August 13, 2008
The Surge*
The GOP and their base: "The surge worked you dumb liberals!"
They make it sound as if this was the plan all along.
Only in the twisted minds
The 1962 Mets won two games in a row five times and three games in a row twice. But that doesn't undo the fact that they're still one of the worst teams in baseball history.
I can only imagine what Republicans would saying if this was Bill Clinton's war and his surge (oh wait, I already did!).
Again, what Bush and his brainwashed base conveniently overlook is that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mehdi Army, called a truce last year to basically consolidate power, political and otherwise. Also, a deal was made with the Sunni militias who were killing our guys (I thought we're not supposed to negotiate with our enemies?). We not only paid them to go after al-Qaeda in Iraq, but gave them weapons to do so (weapons that could one day be turned onto our guys).
Ironically, if anyone deserves credit for the deal with the Sunnis, it's the Democrats. From Joe Conason:
In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks...(And) "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could."
Also, with most of the insurgents killed or captured (after five years, you'd think so!), tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and two million fleeing the country, Sunnis wiped out of Shiite areas, Shiites wiped out of Sunni areas and militia groups carving out their own conclaves and "fiefdoms," there's fewer people left to kill. So the insurgent's work (ethnic cleansing) is just about done. Now they're digging in and concentrating on accumulating political power.
So there's other reasons why violence has dropped. And the maze of 20 foot walls erected in Baghdad also has had something to do with it.
But despite all that, and despite the surge, bodies still turn up every day. There's sickness and sewage on the streets, little water, less electricity, rampant corruption within the Iraqi (cough, cough) government and the only political reconciliation is with Iran. And when al-Sadr temporarily ended his truce in March and the Iraqis had the opportunity to show some desire and actually "stand up" so we can "stand down," they quit (why is alright for Iraqis to "cut and run" - literally in the middle of a fire fight - and Ronald Reagan to "cut and run" from Lebanon in 1984, but Republicans can ridicule Democrats for wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq even though they didn't?).
Therefore, since "virtually none of Bush's own benchmarks" had been met as of last January (but Bush spinning it, again), the surge for all practical purposes had not been a great success. However, a more recent White House assessment, graded on a very generous curve, says otherwise (of course it does).
Bottom line..if the surge really did work, if most of benchmarks really have been met and we really are winning, why haven't our troops been coming home in droves? Why hasn't there at least been a timetable to bring them home? Why has it taken this long to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis that would have our troops out by 2010 (which we've heard many times before from this pathetic administration)?
Ironically, the surge recently ended. But we have more troops in Iraq now then there was before the surge began. That makes sense only in the upside down Bush-Republican bizarro world.
(The White House is considering withdrawing additional troops in September. But that's because they have no choice - they're needed in Afghanistan, another of Bush's countless disasters.)
To be fair, in January, 2007 when the violence in Iraq couldn't have been spun or ignored any longer, maybe if Bush said something like this:
"...Regardless of how you feel about the circumstances under which I ordered the invasion of Iraq, and regardless of how you feel about the war today, we need to put that behind us because the situation on the ground is getting out of control. So much so that freedom, democracy and even a stable Iraqi government aren't my concerns right now. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds alone, I've decided to increase troop levels to stem this latest wave of violence..."
In other words, had Bush acted like a real President and gave a hoot about this colossal disaster he's responsible for, I might have supported the surge. And if the reduction of violence allowed the Iraqi government to come together and they took control of their country, I would have given him all the credit he deserved.
But he didn't say that. And while violence is down, drastically, and the Mehdi Army weakened - all of which could have happened without the surge - little has changed politically. So the surge was nothing but a political ploy to substitute the "Iraq is a disaster 'debate'" with the "surge is working 'debate.'" So I'm not giving Bush any credit for it. And the fact that the White House, GOP and their moronic, cult-like base are spinning the surge so much, and overlooking what it's cost in blood and money, proves it wasn't such a success because if progress was being made - real progress that was in America's interest, and not Iran's - they wouldn't have to spin so hard to prove it.
Yea, and the '62 Mets were a success too (and when they won the World Series seven years later, they didn't suffer any casualties, it didn't cost them $1 trillion, it didn't destabilize the mideast and they didn't wreck
The GOP and their base: "The surge worked you dumb liberals!"
They make it sound as if this was the plan all along.
Only in the twisted minds of Republicans can eight (out of ten) months of "less violence" undo more then four years of chaotic violence.
The 1962 Mets won two games in a row five times and three games in a row twice. But that doesn't undo the fact that they're still one of the worst teams in baseball history.
I can only imagine what Republicans would saying if this was Bill Clinton's war and his surge (oh wait, I already did!).
Again, what Bush and his brainwashed base conveniently overlook is that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who controls the Mehdi Army, called a truce last year to basically consolidate power, political and otherwise. Also, a deal was made with the Sunni militias who were killing our guys (I thought we're not supposed to negotiate with our enemies?). We not only paid them to go after al-Qaeda in Iraq, but gave them weapons to do so (weapons that could one day be turned onto our guys).
Ironically, if anyone deserves credit for the deal with the Sunnis, it's the Democrats. From Joe Conason:
In fact, it was the prospect of an early U.S. withdrawal, not the surge, that prompted the Sunni insurgents to change sides, according to the American officers who worked with their leaders. A fascinating article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Georgetown professor Colin Kahl and retired Gen. William Odom quotes Marine Maj. Gen. John Allen, who ran the tribal engagement operations in Anbar during 2007, saying that the Democratic sweep in the 2006 midterm elections and the increasing demand for withdrawal by the American public "did not go unnoticed" among the province's Sunni sheiks...(And) "the risk that U.S. forces would leave pushed the Sunnis to cut a deal to protect their interests while they still could."
Also, with most of the insurgents killed or captured (after five years, you'd think so!), tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and two million fleeing the country, Sunnis wiped out of Shiite areas, Shiites wiped out of Sunni areas and militia groups carving out their own conclaves and "fiefdoms," there's fewer people left to kill. So the insurgent's work (ethnic cleansing) is just about done. Now they're digging in and concentrating on accumulating political power.
So there's other reasons why violence has dropped. And the maze of 20 foot walls erected in Baghdad also has had something to do with it.
But despite all that, and despite the surge, bodies still turn up every day. There's sickness and sewage on the streets, little water, less electricity, rampant corruption within the Iraqi (cough, cough) government and the only political reconciliation is with Iran. And when al-Sadr temporarily ended his truce in March and the Iraqis had the opportunity to show some desire and actually "stand up" so we can "stand down," they quit (why is alright for Iraqis to "cut and run" - literally in the middle of a fire fight - and Ronald Reagan to "cut and run" from Lebanon in 1984, but Republicans can ridicule Democrats for wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq even though they didn't?).
Therefore, since "virtually none of Bush's own benchmarks" had been met as of last January (but Bush spinning it, again), the surge for all practical purposes had not been a great success. However, a more recent White House assessment, graded on a very generous curve, says otherwise (of course it does).
Bottom line..if the surge really did work, if most of benchmarks really have been met and we really are winning, why haven't our troops been coming home in droves? Why hasn't there at least been a timetable to bring them home? Why has it taken this long to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqis that would have our troops out by 2010 (which we've heard many times before from this pathetic administration)?
Ironically, the surge recently ended. But we have more troops in Iraq now then there was before the surge began. That makes sense only in the upside down Bush-Republican bizarro world.
(The White House is considering withdrawing additional troops in September. But that's because they have no choice - they're needed in Afghanistan, another of Bush's countless disasters.)
To be fair, in January, 2007 when the violence in Iraq couldn't have been spun or ignored any longer, maybe if Bush said something like this:
"...Regardless of how you feel about the circumstances under which I ordered the invasion of Iraq, and regardless of how you feel about the war today, we need to put that behind us because the situation on the ground is getting out of control. So much so that freedom, democracy and even a stable Iraqi government aren't my concerns right now. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds alone, I've decided to increase troop levels to stem this latest wave of violence..."
In other words, had Bush acted like a real President and gave a hoot about this colossal disaster he's responsible for, I might have supported the surge. And if the reduction of violence allowed the Iraqi government to come together and they took control of their country, I would have given him all the credit he deserved.
But he didn't say that. And while violence is down, drastically, and the Mehdi Army weakened - all of which could have happened without the surge - little has changed politically. So the surge was nothing but a political ploy to substitute the "Iraq is a disaster 'debate'" with the "surge is working 'debate.'" So I'm not giving Bush any credit for it. And the fact that the White House, GOP and their moronic, cult-like base are spinning the surge so much, and overlooking what it's cost in blood and money, proves it wasn't such a success because if progress was being made - real progress that was in America's interest, and not Iran's - they wouldn't have to spin so hard to prove it.
Yea, and the '62 Mets were a success too (and when they won the World Series seven years later, they didn't suffer any casualties, it didn't cost them $1 trillion, it didn't destabilize the mideast and they didn't wreck the military).
Since one of the GOP's priorities is to put Democrats and liberals on the defensive, and in this case to get us to admit that "the surge worked," I got a deal for them. I'll admit I was wrong and admit the surge "worked" when you guys admit you were wrong about going to war, wrong about Saddam's WMDs, wrong about the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, wrong about our troops being greeted as liberators, wrong about the length of the war, wrong about Iraq's oil paying for the war and wrong about the post-war plan (oh, wait, there was none). Because had our troops been greeted with hugs and roses, had we suffered only a handful of casualties, had "stockpiles" of WMDs been found, had the "mission" really been "accomplished" in 2003, had all our troops returned home soon thereafter, had there been little or no violence since then, had Iraqi's oil paid for the war, had Iraq been undergoing massive rebuilding the last five years, had a new McDonalds or Starbucks been opening every day in Baghdad, had Iraq become the biggest "free market" in the mideast, had a coalition Iraqi government formed - that embraced western democracy and shunned Iran, respected the rule of law, minority rights and personal freedoms (women included) and secured their country against terrorists - and had Iraq signed trade agreements with her neighbors, the west and maybe even Israel, not only would the GOP have added Bush's bust to Mount Rushmore by now, but can you imagine what Republicans and their base would be
And yet, God forbid a liberal remind a conservative who supported the war - without reservation and no questions asked - that we told you so, just once.
Aug. 26, 2008 insert: From Robert Scheer:
Aside from the reality that victory there is now defined as returning to the level of stability provided by Saddam Hussein, who the Bush Administration admits had nothing to do with the bin Laden-led terrorists, even that goal requires the cooperation of our former sworn enemies, Iran's ayatollahs.
+/- show/hide this post
