Atrios presents an extremely informative graphic of the daily casualties of coalition forces, civilians and Iraqi security forces between June 2004 and August 2007.
Go look at it and ask yourself - if you were an Iraqi civilian would you want the U.S. to continue the occupation of Iraq, let alone the surge? Note the trends as the surge effectively began in February and continued to build up.
Remember, these are Department of Defense statistics.
Think we are likely to win the hearts and minds of the civilians? They are the ones in Green.
Showing posts with label Surge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Surge. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Bush admin September spin games
Nine months ago the Bush administration installed Gen. Petreaus as the new, improved Commander of the troops in Iraq with a new, improved tactic for 'winning' the Iraqi occupation. Even then it was recognized by every rational commenter that there could not be a military solution to the problems in Iraq. At best the military could help to create conditions that allowed the Iraqi politicians to create a stable and peaceful nation. It was just going to take nine months, and in September Gen. Petreaus was going to announce the successful operations he had conducted in Iraq. That is next month.
The first thing we learn about the report Gen. Petreaus' was to make is that he won't be writing it. It "is actually going to be written by the White House, with "input" from "officials throughout government."
Apparently that doesn't provide enough control for Bush, Cheney and Rice. Now we hear the next modification of the promised "Petreaus Report.. He won't be giving it himself.
Last fall the U.S. looked to military solutions over diplomatic ones. Facing an Iraq with increasing violence and an American military in which the ability to find more troops to send or resend and a lack of equipment to provide them with, the surge was a promise that if we robbed Peter early and refused to pay Paul on time we could send enough troops with better counterinsurgency training and tactics to temporarily dampen the violence in Iraq.
But dampening the violence wasn't going to win the Iraqi Occupation. Even if it worked, it couldn't last. We don't have the troops to keep the increased numbers in country for long.
The 'Surge' was supposed to take the pressure off the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government long enough for them to reach out and convince the Sunnis, Kurds, and other minorities to work with the government to bring Peace to a newly unified Iraq. Key to that effort was to be making the Sunnis and the Kurds feel they had a stake in the new Iraqi government, in part by:
There has been some reduction in the violence in Baghdad in recent months, but this is as likely to be a result of the success by the sectarian militias in ethnic cleansing of the Baghdad neighborhoods as it is of any improved effectiveness by U.S. troops. The outside groups fighting a proxy war in Iraq and the inside groups who think they are losing if Peace breaks out are moving the violence out of Baghdad to where targets are less well protected. The U.S. has 160,000 troops in Iraq as well as God knows how many contractors and mercenaries, and they cannot stop the violence with military power. There is no military solution to the Iraq occupation. There has to be a political solution similar to the one that finally ended the terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The reduction in violence in Baghdad has done nothing to facilitate political solutions by the Iraqi government. Instead the members of the Iraqi Parliament threw up their hands and adjourned for the month of August. Most of the members of Parliament are enjoying their vacation in the relative peace of Amman Jordan.
Another set of problems revolve around groups in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia which are actively working to use proxies in Iraq to fight wars for them. Those groups have an invested interest is preventing a successful Iraqi government from coming into being. Any attempted to find a solution which does not have active support of the governments of those nations will be sabotaged in order to permit those proxy wars to continue. The refusal of the Bush administration to even talk to the governments of Iran and Syria prevents any efforts to stop problems out of those nations. Cheneyesque threats against those countries cause them to oppose American efforts in general. They do nothing to get the required cooperation of those governments in suppressing groups who are working out of Iranian and Syrian territory to fight their proxy wars. So the Bush administration refuses to even try diplomacy.
Since the Bush administration has never demonstrated any capacity for diplomacy, that is not surprising. What is surprising is that they have been so diplomatically inept that they have been unable to get the ostensibly friendly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to clamp down on support provided by individual Saudis to Sunni insurgents and extremist groups like al Qaeda or al Qaeda in Iraq.
Needless to say, the 'Surge' has not succeeded in bringing the violence in Iraq down, and rather than making political progress, the political situation in Iraq is in fact worse than it was at the end of 2006.
Now we are one month short of the much publicized report that Gen. Petreaus was to have given Congress on the progress of the 'Surge' and its related shift to counterinsurgency tactics. As explained above, there is little to indicate that any progress has been made in creating a more stable Iraq. So what will the Bush administration do?
Spin! Spin! Spin!!
The first thing we learn about the report Gen. Petreaus' was to make is that he won't be writing it. It "is actually going to be written by the White House, with "input" from "officials throughout government."
Apparently that doesn't provide enough control for Bush, Cheney and Rice. Now we hear the next modification of the promised "Petreaus Report.. He won't be giving it himself.
"...the White House is pushing to have the general's increasingly nominal report delivered by Condi Rice and Bob Gates, with Petraeus relegated to a "private congressional briefing"Jesus! How bad is the situation in Iraq really? Let's look at what current reports say.
Last fall the U.S. looked to military solutions over diplomatic ones. Facing an Iraq with increasing violence and an American military in which the ability to find more troops to send or resend and a lack of equipment to provide them with, the surge was a promise that if we robbed Peter early and refused to pay Paul on time we could send enough troops with better counterinsurgency training and tactics to temporarily dampen the violence in Iraq.
But dampening the violence wasn't going to win the Iraqi Occupation. Even if it worked, it couldn't last. We don't have the troops to keep the increased numbers in country for long.
The 'Surge' was supposed to take the pressure off the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government long enough for them to reach out and convince the Sunnis, Kurds, and other minorities to work with the government to bring Peace to a newly unified Iraq. Key to that effort was to be making the Sunnis and the Kurds feel they had a stake in the new Iraqi government, in part by:
- setting up an agreement that the profits from the Iraqi oil wells would be shared equally with all Iraqis regardless of Sect;
- creation of an effective Iraqi police corps and military forces; and
- disarming and disbanding the many sectarian militias which, under cover of the very high general level of violence, were carrying out ethnic cleansing of various neighborhoods of Baghdad and other towns.
There has been some reduction in the violence in Baghdad in recent months, but this is as likely to be a result of the success by the sectarian militias in ethnic cleansing of the Baghdad neighborhoods as it is of any improved effectiveness by U.S. troops. The outside groups fighting a proxy war in Iraq and the inside groups who think they are losing if Peace breaks out are moving the violence out of Baghdad to where targets are less well protected. The U.S. has 160,000 troops in Iraq as well as God knows how many contractors and mercenaries, and they cannot stop the violence with military power. There is no military solution to the Iraq occupation. There has to be a political solution similar to the one that finally ended the terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The reduction in violence in Baghdad has done nothing to facilitate political solutions by the Iraqi government. Instead the members of the Iraqi Parliament threw up their hands and adjourned for the month of August. Most of the members of Parliament are enjoying their vacation in the relative peace of Amman Jordan.
Another set of problems revolve around groups in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia which are actively working to use proxies in Iraq to fight wars for them. Those groups have an invested interest is preventing a successful Iraqi government from coming into being. Any attempted to find a solution which does not have active support of the governments of those nations will be sabotaged in order to permit those proxy wars to continue. The refusal of the Bush administration to even talk to the governments of Iran and Syria prevents any efforts to stop problems out of those nations. Cheneyesque threats against those countries cause them to oppose American efforts in general. They do nothing to get the required cooperation of those governments in suppressing groups who are working out of Iranian and Syrian territory to fight their proxy wars. So the Bush administration refuses to even try diplomacy.
Since the Bush administration has never demonstrated any capacity for diplomacy, that is not surprising. What is surprising is that they have been so diplomatically inept that they have been unable to get the ostensibly friendly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to clamp down on support provided by individual Saudis to Sunni insurgents and extremist groups like al Qaeda or al Qaeda in Iraq.
Needless to say, the 'Surge' has not succeeded in bringing the violence in Iraq down, and rather than making political progress, the political situation in Iraq is in fact worse than it was at the end of 2006.
Now we are one month short of the much publicized report that Gen. Petreaus was to have given Congress on the progress of the 'Surge' and its related shift to counterinsurgency tactics. As explained above, there is little to indicate that any progress has been made in creating a more stable Iraq. So what will the Bush administration do?
Spin! Spin! Spin!!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Petreaus will soon announce results of the surge
Gen Petreaus is due to tell us the nine-months result of the Iraqi "surge." We already know that it will be ghost written by the White House. Atrios points out that even as late as last Spring a decision in the middle of August or September seemed like a reasonable timetable.
But that was the timetable on which the Republicans expected to find the pony in the room full of pony excrement. They are still looking, and somehow the pony hasn't checked in for an apple or a sugar cube yet. What we are going to get instead of an announcement of success is going to be a statement that goes something like this:
Something like "Elements of progress - blah blah Blah - just a little more time and effort."
There is one real problem. The war on Iraq was won when our troops reached Baghdad. The Occupation of Iraq is unwinnable.
The presence of our troops in that country is the motivation for at least half the killing and fighting, and nothing those troops do will change that. We destroyed the last effective government Iraq had and we cannot replace it with one that works. Nor can we government that country.
If the Republican definition of losing in Iraq is accepted (we do not lose until we leave and give up) then the question is not whether we lose but when. We will leave Iraq. The only question is when.
In the meantime, remember: "There is light at the end of the tunnel."
In the meantime, the Gulf News of Dubai reports that the Iraqi government is expected to undergo a significant shakeup.
Whatever government structure that results will have to be acceptable to the people of Iraq. The recent elections in Lebanon resulted in the defeat of the expected candidate, primarily because the Bush administration supported him. Currently American support for a Muslim politician is the kiss of death at the polls. The results of any summit called at the request of the Americans will get the same negative result.
That's part of what it means to say that the presence of the Americans motivates much of the fighting in Iraq. We aren't liked in the Middle East, and the Bush/Cheney administration has worked hard to make that even more true than it used to be.
[h/t to Laura Rozen.]
But that was the timetable on which the Republicans expected to find the pony in the room full of pony excrement. They are still looking, and somehow the pony hasn't checked in for an apple or a sugar cube yet. What we are going to get instead of an announcement of success is going to be a statement that goes something like this:
We had hoped for more progress. Things are not as good as we wanted, but there are real signs that success is just around the corner. We are just going to have to give the effort a little more time.In essence they will pull out the old speeches from the Vietnam era and change the statement "There is light at the end of the tunnel!" to something more modern.
Something like "Elements of progress - blah blah Blah - just a little more time and effort."
There is one real problem. The war on Iraq was won when our troops reached Baghdad. The Occupation of Iraq is unwinnable.
The presence of our troops in that country is the motivation for at least half the killing and fighting, and nothing those troops do will change that. We destroyed the last effective government Iraq had and we cannot replace it with one that works. Nor can we government that country.
If the Republican definition of losing in Iraq is accepted (we do not lose until we leave and give up) then the question is not whether we lose but when. We will leave Iraq. The only question is when.
In the meantime, remember: "There is light at the end of the tunnel."
In the meantime, the Gulf News of Dubai reports that the Iraqi government is expected to undergo a significant shakeup.
Whatever government structure that results will have to be acceptable to the people of Iraq. The recent elections in Lebanon resulted in the defeat of the expected candidate, primarily because the Bush administration supported him. Currently American support for a Muslim politician is the kiss of death at the polls. The results of any summit called at the request of the Americans will get the same negative result.
That's part of what it means to say that the presence of the Americans motivates much of the fighting in Iraq. We aren't liked in the Middle East, and the Bush/Cheney administration has worked hard to make that even more true than it used to be.
[h/t to Laura Rozen.]
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Bush to congress: "My way or the Highway."
People in the Washington media keep saying that the Democrats are making a mistake by being too extreme in demanding to set a timetable for getting the troops out of Iraq, but that is what the Democrats were elected to do. Putting into law a specific date to get the troops out of Iraq is a very blunt-force effort, and far from the ideal way of determining how to end the war in Iraq in the manner that is best for both the nation and people of Iraq as well as what is best for America. But to get that ideal solution requires that Bush be willing to work with Congress to get us out of Iraq.
That was what the Baker - Hamilton Report last fall was supposed to accomplish. It set up conditions that would allow Bush a face-saving way to compromise with the incoming Congress and do what the American public (and much of the Iraqi public for which thousands demonstrated yesterday) wants done. The result? Bush threw the report back into Baker and Hamilton's faces (figuratively speaking, of course.) and found a new commander who would escalate a losing war. [No intelligent military person will reinforce a losing position, but that is what the surge amounts to.]
The Washington media, represented today by David Ignatius on the Dianne Rhem Show on NPR and by David Broder states in today's OpEd, thinks that now is the time for a compromise between the Democratic Leaders of Congress and the Bush White House. Broder specifically states "What ought to happen is clear. There ought to be direct talks between them -- with senior administration officials on one side of the table and leaders of the House and Senate on the other."
Well, Bush called Broder's bluff today. He called the Democratic Congressional Leaders to come over to the White House to tell them to support his decisions. Think he plans to compromise any? Here's White House spokesperson Dana Perino today.
What do you think? Is Bush likely to even discuss the situation, let alone compromise with the Democrats? She is throwing down the gauntlet if I ever saw anyone do it, and she is thoroughly enjoying telling the press, the Democrats and the public where to go.
When the surge fails, Bush is going to attempt something else and demand another six to nine months for it to fail. The goal for Bush is no longer to win in Iraq. It is to stay in Iraq until after January 2009 so that the Democrats will have to withdraw. That way the Republicans can play the political game of "Who lost Iraq?"
Addendum April 11, 2007
Greg Sargent points out that the Democrats have several times asked Bush to sit down with them and discuss the funding bill on Iraq, to no avail. Copies of the letters are shown at the sit I have linked to. The replies cannot be linked to, since they don't exist.
But now that Bush wants to lecture the Democrats in public, he wants them to visit him in the White House. It's still a waste of time, because Bush refuses to negotiate.
That was what the Baker - Hamilton Report last fall was supposed to accomplish. It set up conditions that would allow Bush a face-saving way to compromise with the incoming Congress and do what the American public (and much of the Iraqi public for which thousands demonstrated yesterday) wants done. The result? Bush threw the report back into Baker and Hamilton's faces (figuratively speaking, of course.) and found a new commander who would escalate a losing war. [No intelligent military person will reinforce a losing position, but that is what the surge amounts to.]
The Washington media, represented today by David Ignatius on the Dianne Rhem Show on NPR and by David Broder states in today's OpEd, thinks that now is the time for a compromise between the Democratic Leaders of Congress and the Bush White House. Broder specifically states "What ought to happen is clear. There ought to be direct talks between them -- with senior administration officials on one side of the table and leaders of the House and Senate on the other."
Well, Bush called Broder's bluff today. He called the Democratic Congressional Leaders to come over to the White House to tell them to support his decisions. Think he plans to compromise any? Here's White House spokesperson Dana Perino today.
What do you think? Is Bush likely to even discuss the situation, let alone compromise with the Democrats? She is throwing down the gauntlet if I ever saw anyone do it, and she is thoroughly enjoying telling the press, the Democrats and the public where to go.
When the surge fails, Bush is going to attempt something else and demand another six to nine months for it to fail. The goal for Bush is no longer to win in Iraq. It is to stay in Iraq until after January 2009 so that the Democrats will have to withdraw. That way the Republicans can play the political game of "Who lost Iraq?"
Addendum April 11, 2007
Greg Sargent points out that the Democrats have several times asked Bush to sit down with them and discuss the funding bill on Iraq, to no avail. Copies of the letters are shown at the sit I have linked to. The replies cannot be linked to, since they don't exist.
But now that Bush wants to lecture the Democrats in public, he wants them to visit him in the White House. It's still a waste of time, because Bush refuses to negotiate.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
EFP factory found in Diwaniya, Iraq
Remember those Explosively formed Penetrators that can only be manufactured in Iran? Tell that to Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwel. He reported the results of a joint U.S. and Iraqi sweep in the southwestern Iraqi town of Diwaniya.
Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.As I have written earlier, these EFP's are made with a concave brass plate over a short segment of roughly five inch in diameter PVC pipe that is capped on the other end and filled with plastic explosives. The components are easily available. The most difficult part of assembling an EFP is machining the concave brass plate, something which Juan Cole points out can be done by a competent oil field machinist. Such skilled machinists and their tools are available in Iraq because of the oil industry there.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
How successful is the surge so far?
Digby provides an indicator sourced in Newsweek who got it from Azhar al-Samuraie, a member of the Iraqi national assembly's committee for displaced and migration, and a Sunni.
Who do you trust? The Army Generals assigned by Bush to succeed where every prrior Bush effort has failed, or a Sunni member of the Iraqi national assembly's committee for displaced and migration? Of course, if the General reports no news or bad news, he is headed for replacement and retirement.
Go read Digby.
Who do you trust? The Army Generals assigned by Bush to succeed where every prrior Bush effort has failed, or a Sunni member of the Iraqi national assembly's committee for displaced and migration? Of course, if the General reports no news or bad news, he is headed for replacement and retirement.
Go read Digby.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Short history of US COIN ops in Iraq
"COIN" is the US military acronym for CounterInsurgency Operations. It is also the subject of the Field Manual that Gen Petreaus spent the last year or so writing, and now is in charge of implementing in Iraq. The new COIN doctrine is the basis of the current Surge being implemented in Iraq, but the Surge is not a strategy. The Surge is an implementation of the new strategy.
Confused yet? You don't need to be. Professor Colin Kahl of the Political Science Department at the University of Minnesota wrote a short, concise description of COIN operations in Iraq in an e-mail to Juan Cole. Dr. Cole then got permission and published the email in his excellent blog "Informed Comment."
For the clearest guide I have seen yet to what is going on militarily in Iraq and what led to it, go read the post at "Informed Comment".
Confused yet? You don't need to be. Professor Colin Kahl of the Political Science Department at the University of Minnesota wrote a short, concise description of COIN operations in Iraq in an e-mail to Juan Cole. Dr. Cole then got permission and published the email in his excellent blog "Informed Comment."
For the clearest guide I have seen yet to what is going on militarily in Iraq and what led to it, go read the post at "Informed Comment".
Monday, March 12, 2007
We will leave Iraq - what then? Rolling Stone gets answers.
Sooner or later we will leave Iraq. The "Surge" is out last gasp. The right-wing propaganda outlets are pointing out that the sectarian strife seems to be going down in Baghdad some, but the Sunni car bombs aren't. We are getting more of them.
My best guess is that the Mahdi Militia has gone quiet while we are trying to pacify Baghdad, and that explains the relative sectarian quiet. But it's not the kind of "quiet" that suggests the end of the war is coming. It is the kind of "quiet" that means they are waiting us out and will reappear as soon as the U.S. pulls out. Very likely the Iraqi army soldiers who are with us to pacify Baghdad will then move over to the Mahdi Militia and the real sectarian strife will start.
The Mahdi Militia can outwait us. We can't outwait them. We don't have enough at stake to stay permanently. Sooner or later, we WILL leave. Then what?
Rolling Stone gathered a group of experts and they have addressed three scenarios.
Or you might, for fun, match up three of these brief summary descriptions with the three scenarios:
Comments and opinions will be welcomed. Reasons for opinions are preferred, not just quotes from experts.
My best guess is that the Mahdi Militia has gone quiet while we are trying to pacify Baghdad, and that explains the relative sectarian quiet. But it's not the kind of "quiet" that suggests the end of the war is coming. It is the kind of "quiet" that means they are waiting us out and will reappear as soon as the U.S. pulls out. Very likely the Iraqi army soldiers who are with us to pacify Baghdad will then move over to the Mahdi Militia and the real sectarian strife will start.
The Mahdi Militia can outwait us. We can't outwait them. We don't have enough at stake to stay permanently. Sooner or later, we WILL leave. Then what?
Rolling Stone gathered a group of experts and they have addressed three scenarios.
- BEST-CASE SCENARIO
- MOST LIKELY SCENARIO
- WORST-CASE SCENARIO
Or you might, for fun, match up three of these brief summary descriptions with the three scenarios:
- ?. Years of Ethnic Cleansing and war with Iran.
- ?. Without the U.S. military to inflame people, there will be quick partition and a strong man government.
- ?. World War III.
- ?. Civil War in Iraq and a stronger al Qaeda.
- ?. War between Shia and Sunni Middle East nations.
- ?. The Middle Class will return and create a democracy in Iraq.
Comments and opinions will be welcomed. Reasons for opinions are preferred, not just quotes from experts.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The "Surge" is already failing
Three weeks into the "Surge" and the insurgents have adapted and making the efforts to pacify Baghdad and Anbar Province little more than a Chimera. This according to Juan Cole, writing at Salon (Day Pass or subscription required - and worth it.)
Dr. Cole goes on to describe many of the failures (particularly the failure to protect the Pilgrims to holy places now that the Mahdi Army has been removed from that job by the Americans, and the increase in the number of helicopters being lost to insurgent fire with the adjustments and increased risks this causes.)
Dr. Cole describes the mechanism of failure in this paragraph:
Should I say "I told you so?" Yeah, and this is where I said it:
Dr. Cole goes on to describe many of the failures (particularly the failure to protect the Pilgrims to holy places now that the Mahdi Army has been removed from that job by the Americans, and the increase in the number of helicopters being lost to insurgent fire with the adjustments and increased risks this causes.)
Dr. Cole describes the mechanism of failure in this paragraph:
The U.S. strategy assumes that if violence can be dramatically reduced in Baghdad and Anbar, that will give the al-Maliki government breathing room and allow it to assert itself more forcefully. But so far the government hasn't been afforded much relief from the horrific attacks that daily undermine its credibility with the public and provoke destabilizing tribal and religious feuds. That matters, because if Iraqis do not feel that their government can protect them from violence, they will turn again to guerrillas and militiamen. These paramilitary forces, based in the neighborhoods, in turn carry out ethnic cleansing and attacks on police, and further undermine the authority of the central government.Elsewhere American commanders are already saying that the 21,500 additional troops will not be enough, that they need at least a further 4,000 to 6,000 and quickly.
Should I say "I told you so?" Yeah, and this is where I said it:
- Surge in Iraq! One last push!
12/21/2006 - Surge to be small - only 9000 troops available 01/06/2007
- There is no military solution in Iraq - Surgelet* will fail
01/08/2007 - Surge to require troops out of Afghanistan
01/09/2007 - My response to Bush's "surge" speech
01/17/2007 - The US in Iraq is like a bull in a ring being bled by picadores
02/02/2007 - British withdrawal of Iraq troops a blow to Bush's "surge."
02/22/2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
British withdrawal of Iraq troops a blow to Bush's "surge."
Dan Froomkin does a roundup of media reaction to the Bush/Cheney effort to "Spin" the British announcement of the withdrawal of troops from Southern Iraq.
There are numerous links to other journalists, but the short story is "This is a real blow to the effort of the Bush White House to push the Iraq troop surge."
There are numerous links to other journalists, but the short story is "This is a real blow to the effort of the Bush White House to push the Iraq troop surge."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Victory in Iraq is not an option
I missed this last week, and just discovered it thanks to Glenn Greenwald at his New Salon location. Here is the OpEd that Lt. Gen. Odom published in the Washington Post a week ago Sunday.
But bubble boy Bush and crazy crackpot Cheney don't want to believe it. So instead of listening to their generals, they have replaced them with a General who agrees with them and with an Admiral to take command of Centcom.
The latter choice is especially interesting. There are only two reasons for choosing an Admiral for Centcom. Reason 1. is that they couldn't find a Four-Star General in the Army or Marine Corps who agreed with them. Reason 2. is that they plan to start an aviation-based attack on Iran soon. [The two reasons are not mutually exclusive.]
Either way, Bush/Cheney/Gates have signalled all of us that the use of reason is not their strong point. But that they have Faith in our ultimate victory as long as we don't turn and leave Iraq.
From a purely political view, I see nothing better for the Democrats in 2008. But that is frankly not worth the American and Iraqi deaths and wounded in the next 23 months.
Gen. Odom has it right. American Victory in Iraq is not an available option. The efforts to achieve it are nothing more that self-destructive and blind-headed idiocy.
The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.The NIE is the consensus of the best intelligence that all the federal intelligence agencies have, and frankly came a full year after the American public had already reached the same conclusion.
Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.
But bubble boy Bush and crazy crackpot Cheney don't want to believe it. So instead of listening to their generals, they have replaced them with a General who agrees with them and with an Admiral to take command of Centcom.
The latter choice is especially interesting. There are only two reasons for choosing an Admiral for Centcom. Reason 1. is that they couldn't find a Four-Star General in the Army or Marine Corps who agreed with them. Reason 2. is that they plan to start an aviation-based attack on Iran soon. [The two reasons are not mutually exclusive.]
Either way, Bush/Cheney/Gates have signalled all of us that the use of reason is not their strong point. But that they have Faith in our ultimate victory as long as we don't turn and leave Iraq.
From a purely political view, I see nothing better for the Democrats in 2008. But that is frankly not worth the American and Iraqi deaths and wounded in the next 23 months.
Gen. Odom has it right. American Victory in Iraq is not an available option. The efforts to achieve it are nothing more that self-destructive and blind-headed idiocy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)