Joke of the Day

Monopoly Fight

photo by-Ahmad Al-Rubaye/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The ongoing offensive by Iraqi and American forces in the southern port city of Basra and its apparent stalemate appears to be a harbinger for the future in Iraq. Notwithstanding the declarative statements by Prime Minister Maliki that the operation would be decisive in eradicating militia control of the southern part of Iraq, these ragtag groups of fighters have fought to a draw the federal forces, backed by U.S. and British warplanes.

With Basra under the control of 3 different militias backed by their respective armed wings, the Badr Organization of the Supreme Islamic Council, the Mahdi Army of radical cleric al-Sadr as well as the Fadhila Party and its fighters, the federal government of Maliki has been unable to assert a monopoly of force in most of southern Iraq.

Though President Bush hailed the offensive as a "bold decision" by Maliki, and stating it that it is turning point in the war, a war that has entered it fifth year, it appears to be destined to be like all the other major "turning points" and show how deep the rifts are between warring factions and how difficult it will be to either bring them together or defeat them outright. It has been apparent that they militias will be very difficult to defeat, as evidenced by the offer of cash payments if the fighters laid down their arms. This after many statements by Maliki that the offensive would be final and defeat "criminal elements" as Maliki called them, from Iraq forever.

Well, this is not happening, and they have fought the Iraq forces backed by US and UK warplanes to a stalemate. It seems like Iraq is seetling into a Lebanon type situation. That is, where you have a federal government unable to exert a monopoly of force throughout the nation, while large cities or areas of land are controlled by political parties backed by military forces. See Hezbollah and Hamas for examples.

In addition to these being politicians and fighters, they are also community leaders, operating schools, hospitals, even gas stations run by the Mahdi Army. SO what oyu end up having are state within states, battling for control of streets and alleys.

It just seems like nothing never gets better, it only gets slightly better or much worse.

Jokes of the Day

Numbers Game

I edited the post "4000" and sent it as a letter to the editor at the Chicago Tribune. They posted it on their "online exclusive" section of the website. Click on title to see letter at the Tribune website.

Power of Art Redux

The following video clip from the "Power of Art" series by Simon Schaama is an excellent example of the repeated marriage of Art and War. As is usual, Art gets the better of War. What a perverse statement.

I first posted this video last year, and felt today was a good day to show it again.

4000

Just learned that the death toll for U.S. Service Personnel in Iraq has reached the 4000 mark. Not sure what to say on this. Need to think for a few minutes.

Though to put it in some context for how bad it is for Iraqi's, that 4000 number was about how many Iraqi's were being killed a month at the height of the violence last year.

Guess I need to think about numbers. What do they mean? Do they mean anything more than a guide post? And we have to find our own way after that? I dont know anymore. If we pull out the violence gets worse, in my opinion, and if we stay it only seems like we keep the lid on, while thousands will still die, in my opinion.

I dont know. Honestly...


cartoon by Jeff Danziger

Molly Cake Takes The Fashion World by Storm!

I know this is not my regular beat, but my good friend Molly has a new blog that is quite fashionable, if I may say so! Check it out, and as always, tip your bartenders!

Click on Molly to be taken on a wonderful journey!

March Madness

Anyone Watching?

Bob Schieffer has a fine commentary on the lack of attention paid to the War in Iraq by the U.S. public. Check it out.

Jokes of the Day

Failure of the Surge

General David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq recently stated that despite the gains made on the security front by the U.S. and Iraqi military, the government of Iraq has failed to make what he calls "sufficient progress" on the national reconciliation front, meaning the surge strategy has fundamentally failed.

After all, that was the stated goal of the surge. President Bush, when he announced the surge in January 2007, stated that the escalation of troop levels in Iraq was for the purpose of creating breathing space for the warring factions to come together. That has not happened, so says the top U.S. general in Iraq. And with the majority of the surge troops having left or preparing to leave Iraq, while the levels of violence have been steady or increasing since Nov. 2007, so says a GAO study there is little hope the sides will be coming together any time soon.

Beside the failure of the parties to come together, the government has continued to fail its people on the most basic of civic services:electricity, clean drinking water and refuse collection. Without adequately providing these services, I am not convinced this is even a functioning government. And the parliament more often than not fails to have a quorum, so none of the legislative process can move forward.

Furthermore, we have the President out on a speech junket touting the great gains, as he sees them, being made in Iraq. Its a shame this man is a simpleton. He thinks so literally. For example, he thinks all you need to have are elections and a piece of paper entitled "constitution," and voila, you have yourself a full fledged, sovereign democracy. Never mind when asked what sovereignty means to the Iraqis, he answered it means they are "sovereign." Well done.

Now, he sees statistics that show a drop in the monumentally chaotic situation in Iraq, and he see "success." He sees 60% drop in overall violence since the surge started, while I would make the case violence is up overall 40% since the invasion and occupation of the fertile crescent.

Dont believe the hype. The surge fundamentally failed. There has been no national reconciliation.

President Bush gave the first of a series of speeches on Monday with the goal of gaining support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while trumpetting the reduction in violence in Iraq, ahead of top Iraq general Petraeus' progress report before Congress.

In his testimony, Gen. Petra is expected to address possible troop reductions, though he has hinted at a freeze once the "surge" contingent has been withdrawn.

With violence against Iraqis and deaths among U.S. service personel at levels not seen since 2005, Gen. Petraeus has stated he is reluctant to go below the 130,000 troop level, for fear of losing ground won during the surge.

Admittedly, violence is down in Iraq, it still remains one of, if not the most dangerous places on Earth, and it is of our making.

So now we have the President coming out saying the war is pretty much won, we just have to stick it out a few more months, and "victory" whatever that means now, can be achieved.

At this point I am not opposed to the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, as I was before. What we have here is one of the worst humanitarian disasters in modern times, and it is of our making, the making of the U.S.

I wish the President would just come out and say we need to stay there in order to fix something we have broken. Not for all this stuff about freedom and democracy and evil doers. At long last, havent we had enough of that nonsense?

So I say, how can we abandon a humanitarian disaster of our own making? How in good conscience can we do that? Iraq will not be able to do anything, on their own, or with us, for many years. And without the U.S. it will start to burn and I am afraid it will not be extinguished until it has consumed the cradle of civilization.

Jokes of the Day

Jokes of the Day

Dont Believe the Hype

The surge has been a total success, and we are winning the war in Iraq. Do not believe these statements from the Bush Administration.

We are constantly hearing that violence is down, which is true, yet that is pretty much where the converstation stops. Sure violence is down in Iraq. The problems are with the next sentences, the "ya buts" sentences. The one that go like this

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but the levels are at 2005 levels, which were so high that most thought there was a low grade civil war burning."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but still 30-60 Americans are being killed each month."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but Baghdadis still receive only 12 hours a day of electricity."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but 2/3 of children in Iraq have access to clean drinking water."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but Bagdad is a segregated city, based on the Sunni-Shia bloodletting. There are no heterogeneous neighborhoods in Baghdad, and the fault lines are still deadly to cross."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but the U.S. had been paying the Sunni's to lay down there arms, what happens when the U.S. money dries up and the Shiite Iraq central government opposes these "Local Concerned Citizens."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but there will be more troops in Iraq post surge than pre surge."

"Violence is down in Iraq, ya, but its not on the front pages anymore...."

Outsourced War?

Hopes for success in Iraq rely more on private security contractors, or mercenaries, than the U.S. military, based on the failed recent attempt to oust Blackwater USA by the Iraqi government following a recent incident that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead at the hands of Blackwatwer guards.

Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki has stated the killings were in fact illegal and saying this type if incident challenges the sovereignty of Iraq.

These comments not withstanding, the expulsion of Blackwater seems a bit of a stretch, especially when they are the people responsible for guarding all the top level diplomats In Iraq, including Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

“If Blackwater left at this moment, it might leave a security gap because most of the embassies and most of the foreign organizations that are working in Iraq” are guarded by Blackwater, Tahseen al-Sheikhly, a spokesman for the Iraqi security forces, said.

Sheikhly went on to say that if the security firm was expelled, American forces would have to redeploy from other hostile areas to fill the void, leaving a vaccuum sure to be filled by insurgents and terrorists.

So lets get this straight. The U.S. does not have sufficient forces to protect both its highest value people while conducting combat operations with the hope of bringing safety and security to this war ravaged country? And at a time when the President wants to draw down 30,000 troops seems ludicrous to me.

The level of incompetence shown by the Bush Administration in waging this war verges on the criminal, in my opinion.

The President has stated, ad nausea, that the safety and security of every American hinges on the outcome in Iraq. Yet his decisions have gotten the U.S. to a point where they rely more on mercenaries who live outside the law, than the brave Americans who take an oath in the defense of liberty.

Does any of this make sense? Is anyone paying attention?

Joke of the Day

Joke of the Day

Fools Paradise

The President of the United States, in what the White House has dubbed a "major speech" on Iraq, has once again put the blame on the American people if his vision of Iraq is not met.

In his speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Bush compared the War in Iraq to past wars the U.S. has been involved in while wondering if this current generation would have the “will” to see this conflict through to victory.

This is hubris beyond compare. Here we have the one person solely responsible for the invasion and all the catastrophic errors that followed blaming the one group that has been asked to contribute nothing to the war efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh don’t get me wrong, there has been a great investment of blood and treasure, but that has been born by the U.S. military, not the greater U.S. population as a whole. There have been roughly one million U.S. personnel in and out of Iraq, out of a population of 200 million, which is less than 1 percent of the U.S. That’s astounding. Though in all fairness, the President has noticed the toll it has taken on our television viewing, noting that we make sacrifices by having to see unsettling images on our television screens. That is when the news is actually covering the war.

So the President thinks it will be our fault, not his fault, not his leadership, not the militaries fault. No, apparently it will be the American people, who have been asked to bear no burdens, make no sacrifices, and indeed contribute almost nothing to the war effort that will have lost the war in Iraq.

I am personally insulted by his comments, not only for blaming me for losing a war I have nothing to do with, but also because before whenever people criticized the way he was waging a war he never should have started, he would send out the patriotism police to shout down any dissent. And now, after all his terrible decisions that have cost the lives of 3700 Americans and untold tens of thousands of Iraqis, he blames you and me for the failures of his Iraq policy.

Does Mr. Bush take the American people to be fools?

He stumbles this great nation, a nation people actually looked to for moral guidance, into a war half a world away on dubious claims of WMD, then proceeds to inadequately provide enough troops, to deny there is an insurgency, to fail to properly armor the men and machines of war leading to added needless loss of life, while creating the political situation which is on the verge of collapse, he blames you and me for the potential failure in Iraq.

Throughout the speech this quote from the great Hunkpapa Sioux Chief Sitting Bull resounded in my head:

"They tell you I murdered Custer. It is a lie! I am not a War Chief. I was not in the battle that day. His eyes were blinded, so he could not see. He was a fool and rode to his death. He made the fight, not I."

I think the President is a fool.

The Bush Administration is again touting successes and progress in Iraq, and they are selling this over used expression by pointing to the western section of the country, Anbar Province.

There can be no doubt that there has been a turn around in places like the provincial capital of Ramadi, as well as the restive Fallujah. But these gains, if you can call them that, have been made at he expense of the central government in Baghdad. This is because the United States in paying off the tribal sheiks in Anbar with cash and weapons, and ultimately power.

The plan is the U.S. pays off these Sunni tribal leaders, who up to months ago were killing Americans, so they will turn their weapons on al-Qaida.

The problem with this plan is that the Iraqi central government of Nouri Kamal al-Maliki is opposed to the arming of Sunni militias. Now the U.S. claims these Sunni militia members will have to take an oath not to harm Americans, as well as claiming these men will eventually be mustered into the Iraqi Security Forces. Indeed, many of these militia members have already enrolled in the Iraq Police Force, though it is clear their loyalties are to the tribe or sect first, and Iraq second. After all, this is all about power.

What is so frustrating is that this plan flies in the face of attempting to help create a unified Iraq. If that is the plan, it seems the U.S. is setting up the conditions for the real war for power in Iraq. Arming a group, indeed giving legitimacy by entering them in the rolls of the security forces, that has been killing Americans for the past 4 years in hopes of defeating another group that has been killing Americans for the past 4 years, seems like a recipe for disaster.

The point is the U.S. is not winning the hearts and minds of these Sunni insurgent groups with visions of democracy and freedom, but with cold cash and even free guns. What could be more American than that?