Surge Equals No Political Progress

Now that a bunch of Americans and Iraqis have died for the American "surge" we have exactly not one iota of the political progress that it was "intended" to foster. You may have noticed that when it comes to spending American blood and treasure like it was water the BushCo has no problem, but when it comes to Iraqis doing something to put their country back together all bets are off. Somehow George II can sell the idea that Americans need to die and be blown to broken shreds to fix an Iraq that has no intention of fixing itself. According to the NYT the BushCo's goals for the Iraqi government are that it pass a budget (??), vote to extend the UN mandate (if not, then what?), and take official action to reverse the effects of de-Baathification, already a quietly done deal. There you go. This is what 974 American lives in the last year buy, the dollar cost and wounded costs I won't bother to play pile on with, just actually dead American soldiers.

When you talk to your neighbor who has lost someone in this adventure of George II, this is the measure of his concern - you had better try to make up for it yourself. Asking someone to die for something is no small matter and it would seem as though the Commander in Chief would take that a little more to heart in some issue other than trampling the Constitution. I won't add anything to do with my absolute lack of respect for his Republican Congressional lackeys and their disregard of the sacrifice. This devaluation of what these troops spent their lives doing is, to me, unacceptable behavior. Despite all previous evidence I had hoped that along with the "surge" the BushCo would carry forward something constructive in Iraq. Ooops.

The Bush dead-enders will call any Congressional push as "not supporting the troops," the unending mantra of those with no coherent argument left. Every attempt of Congress to link the war to some practical end has been met with the same phrase, if Congress tries to make the President responsible for the results of spending American blood and treasure the answer is "not supporting the troops." The question that seems beyond the ken of these folks is just exactly how it is supportive of the troops to spend their lives with no result?

Even if you start out from a view point that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin and then to prosecute for a couple more years on the basis of "you broke it, you bought it," at some point America should see some result of its spending. The election of a non-functioning, corrupt, militia ridden government is not much return for an expense now measure in trillions of dollars, nearly four thousand dead and over twenty thousand broken troops. Is it real clear what BushCo expects back from our investment in that hole? Other than asking us to stay it is pass a budget?

How We're "Winning" In Iraq, Now

The right, or the BushCo Gang, is now asking when the media and defeatocrats are going to admit that we're winning in Iraq. Troop losses the last two months have been the lowest since early 2006, including all US casualties and Iraqi force and civilian casualties. Any drop in casualties makes me very happy - not as happy as a cessation of casualties - happy for the troops and their families and Iraqis in general. That, of course, isn't what the question was. It might pay to remember that 2006 was what made the "surge" the thing to do, it might pay to remember that four years of war have succeeded in getting us back to year 3. It might pay to notice that the political progress in the past year has been exactly no better than it was in year 3, which isn't even as good as a status quo might be under ordinary circumstances.

I and others have pointed out that Iraqis are fiercely tribal as well as religious sectarians and the al Anbar successes were primarily homegrown and the virtually inevitable consequences of foreign Arabs trying to impose their foreign agenda on Sunni Iraqis. Bhagdad is now sectarian divided, essentially segregated neighborhoods where once mixed existed and a whole lot of potential victims have gotten out. The Iraqis returning after being forced out of Syria may be one of the coming test cases. While Iranian sanctuaried and trained Shiites in the south may have an upper hand in the formerly British controlled areas; they also may find the same results the foreign Sunnis have had in al Anbar. It took awhile for Sunni resentment to boil over in al Anbar so it may take that with the Shiites in the south, Basra in particular.

In the absence of so much violence some of the essential services are beginning to improve, that alone may make a large difference in how tolerant Iraqis are about their neighbors creating heat with the Americans. While it may seem a materialistic sort of reasoning, it is a bit more difficult to support or tolerate people whose actions take you from having some garbage removal back to none, as well as other services. They also will not tolerate for long having just some services, analyzing on that basis is pretty problematic.

This is where the lack of political solutions or any real political activity and high levels of corruption are going to cause havoc. Life problems have got to be addressed in a real manner, these people have had four years of absolute hell and they're not going to be very patient (not that they are anyhow). If there is no evidence of power sharing and problems continue in just trying to live there is going to be backlash. Cleaning up corruption will cause backlash from the supporter of those gaining from the corruption (Mahdi Army in particular) and yet leaving it go will cause backlash; when things are this messy the chances of any course working well diminish.

Every day that Americans are viewed as occupiers increases the potential for explosive violence. While a recent firefight resulting in an intelligence coup regarding importation of foreign fighters has had an effect on "random" violence; that information has a shelf-life, as it becomes more dated and new circles are built that importation will recover. It will recover faster and more virulently with active dislike for American presence, through no more than simple tolerance for its existence. Current troop levels are not sustainable; there simply are not enough troops to keep it up, this means that whatever damping effect is happening through troop presence will not continue on that basis. If no other basis is found the results could easily be reversed. Those who find expanded violence in their interest now have concrete examples of how to provoke it and then stoke it. Neither the willingness nor the materials have evaporated for those people.

What the Iraqi forces can accomplish is an open question, some few units have proven to be capable, others are so infiltrated with sectarians and partisans as to be a danger to both the civilians and Americans, and finally a large number are simple incompetent for the job, for many reasons. Iraqis finding themselves under the discipline of the latter two categories might reasonably opt for an entirely different solution - and a violent one.

I would actually like to go the BushCo dead-enders one better, no we're not just winning; we've now won, bring them all home and we'll have that parade you were planning for 3 years ago. I don't even care if George II hangs a Mission Accomplished banner from the White House portico, as long as there are no flight suits and ships involved.

Combat correspondent Michael Yon is an independent reporter, seems important to one of my readers that he is linked.

82nd Airborne, A Few Speak Out

I'm going to be very careful with this NYT OpEd piece, because it is from Iraq frontline soldiers and because I don't use block quotes or "fair usage" notices. I encourage you to follow the link and read it for yourselves. Those contributing are: "Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant," and they carefully note: "(Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)"

"To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. " Quite frankly the article pretty much follows on from there, but I will not characterize this piece, go read it.

Waste and Sacrifice

There has been a bit of a storm lately about what word describes the deaths and injuries of our soldiers in Iraq. The first assumption in the argument is whether Iraq is something the US should be doing or or is a mistake. Most of America believes it is a mistake, by a wider margin than virtually any other political issue. This said and allowed as a basis leaves another point, the feelings of those who've been harmed by this issue. The families and friends of soldiers and others killed and injured certainly have good reasons to not like the term 'waste' applied to their own.

Rep Barney Frank (D) and others have made the point that you do not gain ground in an argument by harming or offending those you are speaking for or attempting to persuade. There is a great deal of truth in this statement, words carry loading and for some people in this issue there has been great harm.

I'd like to change the ground under this argument, all of our soldiers are volunteers. These individuals have made a choice to serve the United States of America, they do not serve George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Wolfson, or any other individual. Their commitment is to their country and their unit. I do not care how pointless and stupid this war is, I do not care how stupid and pointless GWB is, this country and their fellow soldiers are not a stupid pointless commitment. Loss of life and injury is not a good thing, but it can occur for good reasons and devotion to country and fellows is good reason. I do not like the term waste applied to such a venture, Iraq is a waste in political, military, and social terms, what the soldiers have done is not. Sacrifice is the term used for a giving of oneself, it's better to let it go as that.

A Bad Day

Friday night CBS showed some choices for a future news story, one of which would be about some women who attend every Arlington National Cemetery Funeral. My throat got kind of tight and I told my wife that I couldn't do that, after just a couple I'd lose my mind. As I went on to tell her that every time I've heard Governor Kulongoski talk about attending the funerals of Oregonians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan I could see it tearing him up, my throat continued to close up and finally my eyes got all wet. I realized that I was crying. No, not the sobbing kind, water running from my eyes kind.

I'm so tired of our young people getting hurt and killed for this President's little Iraq adventure, so tired I'm finally past words and into tears. For god's sake.

My son Nick goes to Oregon National Guard boot camp next week, that weighs on me some, but it is the shared disaster of those harmed by Iraq that is tearing me up. I would have considerably less reaction to me being in their position, I've gotten to have an awful lot of what life has to offer and I'm on the back side of the game. The back side of the game makes it pretty safe to say that, I'm outside the limits of age, but being safe only actually makes me feel worse about it. I'd make the trade to keep one kid from being there.

All I can see is more years of this, George W Bush is not going to wake up one morning and say, "oops," Congress is not going to de-fund the troops, what is going to happen is another election and that Inaugural Day is two years away. How many soldier's family and friends tears away is that? How many nightmares, how many broken marriages, how many broken bodies and minds and hearts away is that? A lot of Bad Days.

More Troops ???

Sen. John McCain deserves credit and respect for his service and for his conduct as a POW. That doesn't mean that he gets a pass on harebrained ideas. His idea that a large military force in Iraq could do something meaningful is only about 3 years late. If he were talking about absolute overwhelming force from the outset and an iron fisted occupation he might just have a point. The problem is, that was then and this is now. Yes, disregarding any questions about rightfully being there, the proper strategy is to crush the military force, lock down any societal impulse to resist - make it incredibly dangerous, construct civil order, then rebuild the infrastructure, and then rebuild the government. The models of Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan stand as exemplars of how it's done. GeorgeII has shown exactly how not to do it. Historically challenged??? Read some non-fiction, Yalie. (The New American Century doesn't qualify)

Now is different, the "insurgents" are dispersed into the civilian sector and around the nation, they have organized, they have weapons supply, they have capital, they have a proven track record of resistance, and they have outside resources of men, material, and morale. You can't get your hands on them, they're not going to "make a stand", and the civilian populous is more afraid of them than us; which means they will provide cover for them. Organization means they can coordinate and they have a structure in which to place loss replacements, and a way to secure replacements. The "government" is both a cover for "insurgency" and incompetent in opposition to them. Add to this picture the squandering of whatever good will may have been present initially and the thing looks really bad, no matter how many troops.

None of the preceding addresses the real problem with McCain's idea (and Lieberman limping along), just exactly where does he propose to get these troops? Some units are going back for their fifth rotation, the Reserve and Guard are already in use and we've reduced numbers in other theaters. Vehicles are beginning to fall apart and aren't getting replaced.

That shouldn't set off the "defeatocrat" crowd, but this sure will, the nation is sick and tired of this mess. McCain says we're "adults" and can process his idea. We're not that kind of adults, we can process how it's been done and what's been accomplished and the chances of any kind of improvement happening. It isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of the lies, the incompetence, and finally the futility. It isn't a matter of will to beat your head against a concrete wall because somebody "important" said it's a good idea, it is just plain stupid and Americans aren't just plain stupid for very long. (Ok, not that many are)

The Governor of Oregon and Vets

Today I attended the memorial service for an old friend and I was reminded how painful it is to participate in a family's grief. Our Governor does this for our fallen soldiers and their families. These are not old men who have lived a full life, these are soldiers whose parents have out-lived their child, whose spouses no longer have the love of their life, whose children will no longer know the arms and kisses of a parent, whose friends have only memories. Their grief is appalling to anyone not made of stone, I share it at a distance, through a TV screen or newsprint and that remoteness saves me tears.

I don't care if you opposed this war from the very first, as I did, or you believe it is necessary now, we are responsible, this is our war and these people are ours. They are acting and dying and being hurt in our name, we don't get to duck that. I cannot and should not go to these services, except in spirit and possibly by representation.

There is no requirement that our Governor attend these services beyond his personal commitment. He undertakes a painful duty because he understands the concept of responsibility, our responsibility, Oregon's. Any person who would voluntarily subject himself to such emotional battering on behalf of his fellows deserves to be acknowleged. It is not just a matter of Ted Kulongoski being a "former" Marine, it is part and parcel with the man's character. I don't care if you voted for TK or not, on this day and those days of memorial service you stand with him, because he's standing in for all of us.

I thank the Governor for doing my job, for honoring those who served to the utmost degree, for honoring those who have lost their loved ones, for making the small acknowlegement that can be made of all of our loss. We are all so much poorer for their deaths.