Iraq
Progress Report: A Time
To Assess And Reflect
By Stephen Lendman
20 August, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
Bush administration is required to submit three progress reports on
Iraq to Congress in September after it returns from its August recess.
The US Comptroller General will issue one around September 1 on how
well so-called congressional benchmarks have been met. Near the end
of the month, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
conservative think tank will report on "The readiness of the Iraqi
Security Forces (ISF) to assume responsibility for maintaining the territorial
integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, bringing
greater security to Iraq's 18 provinces in the next 12 to 18 months,
and bringing an end to sectarian violence to achieve national reconciliation."
Then, on or about September
15, General David Petraeus, US "Multi-National Force" - Iraq
(MNF-I) commander will submit his assessment of progress before multi-billions
more funding are released for a war the Pentagon and most others in
Washington know is unwinnable and lost. No matter, his report (and the
others) will state progress has been made and the "surge"
is working even though details will be sketchy in what's expected to
be a vaguely worded deceptive snapshot of contrived positive trends.
It'll fool no one, but Congress will be asked to accept it (and the
others) on faith that more time, money, sustained troop levels and patience
are needed.
That's assured from friendly
Democrats and Republicans alike. They continue turning a blind eye to
the daily nationwide out-of-control carnage like the August 14 Kurdish
area truck bombings local Nineveh province officials report killed at
least 500 (far above initial reports), seriously wounded hundreds more,
and destroyed over 30 homes in the northwest Yazidi communities.
No matter, and who in Washington
is watching and counting. The generalissimo's wishes are all that matter,
and he'll have a list of them prepared for him by his bosses and handlers
in "the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the
government,"according to an August 15 report in the Los Angeles
Times. All Petraeus has to do is transcribe them to his letterhead,
sign them, and return them to Washington in the enclosed stamp-addressed
envelope.
The generalissimo knows what's
expected of him which is why he was picked for the top Iraq job. He's
also an image-maker's creation portrayed by the White House and dominant
media as aggressive in nature, an innovative thinker on counterinsurgency
warfare, a talisman, a white knight, a do-or-die competitive legend,
and a man able to turn defeat into victory. Those of us old enough don't
remember adulation that strong for Eisenhower or MacArthur. Nor did
we read about it for John Pershing in the earlier war or for George
Washington either, for that matter. As for heaping it on Petraeus, borrowing
a quote from a past article - "Phew."
The generalissimo has now
been in Iraq six months, and despite claims of progress, conditions
are worse than ever and heading south under his stewardship. Still,
the commander's hope springs eternal and won't likely wane (at least
publicly) lest he risk another 4-star aspirant stepping in to replace
him. With upper lip stiffened and reciting his prepared lines, he tells
a New York Times reporter "we're going to try (to) win (this war,
but)....it's likely to muddle along for quite a long time."
The boy emperor "commander-in-chief"
back home has his ideas, too. He plans to continue the "surge"
well into next year, all the while claiming "our new strategy is
delivering good results, and our commanders recently reported more good
news." Army Chief of Staff George Casey (who got bumped in February
for Petraeus) was part of the amen chorus August 14 after a weekend
visit to Iraq. "Our guys are seeing progress on the security front,"
he claimed. "From the time I was there, there was progress....every
day....and there continues to be progress....We will succeed....if we
demonstrate patience and will." More hype still came from an August
10 White House document citing positive reports from "several unexpected
(unidentified) sources" and a recent uptick in polling numbers
any able pollster can produce.
It's all part of a careful
Washington-scripted scheme to band-aid-over an unfixable gaping wound.
It includes dispatching hordes of congressmen, senators, friendly journalists
and assorted think tank types to a series of staged events and meetings
in Iraq, far removed from what's, in fact, happening on the ground.
Their mission is to get it all down and tell it to the home folks on
return, and that's what's happening.
Some of it comes from two
on-off-and on again war-supporting flacks, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth
Pollack. It was in their New York Times July 30 op ed piece titled "A
War We Just Might Win." Neither one is credible, and that status
earned them prominent space in "the newspaper of record" to
pile on more hype for a failed and illegal enterprise.
Both men supported (illegally)
attacking Iraq in the run-up to war when a quick victory looked easy.
When it failed, they became harsh critics of administration bumbling
until now. After being whisked to Iraq as part of the thinly veiled
PR scheme, they returned after eight days of dog and pony show theater
claiming the following: "the political debate in Washington is
surreal (with its) critics unaware of....significant changes taking
place (in Iraq.) We are finally (making progress), at least in military
terms....In previous trips....American troops were angry and frustrated....Today,
morale is high....they see real results." This over-the-top assessment
stopped just short of claiming the troops are so elated they can't wait
to come back for another tour when their current one ends.
After four and a half years
of failure in a war longer in duration than WW I or II, and likely to
exceed the latter one in inflation-adjusted cost before it ends, it's
hard believing Congress would swallow any assessment ignoring reality.
But you can bet it will on both sides of the aisle even though the generalissimo
says success depends on a long-term US presence likely to be at least
"9 or 10 years." In plain English, that means permanent occupation
and turning a blind eye to defeat until the pain gets so great we give
it up and leave.
That's not imminent as the
administration-friendly horde descended on Iraq for an advance taste
of what's coming next month straight from the generalissimo's mouth.
They heard progress is slow but being made in places like Al Anbar province
where Sunni tribal leaders have been armed and enlisted to help in an
act of desperation likely to backfire. These same men are former and
almost certain future resistance fighters. They turned against fellow
Iraqis (called Al Queda as standard hot button Pavlovian scare talk)
because their views and actions got too extreme. That will change when
American duplicity again is seen as the main threat. At that point,
these same tribal leaders will rejoin the fight to liberate their country
from a hostile occupier they and other Iraqi fighters won't tolerate.
The present detente will
prove short-lived when they become as disillusioned as the main Sunni
Accordance Front 44 seat bloc that left the Shia-dominated power-sharing
government August 1 because their demands were ignored. A week later,
five more ministers joined them by announcing a boycott of cabinet meetings.
There's now no Sunni representation in the al-Makiki government causing
fissures in it big enough to drive an M1A1 tank through, and all the
Pentagon and Bush administration can do is blame it on Iranian meddling
and al-Maliki's inability to contain it. It makes as much sense as a
1960s pop song blaming a magic spell of love on the bossa nova, but
that Latin beat hasn't been cited yet for any of Iraq's problems.
In a sign of desperation,
al-Maliki assembled top Iraqi political leaders August 13 to prepare
for an August 14 summit of sorts to end the current crisis and restore
unity. "Everything (he said would) be on the table," to resolve
the impasse that may be unresolvable. Major contentious issues remain,
and one of the biggest is Big Oil's drafted grand theft oil law unacceptable
to most Iraqis and still to be legislatively settled one way or another.
Nothing permanent will be settled, however, until a real Iraqi government
is in place after the occupation ends, and the puppet one is gone. How
pathetic it is showed when the "crisis summit" met. Like previous
efforts, it produced nothing, and the largest Sunni bloc leader, Adnan
Dulaimi, said there were no negotiations, nothing political was discussed,
but it was a nice lunch.
It's more evidence claims
of progress are pure fantasy, and despite the hype, the so-called "surge"
is a bust. All that's "surging" is the number of:
-- daily attacks played down
in the major media;
-- deaths that a Just Foreign
Policy report calculates at over 1 million since March, 2003 based on
updating an earlier Lancet study estimating 655,000 or more deaths through
July, 2006;
-- uncontrollable violence
throughout the country;
-- refugees fleeing for safety;
the International Rescue Committee and UNHCR estimate the number at
around four million including the internally displaced with a further
40,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes each month; and
-- a near-total breakdown
of essential services like electricity, drinking water, sanitation,
medical care, education, security and even food compounded by mass unemployment
and extreme poverty; the result is a crisis level humanitarian disaster
of epic proportions that continues to worsen.
A July 30, 2007 Oxfam International
and NCCI network of aid organizations report had grim findings. It estimates:
-- eight million Iraqis need
emergency aid - one-third of the population;
-- four million can't buy
enough to eat;
-- 70% of Iraqis have no
adequate water supply;
-- 80% lack adequate sanitation;
-- 28% of children are malnourished;
-- the rate of underweight
baby births has tripled;
-- 92% of Iraqi children
suffer learning problems due to fear; and
-- there's been a mass exodus
of around 80% of doctors, nurses, teaching staff at schools and hospitals
and other vitally needed professionals.
This writer observed back
in February and earlier that conditions would continue to deteriorate,
and the greater number of US forces there are on the ground, the worse
things will get. That's the current situation, but it's not being reported.
Nor do we hear about Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael G. Mullen's
end of July assessment that "no amount of troops in no amount of
time will make much of a difference," agreeing with other military
analysts with similar views going back decades.
Instead, spin begets super-spin
in an effort to keep defeat from becoming Armageddon or at least dampen
or conceal it until a new President takes office and then it's his or
her problem to sort out and explain. So far, it doesn't look promising
according to accurate reports, some of which are Department of Defense
(DOD) ones hushed up.
DOD notes the average number
of daily attacks peaked in June at a level higher than any month since
May, 2003, right after the invasion. Other independent reports note
Baghdad is an out-of-control battle zone looking hopeless, conditions
are nearly as bad in other parts of the country, and dead bodies are
everywhere in numbers too great to keep accurate count. Morgues can't
handle the volume and don't even try. To conceal the true toll, journalists
aren't allowed at bombing site scenes and are kept out of hospitals
and wherever else they can document carnage. The Bush administration
calls it progress, and the hyperventilating media play along with people
denied the truth unless they rely on unembedded independent journalists
as growing numbers are doing.
Few parts of the country
have escaped turmoil that's even in the Kurdish North as the August
14 bombings there proved. It's also hitting the British-occupied South
around Basra that was never spared violence but once got much less than
in American-controlled areas. Now it's pretty intense forcing the Brown
government to consider heeding the recommendation of its senior military
commanders that "nothing more can be accomplished" in Iraq
and the remaining 5500 British troops should be withdrawn "without
further delay," according to an August 19 report in the London
Independent.
An earlier August 7 Washington
Post report said "Shiite militias there have escalated a violent
battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil
revenues" or maybe for other reasons the Post ignored. The report
continued stating "Three major Shiite political groups are locked
in a bloody conflict that has left (Basra) in the hands of militias
and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood
streets." Their main goal, in fact, may be no different than other
resistance groups - to drive out a repressive occupier (the British
in the South in their case) and reclaim their sovereignty. Afterwards
they can sort out how to run their country.
Things are little different
in Afghanistan according to an August 19 London Guardian report revealing
a shocking human toll on British forces (likely affecting Americans,
too) that may signal a future withdrawal there as well as from Iraq.
It cites military figures showing nearly "half of frontline troops
have required significant medical treatment during this summer's fighting....in
southern Helmand province (that) offered some of the most intense fighting
(British troops had been engaged in) for 50 years." One soldier
on the ground said "You could be in the army for decades and you
will never get anything like that again." It's so intense, many
British soldiers intend to leave the military when their duty tours
end - if they survive them.
Back Home It's Politics
As Usual
Bush-supportive Republican
and Democrat hopefuls have their own issues to deal with and getting
reelected (or elected President) tops them. They're stuck with the Iraq
quagmire they backed from the start, know America is in Iraq to stay,
but have to appeal to their base with soothing rhetoric even knowing
expecting victory is pure fantasy. Billions spent on huge super-bases,
an extensive base infrastructure and the largest US embassy in the world
dispel talk of withdrawal with proof on the ground. So while pledging
to end the war and bring home the troops, all major Democrat and Republican
candidates say it will take years to accomplish and America must stay
engaged for the duration. They mean forever.
The reasons given are pathetic
and the usual kind of campaigning blather by aspirants trying to have
it both ways - withdraw, but leave enough there to prevent:
-- Iraqi genocide,
-- civil war,
-- violence from spilling
into other countries,
-- out-of-control lawlessness
and the country becoming a breeding ground and staging area for broad-based
"terrorist" attacks anywhere - that, in fact, the occupation
incites,
-- instability only our presence
can contain (that, in fact, causes). We also must:
-- protect American personnel
(who shouldn't be there) and Iraqis (we're "killing" with
our "kindness"),
-- train Iraqis (who can
run their own country quite nicely without us),
-- contend with all other
possibilities, and more.
Rhetoric goes even further
with Hillary Clinton citing the need to fight "terrorism"
and stabilize the Kurdish North, never mentioning the serious threat
Turkey may invade in force and ignite a whole new war with untold consequences
if it happens.
The logistical problem of
troop withdrawal then comes up. Candidates claim it'll take a year or
more to accomplish when, if fact, the only issue is the will to do it.
Iraqis will be delighted to help. Candidates like flexible options,
however, so it's easy saying future policy depends on conditions at
the time that now look "uncertain" at best.
Hillary Clinton is a metaphor
for the times by her pious comment that if George Bush doesn't end this
war, she will if elected. She won't say when, and in a turnaround states
her real view that America has "remaining vital national security
issues in Iraq" (spelled O-I-L) requiring our permanent presence
in the country. So for her and other hopefuls, withdrawal is nice-sounding
rhetoric, but when it gets down to policy, America is in Iraq to stay,
so get over it.
Her leading opponent, Barak
Obama feels no different with high-minded speechifying that "It
is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe"
(never mentioning the toll on Iraqis). He then admits away from supportive
crowds he supports a permanent military presence in the country for
the usual phony reasons hiding the real ones.
Dick Cheney's hidden ones
just surfaced in a 1994 video explaining why he advocated leaving Iraq
after the Gulf war. When asked then if US or UN forces should have occupied
Baghdad, he answered "no" because it would become "a
quagmire if you go that far and try to take over (the country)."
He then highlighted the issue of casualties stating "how many additional
dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and
I think we got it right." Indeed he did, yet he ended up doing
in 2003 what he thought foolhardy nine years earlier. So much for leadership,
let alone honor and respect for the rule of law and rights of people
everywhere to be sovereign and free.
Honor, public service and
respect for sovereign freedom aren't parts of the New York Times agenda
either, nor was it ever going back decades. A recent example was its
August 13 editorial titled "Wrong Way Out of Iraq" in which
it argues for a permanent US military presence in the country and against
a significant troop drawdown. The Times position is pathetic but typical
of its kind of reporting and editorial positions. It pledges allegiance
to the US empire and the corporate giants for which it stands....with
liberty and justice for them alone. Wars of aggression, scorn for the
law, massive human suffering and deprivation are just business as usual
for "the newspaper of record," indifferent to it all.
The editorial bluntly stated
"The United States cannot walk away from the new international
terrorist front it created in Iraq" while never admitting our presence
causes violence that won't end while the occupation continues. It then
added "there should be no illusions about trying to continue the
war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force
to do in a short time what a much larger" one couldn't do over
a longer period.
From the start, the Times
was in the lead (with Judith Miller its chief front page voice) supporting
the Bush war agenda to establish imperial control over the part of the
world with two-thirds of all proved oil reserves. Look for more "stay
the course" editorials and front page features in the run-up to
Petraeus' mid-September "progress" report calling for continued
patience, no troop drawdown, and lots more funding indefinitely. Democrats
and Republicans alike are supportive with the Times out in front as
lead cheerleader.
Unmentioned is that the war
is unwinnable and Dick Cheney's 1994 prediction proved accurate. Those
factors likely played into Karl Rove's August 13 resignation, but he
didn't let on why beyond the usual stuff they all say about wanting
more time with his family. Nonsense, but shed no tears for a man who
may have outsmarted himself, yet isn't going away. Rove may move out
of the spotlight, but he's not out of the game. He's sure to continue
as a master-manipulator elsewhere, for another right wing scheme, or
perhaps for the entire Republican party behind the scenes in some reengineering
or new strategizing capacity if anyone wants him. Later on they'll be
lucrative book deal and lecture circuit fees sweet enough to keep any
fallen politico living happily ever after.
In the end, however, the
record will show Bush's Svengali failed to pull off his greatest scheme
- solidifying the Republican base, building a generation-long super-party
majority in Congress, and assuring a Republican gets elected President
in 2008. His bungled post-9/11 strategy also resulted in the 2006 mid-term
election defeat with things looking even bleaker as 2008 approaches.
Rove may also be leaving
for another reason that at this point is pure conjecture. It may involve
avoiding further congressional scrutiny. It's not off the table, but
soon may be as part of a White House deal with Democrats softening in
return for something its leaders want. That's how business is done in
Washington where the criminal class is bipartisan and one favor begets
another. Expect anything ahead in the dirtiest game around for the highest
stakes with the public left out, in the dark, and nowhere in sight.
Looking Ahead in
Iraq
In his August 10 AntiWar.com
article titled "Mechanistic Destruction: American Foreign Policy
at Point Zero," distinguished historian Gabriel Kolko notes the
US rarely ever "lost any conventional military battle since at
least 1950. Nor has it....ever won a war." In all its wars since
Korea, it failed to win a single victory. It's good at overthrowing
governments, but the political fallout often ends up "far, far
more tenuous. In a word, in international affairs it bumbles very badly"
making an "unstable world far more precarious" than if it
left well enough alone. "All this is very well known," Kolko
states. "The real issue is why the US makes the identical mistakes
over and over again and never learns from its errors."
We're now "losing two
wars and creating a vast arc of profound strategic and political instability
from the Mediterranean Sea to South Asia." In addition, we reignited
the arms race in Europe, turned a friendly Russia into a foe, and are
heading the country toward possible bankruptcy through reckless fiscal
policy. In sum, "this administration has been at least as bad as
any (in the nation's history and perhaps it's) "the worst"
ever.
By its record (with plenty
of Capitol Hill help), it's fair to compare Washington to an asylum
with members of both parties the inmates. An outside observer would
have to conclude the inmates were in charge, and it shows by what's
happening. It also brings to mind the Wile E. Coyote cartoon character
as a way to explain it. Bush's political agenda has been disastrous,
yet both parties continue supporting the same mistakes expecting a different
outcome.
Impossible, according to
Kolko, saying the nation is "at point zero in the application of
American power in the world." We can't win two "extremely
expensive adventures nor will (we) abstain from policies" hurting
other nations and our own. Myopia, self-interest and a lot of arrogance
have led us to this "impasse," and Kolko isn't optimistic.
He's also a noted expert on the Vietnam war having written the seminal
work on its history he says was "purchased by many base libraries,
(and) military journals (treat) it in detail and very respectfully."
With that in mind, it's fitting
to draw parallels to that earlier time. They're striking even though
marked differences exist as well. By the late 1960s, victory in Southeast
Asia was considered unattainable and a new strategy was needed, even
though it developed slowly. It was called Vietnamization combined with
duplicitous and delaying diplomacy orchestrated by Nixon's Svengali,
Henry Kissinger. He also ended discredited with Karl Rove his Bush administration
equivalent for domestic policy in the role of former Deputy Chief of
Staff to the President as of August 31.
The Pentagon has a current
version of the Vietnam era plan. It's been arming and training Iraqi
Security Forces (ISF) as our enforcer hoping US troops eventually can
stay hunkered down in super-bases as backup. In the early to mid-1970s,
Vietnamization failed because, as Kolko explained, victory isn't just
about tactics, weapons and winning battles. Economic, social, political
and morale factors come into play. The same holds true today in Iraq.
In Vietnam, the revolution
was a powerful defense against a foreign invader. An emboldened North
used it, was more committed, and had majority popular support on its
side. They had enough of the Japanese earlier followed by the French
and Americans making any alternative an improvement as long as it meant
peace with their own leaders in charge.
Those leaders didn't resist
the Japanese and then fight a 30 year war to give it up in the end a
foreign occupier and its imperial ambitions. At least that's how it
was then. Vietnam kept its territory but, in the end, surrendered its
economic sovereignty to the lord and master of the universe it could
outlast on the battlefield but not in the marketplace.
Iraq one day may be no different
turning a future resistance victory into eventual economic defeat somewhere
down the road. The country has enormous untapped oil reserves thought
by some analysts to be potentially greater than Saudi Arabia's they
believe are overstated. Iraq's remained undeveloped because of almost
continuous war preventing any since September, 1980, or for nearly 27
years.
Even so, it has around 10%
of proved world reserves that will be far greater when all potential
deposits come online. Whoever controls them will have an economic bonanza
worth many trillions of dollars. It may entice a future Iraqi government
to partner with the US-led West, and by so doing let America win in
the marketplace what it can't achieve in battle. In the end, Iraq may
surrender as Vietnam did and lose everything now being fought for. How
this plays out will only be known in the fullness of time. Millions
of Iraqis hope equity and justice will triumph over greed and are betting
their lives on it. May their struggle not be in vain.
Stephen Lendman lives
in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site
at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information
Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time and now
archived for easy listening.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.