art

Truthy Goodness

Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Pace gave a press conference to talk about the War in Iraq, and unfortunately it was the same tired song and dance the Administration has been giving on Iraq these past four years

Mr. Gates demonstrated some fine footwork when answering a question concerning the all-important September date for the progress report, the one the President was ballyhooing as the time when there would be signs whether the all important “surge” would have had the effect of giving breathing space to the raging sectarian divide.

The President was the one who set the expectations for the progress report by criticizing the Democrats who question the surge tactic by saying “wait until Gen Petraeus gives his progress report to the Congress in September.” Now the President is tamping down expectations for that report, saying they never made it out to be a make or break date, rather a time to examine the “metrics” as Press Secretary Tony Snow alluded to the other day.

Mr. Gates then did a fancy side step around a question about his model for the future presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, a model that sees a long-term presence in Iraq. He stealthily did not answer the question, said something about events on the ground, etc, etc.

Gen Petraeus was asked a similar question on Sunday, but it was more in terms of how long insurgencies have historically taken to defeat, and consequently how long US troops will be in Iraq in large numbers. At this point he could have said something like, "Insurgencies typically take 8 to 10 years to defeat, and since I wrote the book on counter-insurgency, I advised the President and Congress that the U.S. should be preparing to be in Iraq with a large combat force for 10 years. I am now here telling the American people that that is the commitment it will take to truly be successful in Iraq."

General Petraeus could provide no greater service to his nation than if he said those simple words. Whether or not the country is prepared for that should not influence his decisions. I am sick and tired of hearing things like it’s going to be a tough fight, instead of honest assessments on the reality of the war.

That way the American people could have an open and honest debate about whether the U.S. should make that type of commitment to Iraq.

The problem so far has been the Administration and the Generals have been more than willing to give assessments about the grim future if the U.S. withdraws, yet has been conspicuously silent when it comes to the possibilities, indeed the planning, of a long term commitment to Iraq. If our military strategy is aimed at just getting the U.S. out of Iraq as fast as practicable, then tell the American people. If the plan is to stay for many years, tell the American people, and dispense with the vague references to fighting until the job is done and the rest. Contrary to your beliefs Mr. President, the American people are smart enough to handle the truth. Actually, they are entitled to the truth.

Then we have the Democrats on one side saying we have to get out of Iraq, yet offering little else in terms of substantive debate, while the Republicans echo the White House that we have to stay in Iraq “until the job is done,” but never detailing how long or how many losses are acceptable, saying the Generals on the ground decide that.

This is where Petraeus could step in to give the most honest assessment that would not be political, merely the honest truth going forward. He could tell the President and the Congress in September that to be successful we need to have a long term commitment with a large combat force for at least 10 years, and yet this will not guarantee victory, while also detailing the effects as he would see them if the U.S. were to withdraw its combat forces from Iraq within one year. Most experts agree there would be death on a scale greater than Iraq is living through now. What does this mean for Iraq, the region, not to mention the al-Qaeda’s left behind after the U.S. withdrawal?

So if the Democrats want to be elected on a bring the troops home platform, they are made aware of the possible consequences, and the Republicans know that if they want to be elected on a supporting the war platform, they are doing so knowing it means committing the bulk of the U.S. military to Iraq for the next 10 years.

In my opinion, that would be the most honest and fair debate the American people could have, and it would take place with the backdrop of a Presidential race, so we could all see just the choice we are making. We can this and that about how we got into this war, but that will do us no good, except to point out the things not to do in the future, which is the reality we have to deal with in order to extricate the U.S. from Iraq, be it in 1 year or 10.

Fighting Words

Whenever I hear the President and his minions say we are "fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here," I get very confused, even angry. What does he mean by this? That the Shiite Death squads lead by Moktada al-Sadr will be marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to occupy the White House? Should we be readying the Atlantic Wall from an invasion of thousands of ships carrying an invasion force from the desert nation of Iraq?

I am getting sick and tired of this idiotic fear mongering rhetoric. The threat of terrorism inside the U.S. was a reality before the invasion and occupation of Iraq, while the chances of our “enemies” in Iraq actually taking over the U.S. are remote to say the least; so then what are we fighting for in Iraq?

And if we are truly in a fight to preserve the sovereignty of the USA, why are we doing it on the cheap? Why not go all in and tell all active and ready reserve and National Guard that you are in for the duration of the "War on Terror?" If it is that big of a deal, why is Bush constantly talking about his desire to draw down troops? Does anyone else see a serious disconnect from the reality of Iraq versus his rhetoric?

Whenever I hear that phrase about fighting them there, so we dont fight them here, I am reminded of a great man who uttered some prescient words in 1838, and they are as true today as they were way back in the olden days.



Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln 1838

Joke of the Day-FUNNY!

Whats in Word?

Everyone has heard the phrase “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.” Well this morning, I read some words in an article by Tom Hundley in the Chicago Tribune, and they hurt, went right through me. “People feel that if they vote for the radar, they are signing up for Guantanamo," a member of parliament from the Czech Republic was quoted as saying concerning the issue of a radar station to be placed in that country by the U.S., in tandem with missiles in Poland, to thwart any attacks upon the U.S. or Europe from a “rogue” nation, or so says the U.S. government.

Consider that someone who lives in a country dominated by the Soviet Union could now, in so short a time, think that if they aligned themselves with the United States, you are allying yourself with torture.

How did we allow ourselves to get to this point? To be thought of as torturers by the people who staged the “Velvet Revolution” where not a single life was lost in releasing themselves from the grips of tyranny and oppression.

From now on that one not so simple sounding word, Guantanamo, coupled with another hard to pronounce place Abu Ghraib, will forever be synonomous with torture and the United States.

But then we here in the United States have a history of double standards when it comes to lofty words like liberty, freedom and human rights, only to genocide one race while enslaving another.

Jokes

Coups and Korea

Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki does not trust the officer corps in the Iraqi Army, and he admitted exactly that in a CBS interview with Lara Logan I just viewed thanks to CrooksandLiars.com. The Prime Minister of Iraq made a stunning admission that many in his officer corp "may start planning coups, those people do not believe in democracy."

In the exchange he admits that there are many top ranking officers that are loyal to Hussein, which he has to be on guard against a coup. He then goes on to say he does not fear for his safety, or that of the government. Its easy to say that when the U.S. military has 150,000 troops in his country propping up his regime.

Further, he said that the Americans have no influence over the government; rather it is "The Iraqis that tell the Americans what to do," not the other way around.

Now I know he is saying this about America and influence for internal consumption, but does this exchange give any hope for reconciliation? How can there be stability when the Iraqi P.M. himself admits that large parts of his Army are not loyal to the government they serve. And what about the soldiers serving under these generals? Will they follow the directives of the Prime Minister once the Americans pull back from combat, or will they follow their officers who may or may not be loyal to the government? These are serious questions that the Bush Administration would prefer to avoid, and do a good job ignoring.

This brings me to the recent developments in Washington that has the Bush Administration comparing the War in Iraq to the War in Korea. This is a poor model to fashion “plan B” after as it infers that the U.S. will have a massive combat force in Iraq for 50 years. I see no discernable border to defend with thousands of troops behind tall walls with concertina wire and landmines. Though some Baghdad neighborhoods eerily resemble the stark reality of division.

I understand that the model the Bush Administration favors is a small contingent of combat and support troops to ensure the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. If we could achieve that sort of settlement, when American troops can go mingle with the Iraqis in a social environment, pick up girls, get married, bring them back to the states, nothing would please me more. But can anyone foresee that ever happening? Honestly?

The problem with this model is whom are we defending against? In Korea there is a plainly visible enemy, wearing uniforms and fighting in the conventional manner. In Iraq, the enemy comes from within, as the Prime Minister alluded to in his interview with Lara Logan.

President Bush has taken his talking points to al-Qaeda all the time, seemingly forgetting about his surge to end the sectarian blood letting between Sunni and Shiite. Remember that thing? If my memory serves me correct it was the “surge,” the shift in tactics as Mr. Bush called it, which was to bring calm to Baghdad so the many sides could come together and solve the constitutional issues.

In my opinion, and until about 3 months ago the opinion of most senior officers in the U.S. military, the greatest threat to the stability of the Iraqi government is the sectarian wars waging throughout the country.

The fact that Mr. Bush says "Al-Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq's young democracy,” yet fails to mention the sectarian wars going on in Iraq, while Prime Minister Maliki states that he is concerned that the officers corps in the Iraqi Military has mixed loyalties and is on the lookout for a coup, reinforces this serious disconnect I constantly hear from people in Washington, especially the President, versus the events on the ground in Iraq.