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.

Shelter?

Photo Credit: AP Photo

Sometimes you see a photo and just stop and think. Everything slows down for a moment. This photo just did that for me.

It is such a powerful image, and conveys so much. So many thoughts. So many meanings.

I am not quite sure how I feel. Is it the brave, resolute American facing the enemy head on while shielding the helpless Iraqi?

Or is the Iraqi simply seeking shelter from the storm?

Please click on title to enjoy a nice tune.

Eyes Wide Open-Too Many Shoes left Unfilled

In a lush green field in Grant Park along Lake Michigan, a Memorial Day event was held as part of a traveling memorial to U.S. Service personnel killed in Iraq called “Eyes Wide Open,” comprised of over 3400 combat boots with the name, age and state of the Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine or Coast Guardsman killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

The boots are lined up in perfect rows, sectioned off by state, in a similar fashion as many military cemeteries. Indeed the memorial is reminiscent of Arlington National Cemetery, with its neat rows of white marble head stones.

The memorial was a somber, less enthusiastic affair than the traditional parade that was held only a few blocks away, with its marching bands, marshal music and cheering crowds.

Several groups representing families of military personnel, both killed and currently serving organized the program. These groups consisted of Gold Star Families Speak Out, whose loved ones died as a result of the war in Iraq; Military Families Speak Out, whose loved ones are currently deployed, soon to deploy, or have returned from Iraq physically and/or psychologically damaged as well as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War who have served in Iraq.

Two Gold Star Mothers, mothers whose son or daughter has died in combat, told their stories of loss and pain, and one decorated Iraq War veteran suffering from PTSD spoke about going off to war only to be disillusioned and coming back home unable to re-enter society.

The goal of the organizers of “Eyes Wide Open” is to honor the dead American and Iraqis while ending the War in Iraq and bringing home safely the U.S. Service Personnel.

The refrain heard from all of the speakers was the need for a better understanding of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and improved care for returning veterans.

One mother described how her son returned from Iraq only to hang himself in the basement, from what she says was severe PTSD and the lack of recognition and care from the United States Military.

Darrell Anderson, who saw combat in Iraq, spoke about the conditions that contributed to his suffering from PTSD, that you lose yourself in war, that when one of your friends gets blown up in front of you “All you feel is hate.”

He spoke about the feeling of confusion when he first arrived in Iraq and the veteran soldiers told him they were not fighting for democracy and freedom “and all that stuff,” which made it difficult to reconcile within himself his actions in combat.

Furthermore, Mr. Anderson is concerned for people like himself who went AWOL and received less than an honorable discharge from the military, thus being denied medical or therapeutic care from the Veterans Administration. Or the ones who commit suicide from PTSD, whose boots Mr. Anderson says, will not be added to this memorial because they will not have died from combat related injuries.

As the service ended and a light rain fell, a poem from the great British World War One poet Siegfried Sassoon was read below a statue of the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.

Bush's Magic Elixir

You know things are not going well for the President when he has to retreat to oft used and frankly tired explanations of his current policies concerning the not going so well War in Iraq. (Dana Milbank-Washington Post Michael Abramowitz-Washington Post Mark Silva-Chicago Tribune) I am talking of course about the attempted reintroduction of fear into the national discourse by President Bush regarding the War in Iraq.

Whenever things are going poorly, whenever he feels the need to explain to the American people his motivation for the continued policies of the War in Iraq, Mr. Bush always falls back on the familiar, and previously successful tactic, of invoking the attacks of September 11th 2001 and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He then takes a subtle, and in my opinion sleazy, step in a grey area by tying those attacks to the War in Iraq.

He does this by saying things like this “We are fighting the same kind of people that killed 3000 of our citizens,” but doesn’t actually say we are fighting the SAME exact people who attacked in New York and Washington.

This is very comfortable ground for the President to walk over. It makes him look tough and resolute and bold, to use on of Mr. Bush’s favorite adjectives. He can pretend like it is the days after the attacks on our country and everyone likes him and takes he sounds credible. He looked like a man who had found his himself, finally found his place.

Has anyone else ever noticed that when he talks about terrorism or al-Qaeda he gets all juiced up, he doesn’t need to look at his notes but simply restates these tired, worn out phrases written for him so they sound bold and resolute. He actually told two reporters that bin Laden was personally gunning for their children.

This tactic is frankly insulting. To fall back on the rhetoric of 9-11, simply invoking the date as if it has a tangible quality, like it can talk and help the President out of a mismanaged, losing war.

He talks about 9-11 as if it were a tonic, a sweet elixir you can almost see drip down his chin when he invokes the terrorist attacks, that will change the way everyone looks at his failed policies. He also says we have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them here, then the next breath he says we were attacked before we went in Iraq so that means we didn’t create the terror problem in Iraq.

So what is it Mr. President?

Another aspect of this al-Qaeda/9-11 drumbeat is that it is so simplistic, as if the American electorate are children and can only understand complex issues with the most basic of terms. He thinks that people will grasp your point easier if you put it in the most simple, childlike manner. No need to confuse anyone with the facts.

The idea of nuance has long since passed the President. What was once looked on as a positive, that he has “plain talk” does not suit him well when he is asked to explain why the most powerful, richest country cant keep the electricity on in Baghdad. So, instead he says things like “these people are killers because they want to kill,” or some such nonsense.

This tactic allows Mr. Bush to avoid having to explain the inner workings of the Iraqi parliament, or the myriad of Shiite dominated political parties and their accompanied death squads. Just say al-Qaeda and all that goes away. No Sadr, no Hakim, no Maliki, its bin Laden all the time for Bush. I dont recall him even mentioning the sectarian wars going on except to say the increase in mutilated corpses, the hallmark of the sectarian murder, only represents a "snapshot," thus diminishing its impact. It was all al-Qaeda all the time.

This is an attempt to set up the rhetoric of "victory" or "success" in Iraq as having sectarian killings at a "manageable" level while saying we are staying in Iraq to fight the same people that attacked us on 9-11.

I just cannot believe we are back to this type of rhetoric and disconnected language in the national discourse on the War in Iraq. I thought after the election, the escalation in troops, that some sobriety had settled upon Mr. Bush, but as he is all to aware, the wagon is a hard thing to stay on, and that tonic tastes oh so sweet.

Joke of the Day

Questions

In the last 2 days I asked the same question of 2 prominent voices on the War in Iraq. The first is by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," a book that tells the story of the early days of the occupation in Iraq.

The second is by L Paul Bremer , the very man leading the early days of the occupation, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA.

These questions were asked on the discussion page at the Washington Post website.

Any thoughts?


Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the process? Is that just a tactic to confuse everyone?

Rajiv Chandrasekaran: Both entities are a threat to stability, and what makes finding compromise difficult is that both sides -- al Qaeda, in particular -- are so extremist that it's hard to envision a peaceful compromise. There is another common factor: Both sides are fractured and diverse. There's no single al Qaeda commander in Iraq to which every militant is loyal. Same goes for the militias, although there is far more command-and-control with the Badr organization. If there is to be peace in Iraq, extremists on both sides have to be offered a chance to put down their weapons and receive some sort of emolument -- a job, a payout, etc. Those who opt not to compromise will have to be targeted by the Iraqi government's security forces.

Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because you and most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the political process?

L. Paul Bremer: It is a good question and requires a complicated answer. The threat in Iraq has three dimensions: the Al Qaeda terrorists, as you note; the killers from Saddam's former intelligence and security services; and the mllitia(essentially here the one that matters is Muqtada al Sadr's). The Shia militia became a problem after I left largely because Al Qaeda was able to carry out its threat to kill innocent Shia men women and children. When we could not protect them, the Shia turned to their militia. Now we must deal with all three threats. There are some signs that the surge is having a good effect on reducing some of the sectarian murders, by and of Shia. There will be no place for al Qaeda in the poltitical process--in Iraq or anywhere else--because they explicitly condemn democracy as "unislamic".

The World On Fire

The Simpsons Analysis of the War in Iraq. I found it to be powerful. God Bless the Simpsons.

But watch out, FOX launches counter strike of its own!

Joke of the Day

Mowaffak al-Rubaie on Baghdad Time

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Adviser was just interviewed on the “Newshour” and when asked about the status of the all important Oil Sharing Law, or PetroCarbon Sharing Law that will equitably divide Iraq’s oil revenues between the myriad of sects, Mr. al-Rubaie said it only requires the “dotting of the I’s and crossing of the T’s.”

If this is the case, why has it not been passed from the Iraqi Council of Representatives and signed into law by the Prime Minister? I was under the impression the draft had been approved and that is all that need be done.

The way he is talking it would seem like it is a done deal and could be completed within days, but I think we all know that is not the case. This is the one piece of power that the Shi’ites, in my opinion, will be unwilling to give an equal share of to the Sunnis.

I believe this is the one piece of the puzzle that just might guarantee a successful outcome to all the blood and suffering endured these 4 years in Iraq. This would say to the Sunnis that they have a stake in the future of Iraq, that they are considered equals among the leading Shi’ites.

Alas I am not optimistic given the past on this issue. Mr. al-Rubaie said last year they would have that piece of legislation in place January of 2007. Now we are in May 2007 and that same Council of Representatives had voted to take a two-month vacation this summer before that law is passed.

Mr. al-Rubaie said that they plan on changing the vacation to either five weeks or one week, however he wasn’t too clear on that poin. But just that fact that they had planned on vacationing while the American military bleeds so that they could have time to pass legislation of such importance does not leave me with much confidence the Shi’ites are willing to share this power.

One point Mr. al-Rubaie completely avoided when asked was concerning the RE-Ba’athification, as I call it. This is another piece of legislation that seeks to reintegrate a large part of the Sunni populace that was discarded by the CPA following the invasion.

The original decision by the CPA said that just about anyone that was a member of the Ba’ath, or ruling party, of Saddam Hussein was not welcome in the new Iraq. Unfortunately the CPA did not do their homework since almost anyone who wanted to move up the ladder in the Hussein Iraq had to belong to the party, including low-level Army officers, police and even teachers. Yes they fired thousands of teachers.

One should read "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks to get a full understanding of the ramifications of this decision by Pro-Consul Bremer.

Mr. Ricks quotes the CIA station chief in Baghdad as saying to Pro Consul Bremer upon learning of this impending action that “By nightfall, you’ll have driven 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground. And in six months, you’ll really regret this.”

He obviously was exactly correct and we have paid the price in American and Iraqi blood and treasure ever since.

I don’t have any confidence these important pieces of legislation will be passed given the lack of a sense of urgency by the Iraqi Governing Council and the simple fact that they do not even want to be in session while the U.S. military is buying them the very time they have asked for to get their house in order.

So, the President dispatched his scheduler in Chief, Vice President Cheney to Iraq in hopes of convincing the Iraqi's that time is of the essence.

What time is it Mr. Vice President?

Its "Its game time in Iraq", saith Mr. Cheney.

Joke of the Day

Enjoying a Cold Beer Baghdad Style

This is a really good column by Great Baghdad.

For anyone who enjoys a cold one at the end of a long day check this out.

I tend to get caught up in the macro of the whole situation over there, that I can miss the micro. People just trying to live.



For those who fancy a cold can of BEER in the middle of the heat of Baghdad, the following is a guide to where you can find BEER now in the free, democratic and liberated Baghdad.

For those who live in the northern part of the city, there is always the liquor stores compound which is right behind the concrete Blast Barriers around the Italian Embassy in Wazziryia. For the thirsty people of Central Baghdad you can either get it across the street from the Famous Baghdad Hotel. Right across the street from the other concrete Barriers protecting the residents of Baghdad hotel with its high guard towers that provides protection to those liquor stores ( later you will know from what).

Please click on title for rest of story.

Face of the Fallen

I would like to take a moment to honor a young man who died in Iraq.

I did not know him, but he came from my home state of Illinois.

Please click on title.

Phase IV

I am watching Anthony Zinni on t.v. and he says that the Bush Administration scrapped his plan, several years in the making, for the invasion of Iraq.

"I think they tried to do it on the cheap," the former head of CENTCOM, or the Central Command that is responsible for the MIddle East said in response to what the major problem was in the planning for the invasion of Iraq.

Just threw it right out the window.

Remember that "genius" Paul Wolfowitz saying when asked about an estimate by then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, was "wildly off the mark."

I guess Wolfy knew more than a decorated West Point graduate and head of the U.S. Army?

Wolfowitz was also condescending to those who contradicted his rosy estimate of how much it will cost. This is an oldy, but a goody...

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Zinnis plan called for 380,000 American troops to ensure the occupation provided safety and security for the Iraqis. It was based on many years of research and planning by people that had been operating in the region since the first Gulf War.

But then that would be the kind of plan Bush Sr. would advocate, so we know GW would not have any of that, seeing he gets guidance from a "higher father," someone elses father who apparently was President and invaded Iraq.


SWIFT BOATS AT THE READY!

Betrayed-The Iraqis who trusted America the most.

This is an article from The New Yorker by George Packer, author of "Assassins Gate" a really good book about the War in Iraq.

The article, from March 28 edition of the New Yorker, tells the stories of some brave Iraqis who risked their lives to help the U.S. in Iraq, and the treatment they received from the occupation forces. Its a good read, though sad at times.

PLEASE CLICK ON TITLE for article

“I have this nature—I don’t expect a lot from people,” Firas said. “Not betrayed, no, not disappointed. I can never blame the Americans alone. It’s the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye.” I was about to say that he deserved better, but Firas was lost in thought. “To this moment,” he said, “I dream about America.”