Bleak

The war in Iraq will likely cost the American taxpayers $170 billion this fiscal year, if Bush requests another $100 billion in February, as he is widely expected to.  That works out to $19.5 million per hour, 24/7, and doesn't even include our normal military budget that equates to another $46 million per hour.  A non productive drain of this magnitude cannot help but have serious, adverse, economic consequences in due course.  More importantly, U.S. deaths in and around Iraq will surpass 3,000 within the next few weeks. 

The report of the Iraq Study Group began with a description of the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating."  Two days ago, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also said the situation was "grave and deteriorating."  Yesterday, the White House backed away from President Bush's previous assertion that "absolutely, we are winning."   Actually, what Tony Snow said, when asked if Bush still thought we were winning was "I'm not playing that game any more....we will win and we have to win."

Brand new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said "you have asked for my candor and my honest counsel at this critical moment in our nation's history and you will get both."  Then he said "As the president has made clear, we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East.  Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come."

That certainly doesn't sound like someone who is his own man, beginning his term in office by parroting the very person who created the mess he is supposed to help clean up.  Nor does it sound like a man who may recommend a reduction in our fighting forces in Iraq any time soon, and that may come as a surprise to many.  But, actually, when you think about it, would Bush have agreed to appoint a defense secretary who would disagree with him?

And as far as Gates' statement goes, our conduct of the Iraq war has already created a situation that will haunt our nation for decades to come.  We have already lost our credibility.  American leadership has little credibility with the American people and even less throughout the world.  And as for the endangerment of Americans, that too is a done deal.  These things have already happened, unfortunately.  The question is, what do we do now?

When asked if she favored an increase in troop levels in Iraq, like incoming Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton said that, to answer that question, she would have to know the purpose and goals associated with any proposed increase. 

Pundits said she was being indecisive, but regardless of what you might think of her as a prospective presidential candidate, isn't what Senator Clinton said, the precisely correct answer?  Hillary is just another American here, and, like the rest of us, she is saying - can we really trust this administration to arbitrarily increase our involvement in Iraq without knowing exactly what the prospects are?  For her part, she made it clear that she can't put that much trust in our leaders.  Can any of us?

Hillary has good reason to be curious.  Regardless of the fact that CNN swallowed an unofficial line last week that there are no plans for a major buildup of troops in Iraq, the road signs continue to point in the opposite direction.  It appears that we are in the indoctrination phase now of a program that will mire us much deeper into the bloody mud of Iraq.  Initial plans will probably call for just something like 20,000 more troops, but if this fails to produce results - and it very likely will - it may turn out to be the foot-in-the-door that could lead to a major buildup.

The best indoctrination programs revolve around a riveting villain, and this is no exception.  The new anti-hero is Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr, leader of a fast growing militia said to number between 60,000 and 70,000, and generally referred to as the Al Mahdi army.  In its latest quarterly report to Congress, released just hours after Gates was sworn in, the Defense Department identified Sadr as the gravest danger to the security and stability of Iraq. 

Sadr's gorilla fighters have not been a factor in the attacks on American soldiers and, indeed, they have not, as yet, been officially declared a hostile organization by the United States and Iraq.

As a Shiite, however, Sadr represents the potential to align himself with the Shiite nation of Iran, and that is no small concern for the Bush Administration.  That problem also serves to draw attention to the opportunity that Bush let slip by in early 2003, when Iran offered to discuss a "grand bargain" that would settle several disputes.  Now, as former CIA analyst Flynt Leverett says, any deal that Washington might make today would be on less favorable terms because Iran has gained strength and we are tied down in Iraq.

As the situation unfolds, neo-cons and other members of the right wing may also put pressure on Bush to promote a confrontation with Sadr, seeing it, perhaps, as a bridge to an attack on their favorite target, Iran.

As the evil mystique of Sadr begins to be promoted, Pentagon officials admitted yesterday that a policy of mounting a combat offensive against his militias is actually under review.

That is an astounding statement at this early date.  The United States has little control over the rest of the country, and yet serious consideration is being given to sending our troops against a guerilla force numbering in the tens of thousands.

With the 140,000 troops we now have in Iraq, we are unable to control even Al Anbar Province, which, according to a report by the Marine Corps, is being dominated by the Sunnis.

Our lack of control is also evident in the results of our training program for Iraqi security personnel.  The new report from the Defense Department admits that while we have nearly reached our goal of training 325,000 personnel, some 45,000 have been killed, wounded or have quit.  Also, over 100,000 are on approved leave at any one time and, perhaps most disturbing, the desertion rate of Iraqi soldiers increases to more than 50% when they are deployed outside their normal area of operation.

And perhaps nothing demonstrates our lack of control more than the fact that we can't even find the insurgent TV station that broadcasts anti-American propaganda across the country.  Most of the time, the Al Zawraa satellite television channel plays footage of American soldiers in Iraq either mistreating civilians or being killed.

Despite extensive efforts to shut it down, no one is quite sure where it broadcasts from or even who is behind it.

One must ask, is this the type of situation we want to sink deeper into?  And further, if this is leading down a path towards a confrontation with a guerilla amy that may, by then number 100,000, what kind of buildup are we really looking at?  

Under these circumstances, would it not be unreasonable to anticipate U.S. military deaths eventually accelerating to Vietnam levels of well over 100 per week?  And with current indications of the possibility of three civil wars erupting in the Middle East, are we naive to think that our expanded military operations will necessarily be limited to Iraq?

What we seem to have shaping up here is the old adage of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.  The immovable object, it appears, is George W. Bush and the irresistible force, utilizing the "overwhelming" definition of the word, would seem to be Sadr's Al Mahdi army.

The problem of fighting a guerilla force was perhaps best summed up recently by the words of an announcer on the insurgency's Al Zawraa television station, when he said:  "There will be no negotiating.  For us it's straight and simple.  We are fighting for our religion and our soil.  We will fight you while you are packing.  We will fight you while you are sleeping.  We will fight you as you are evacuating your last soldier..."

To some, the situation may be "grave and deteriorating."  Given the combination of depressing factors, however, a more apt description might be "bleak."