Carnage
It seems patently clear by now that absolutely nothing is going to shift in U.S. war policy in Iraq until September. That’s the mythical date that has been chosen for some sort of reckoning on the surge — and therefore on the war itself.
Republican congressmembers want to break with current policy in time for next year’s election cycle, but they are waiting as long as they can. At least until September when General Petreaus is skedded to give his much-awaited report.
The Democrats… well… we’ve said enough about them.
The question is: Will the situation hold until September? And if does, at what cost?
– 125 U.S. dead in the last month making the last 60 days the bloodiest yet.
– 17 U.S. deaths in the last 3 days.
– A new U.S. military report admitting that nearly 70% of all Baghdad neighborhoods elude American/Iraqi government control.
– A new rise in sectarian murders as Moqtada Al Sadr’s Mehdi Army moves back in.
Other than that…
June 4th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
This most dificult phenomenon to understand in why, with this destructive, corrosive fraudulent human rights blunder, are citizens not out in the streets by the millions? Why are there not 50 impeachment resolutions unanimously passed and the gallows erected?
We are truly a nation of walking corpses so stultified by lying, torture, wanton killing and suffering for no discernible reason that we have changed all of the norms of human capacity for tolerance and contented slavery. WTF is happening?
June 4th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
This past weekend I spent time with some kids who had just returned from Iraq, while I was near the USMC base camp Pendleton in Oceanside, CA.
These kids were not coming back from the carnage in Iraq with renewed faith in the institutions of the US Republic.
They were not returning happy, cheerful, and trusting of US “democracy”.
They are angry, spent, and violent, yes, violent. They spoke to me about the horrors, the mayhem and tribal retribution, of a country scarred and destroyed, where most US troops ‘ accounts are of killing with technological prowess.
Young (under 25) people (I speak to them often in my line of work) are pissed off, but unlike The Sgt. Pepper 1960s , would rather kill –efficiently, like their video games– than make flower love.
“this is going to be my last post on the subject”
June 4th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
“This most dificult phenomenon to understand in why, with this destructive, corrosive fraudulent human rights blunder, are citizens not out in the streets by the millions?”
Maybe because a lot of people see some sense in the proposition that leaving Iraq any time soon might end up being an even worse human rights blunder?
A recent frontpage story in the Int’l Herald Tribune featured the results of interviews with Iraqi parliament members, and, much to the surprise of the reporters, almost all of them said that for the U.S. to leave now would be a bad idea.
Moqtada al Sadr calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops, but to be replaced with an *international* security force. Well, yeah, right: like that’s gonna happen? He knows it won’t. So what it comes down to is, even *he* is in favor of *any* security force that keeps the conflict down to insurgency levels and retail sectarian violence. (Especially if that same force gives him a poltical target to bash at the same time.)
“Why are there not 50 impeachment resolutions unanimously passed and the gallows erected?”
Hey, I’d go for that. Invading Iraq was probably the worst U.S. foreign policy blunder since Vietnam. It might yet turn out to be worse than Vietnam, if we leave suddenly.
“We are truly a nation of walking corpses so stultified by lying, torture, wanton killing and suffering for no discernible reason that we have changed all of the norms of human capacity for tolerance and contented slavery.”
Well, actually not. Pretty consistently, in polling, Americans say that an Iraq governed by yet another lying, torturing, wanton-killing dictator is not an acceptable outcome, and by a wide margin. Is this the answer of a bunch of stultified walking corpses, devoid of compassion? I think not.
That said, I’m all in favor of Americans becoming better acquainted with how an Iraq in chaos (as it is now in much of the country) has been worse than Saddam for many, if not most, Iraqis. They can form better opinions about what to do, if they know. As Churchill said, Americans can be counted upon to do the right thing — after having exhausted all the other options.
The problem is that options can steadily exhaust themselves over time, and this has proved to be one of those cases. The “right thing” might actually be leaving fairly soon, simply because so many mistakes have foreclosed any better option.
However, with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace and Lt. Gen David Petraeus now ranked #2 and #1 respectively in terms of respect from Americans about war leadership (with Bush at maybe #14, and Cheney pretty much out of the game), we’ll have to see what the military says, when they say it (most likely September), and how Americans react. As Sergio points out (and I don’t doubt what he says), this situation is driving our troops crazy, and its these generals who will have to manage in the face of that fact. These are generals who studied past debacles (and particularly Vietnam) and who don’t want to go down in history side-by-side with figures like Westmoreland and Hershey.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:45 am
A while back Turner cited an article arguing that US forces were not more effective in quelling the violence in Iraq because they were too concerned with “force protection.” It is now clear that they are neither effective at force protection (they seem to be sitting ducks) nor at protecting the Iraqis (as sectarian violence continues unabated.) So the burden of proof now rests on those who think that anything more is served by staying. And that equation has to take into account the amazing damage that we our doing to a generation of American youth.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:14 am
The chaos has increased day by day, month after month, year on year as the U.S. stayed on in Iraq, hoping to “turn things around.”
The safest assumption is that the sooner the U.S. withdraw, the less chaos will result.
Michael Turner’s unacknowledged assumption that extending the U.S. occupation will eventually lead to better circumstances for withdrawal is without foundation.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:43 am
A “policy blunder” is not an impeachable offense, but, if it were, those who would be voting on it would include the same people who authorized the war.
“Michael Turner’s unacknowledged assumption that extending the U.S. occumpation will eventually lead to better circumstances for withdrawal is without foundation”–in the minds of those who ignore the lessons of S.E. Asia or put politics above the long-term welfare of the people of that region.
June 5th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Woody, you are a fool.
Our host seems be getting the idea about Republicans, the real red, white and blue tinsil beneath the fake red, white, and blue tinsil. Would that the Woodmeister’s moronic drivel was really a far cry from the brain trust the comprises the War Party. Hopefully, for the rest of his life, Cooper will understand that when these people tell him we lost Vietnam because we fought with one hand tied behind our backs… well…. they are not kidding.
The Democrates need to do more to shame their blue dogs and war enablers. I know, after the discusting vote a few weeks ago that’s a weird distinction tricky to make; but it’s worth making.
Micheal Turner… will you accept benchmarks?
June 5th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Turner uses Iranian cat’s paws and illegitmate puppets to back his point….there’s no sense in even argunig with people like that anymore. No legitimate expert on the region believes in anything but immediate withdrawl.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Well, Thomas Ricks, author of “Fiasco” essentaily held Turner’s view, at least as of six or eight months ago, and I don’t think he can be written off as a know nothing. Clinton’s Iraq talk now has more than a wiff of the “we brought them our way of life, they were too stupid to accept it” jive that will no doubt emerge as the favorite excuse for the disaster.
SCOOTER gets real time! Excellent news. The moral pest hole of the right that brought us into Iraq for fun and profit has still more explaining to do. Let’s hope Fred Thompson’s novel take on purgery finally draws a few impolite questions.
June 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Sounds like even Moqtada al-Sadr stops short of “immediate withdrawal” –
“The Americans are occupiers and thieves, and they must set a timetable to leave this country. We must know that they are leaving, and we must know when.” (Al-Sadr interviewed last week for The Independent)
June 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Woody lying us into a war and violating several traties like the UN Charter and committing war crimes sounds impeachable to me.
Turner, guess what? When I was in Vietnam in 1970 I never met a Vietnamese official that didn’t want us to stay there. In fact if it were up to the Saigon crowd (now busy running liquor stores in Westminster) we’d still be there.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Am I the only one who believes that with the US 100% out of the picture the motivation for Iraqi’s to kill each other will indeed decline – if not immediately, at least in time? After all, isn’t it the collusion with the illegal occupation that makes a bombing of collaborators morally palatable? Iraqis do not hate each other naturally. The business about hating each other for thousands of years is a US manufactured lie to take us off the hook. Sure there are divisisions, but the US occupation and favored status of Shiites under that arrangement, is what exaccerbated those divisions and made murder and counter-attack seem ok. Only with the US out of the picture, can the healing begin. Until then, the pro-government Shiites (and “moderate” Sunnis) will always be collaborators, worthy of death by the increasing religious militants and anti-American nationalists.
June 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
We shouldn’t dismiss Turner’s view too quickly. Entering Iraq without an honest and thoughtful national discussion should serve as a reminder that we ought not to leave under similar circumstances. While some of his ancillary points strike me as vapid (is he really suggesting that there is any significant popular support for staying to referee a civil war?), those truly interested in the outcomes for Iraqis and across the region should consider the costs of leaving.
The advantages for staying include the following:
1. keeping a lid on the civil war
2. prolonging the possibility of a plausable American declaration of victory.
3. pressuring the Iraqi government to accept oil and foreign capital laws friendly to American business interests
4. building military bases and extending American power across the Middle East.
The advantages of leaving include:
1. removing one of the instigators of the current civil war
2. getting American troops home and out of harms way
3. keeping the military from becoming overtaxed
4. saving enormous amounts of money (we could fix Social Security, Medicare, and my car)
5. removing a major recruiting tool for terrorist groups
6. refocusing resources on other aspects of “The War on Terror” including Afganistan and Al Qaida
I’m sure there are more arguments on either side of the equation, but these are the ones I came up with off the cuff. I don’t find any of the reasons for staying very enticing, except the question of the exploding violence. From what I’ve read, we’re sort of damned if we do and damned if we don’t. All things considered, I’d rather get the hell out.
June 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Nobody who wants the US out should assume that there won’t be negative fallout – the decision to go in was so wack that it’s hard to imagine how withdrawing would make things a hell of a lot better. There’s no running the tape back. That said, I’m for a careful withdrawal at this point – and some conditions set as we draw down making it clear that there we would use air strikes against any militias that started marauding wholesale and against any identifiable al Qaeda enclaves that the Shia and Sunnis didn’t clean up themselves. Those threats wouldn’t end the civil war – which would undoubtedly heat up as soon as we drew down – but it might help contain it. Mavis is right that at this point we’re damned no matter what we do. I wouldn’t downplay the potential negatives of withdrawal because it plays into the pro-war camp’s only hope of evading blame for this debacle – I’d lay the consequences of the failed war policy AND its aftermath at Bush’s feet as more evidence of just how badly he screwed us, creating an untenable situation.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:58 am
“The Americans are occupiers and thieves, and they must set a timetable to leave this country. We must know that they are leaving, and we must know when.†(Al-Sadr interviewed last week for The Independent)”
Almost a direct quote from the lips of our Democratic Congress. Moqtada has TV and so does Binny Boy……boys. Nothing like encouraging continued carnage.
In fact, both of these loveable characters have been repeating irresponsible and dumb-shit Democratic comments about our mistakes in this war and calling our soldiers war criminals almost from day one…..ok, two.
Please don’t pretend to speak for our soldiers. They hate and detest the party that has been undermining their mission, undermining their safety, and undermining their character from day one. They hate and detest the sons-of-bitches that stand up before the cameras in their nations Capital and announce to their enemies their losers, while packing a bill intended to fund their battle with 20 billion in fucking porkchops for their own fucking personal spineless fat asses.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:21 am
“Please don’t pretend to speak for our soldiers. They hate and detest…”
Nice one, Jim: a plea that no one speak for the soldiers, and then you goes on to, uh, speak for the soldiers. Ever thought of running for political office? You’ve got the contradictory, vapid, cliche-ridden style down perfectly.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“They hate and detest the party that has been undermining their mission, undermining their safety, and undermining their character from day one.”
Er, I rather think the party of POTUS has done such a stellar job of that, no one else needed to join in. Unless, you want to speculate that going into this insane project in Iraq with inadequate resources and inadequate planning from day one…, ok, two, was really orchestrated from some unknown, protected bunker by Nancy Pelosi.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Almost all the same doom-sayers said of Viet-Nam that their would be catastrophic regional instability (the infamous dominoes that never fell), violence and bloodbaths. The last two are already present in Iraq. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria cannot afford any regional instability. They all will put a lid on Iraq after we leave. This leaves oil the only reson to stay. We have spilled barrels of our kids’ blood for barrels oil before but we should have learned that this human sacrifice for oil is barbaric and pointless. A decent disciplined Energy policy is a better and bloodless war.
Disasters following detested occupations have rarely occurred as predicted. The fact is that any results of the Iraq war whether we stay or leave will be a toxic blotch on this country’s psyche to add to the Viet-Nam shame. Best to stop it now and gird our loins for the aftermath.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Jim – We didn’t go into Iraq to fight Moqtada Al Sadr. He was oppressed by Saddam. I Anyone who didn’t assume we’d be unleashing sectarian Shiites who would want revenge, that we could simply dictate their politics or that we could control Iraqi political strife using our soldiers after the fall of Saddam was an idiot. Unfortunately, such idiots were in charge and are responsible for this debacle.
Take it like a man. Don’t whine and blame Hillary or Pelosi for what Bush hath wrought.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Mavis Beacon writes “is [Michael Turner] really suggesting that there is any significant popular support for staying to referee a civil war?”
Iraq might be a dozen small civil wars at once. You don’t “referee” a free-for-all. So, no, I am not suggesting that there is popular support for that. “Referee”, no. “Deter to the extent possible, move targeted populations where necessary,” yes.
On this blog and its comment section, I noticed people (including Marc) exulting over the purple thumbs. Oh, how long ago it seems. I pointed out then that the politicians being elected in Iraq probably represented only sectarian interests, not true democracy. This didn’t win me many brownie points here. I was a naysayer, even anti-democratic. But that’s apparently what these politicians are: representatives (but uneasy ones) of the various sectarian interests.
Nevertheless, when I mention that most of these duly-elected politicians now say they prefer an American presence to any foreseeable alternative, rlc comes back at me saying that officials in South Vietnam (*not* the product of relatively free and fair elections) were also all in favor of a continued U.S. presence. Well, I don’t know what to make of this, except that it may be little more than yet another apples/oranges comparison.
The more we try to look at this war by staring into the rear-view mirror, the more likely we are headed for a serious head-on collision. Of course, I wring my hands here over the possibility of much worse violence in the wake of any precipitate departure. But then you have Woody, citing Indochina. And more “authoritatively”: William Shawcross, a savage critic of Kissinger for his part in the bombing of Cambodia, just joined forces with a former honcho at Kissinger Associates and penned an Int’l Herald Trib op-ed comparing a possible Aftermath Iraq with the supposed Aftermath Cambodia! That’s over the top — I don’t think even Cambodia, bloodbath that it was, was ever the Cambodia of popular imagination. The commonly cited “autogenocide” figures just aren’t plausibly supportable with the demographic data we have now. Still, even if the Khmer Rouge regime wasn’t as bad as most have been led to think, it was still very bad, and there is still an onus on the U.S. for helping to make it that bad. Why repeat anything remotely *like* that mistake, if it can possibly be avoided?
June 6th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
So what are you advocating, Turner? Mass relocation and partition? Staying the course? Myster door number three?
June 7th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Mavis,
Quoting Michael Turner from his comment May 5th to Marc’s post May 2nd, “Retreat.”
“As for what’s looming on the horizon between now and the notional beginning of a pullout in Jan 10, 2009, I don’t think it’s another 9/11. But I do think there’s something very big, even though hardly anybody talks about it: the scheduled plebiscite in Kirkuk over whether that province (and all its oil) becomes part of Kurdistan. In the meantime, there may or not be an Oil Law passed, and the direction the Kurds take after any such law may or may not be in compliance with that law.
Which is to say, we’ve got another big internal collision coming in Iraq, and it might create true civil war conditions under which Bush & Co feel that the best thing is to withdraw all troops — into Kurdistan! An outcome that, for all we know, might sit pretty well with your average American voter, after the dust settles. The parties will rationalize it in different, self-serving ways to their constituencies. Are we then out of Iraq? Yes, say Dems: Kurdistan isn’t Iraq. No, say GOPers: Kurdistan is the home of the true Iraqi government in exile. Did we support freedom and democracy in Iraq? No, say the Dems: most of Iraq is roiled by even worse civil war. Yes, say GOPers: the Kurdish part is free and democratic and remember what we said about the real Iraq? Was it all about the oil? No, say the GOPers, it was about freedom and democracy and fighting terror, and we’ve won that in the Kurdish part of Iraq. Yes, say the Dems: look at all that oil flowing from Kurdistan through the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline. It’ll go on and on, until the American public tunes it out because our soldiers aren’t dying in any significant numbers over there anymore.”
It’s just a messy enough solution, with enough political back doors for all involved, that I think it’s plausible. I think Turner’s point to me was we’d stay involved until this, or something like this, is the inevitable outcome.