War and Peace ...

As the President moves to veto only his second piece

(and presumably the generals in Baghdad) a free hand

in the Iraq situation, it would appear that the bitter

divisiveness of the Vietnam era is once again upon

the American society. Labels are being tossed by

about - "defeatists" (the Vice President), "attack

dog" (a Democrat referring to the VP during the

26 April debate), plus "misguided" and other labels

tossed at the 51 who voted in the Senate to send a

timeline funding bill to the President. I've even

"treason" to describe those who oppose the war

(again, and sadly). 

Sen. Reid said recently he believed the war was

"lost, " which may or may not be either premature

and/or accurate. It sure doesn't look good at this

point. What no one seems to be able to clearly

define as what will constitute a "win," save for the

ephemeral "free, stable and democratic government

for Iraq," even as the place unravels day by day

contend that the al-Maliki government is weaker

than even two weeks ago, and not just because of

the departure of the six ministers aligned with

al-Sadr. 

A story I saw yesterday suggested that a) money

for training and even discussion about training

Iraqi soldiers has all but ceased, b) that the Iraqi

army is now totally unprepared to combat the

sectarian strife without American help and c) the

al-Maliki government would collapse almost

instantly if even some American troops were

withdrawn. 

Senator Biden said a week or so ago that he

believes that "now or later" (within six months)that

Iraq will split into three pieces. His analysis

doesn't deal with the potential imminent"invasion"

of northern Iraq by Turkey (who has been amassing

troops in the region for a couple of weeks) nor the

potential fragmentation ofNATO if Turkey does

invade Iraq contrary to Kurdish, Iraqi and US wishes.

As the Kurds have been relatively quiet, stable,

peaceful and pro-US (for the most part), tangling

with them would seem the height of stupidity given

the volatile situation throughout the rest of Iraq,

plus it would create a mini-struggle within two larger

ones - the US and Iraqi government pursuit of i

nsurgents, and the sectarian slaughter of primarily

Sunnis byShiia militias. Though I do not believe the

President should have a free hand - his strategy has

failed, and it's high irony that he will veto this spending

bill on the fourth anniversary of his declaration that the

fighting was more or less over (the "mission

accomplished" speech on the USS Lincoln) -I think he

has to understand the Constitution allows Congress to

control the purse strings, but he has to announce an end

game the public can live with as Congress removes their

attempts to  force a time schedule for withdrawal (if they

even will, that's not at all clear). The President claims that

Iraq abandoned will become a forward staging area for

terrorists to attack the rest of the Middle East, and perhaps

also the United States. I would suggest that such a situation

already exists, even though there have only been a handful

of events elsewhere so far.There is only a US-tolerant

government in Baghdad, not an enthusiastic pro-American

democratic set-up. I suggest a majority of all sides save

perhaps the Kurds (and that's not even a surety) want the

US out of the country.At this juncture, our surge to impose

order,especially on Sadr City, in Baghdad is seen as"classic

occupation," not "liberation." This writer opposed going into

this mess even though I could (and did) agree Saddam

Hussein was a very unpleasant fellow who was a regional

trouble maker (in 1991, somewhat emasculated over the next

twelve years and when we invaded),but not worth throwing

American lives down a rat hole to remove. The US did it

anyway, under what this writer perceives to have been either

really specious reasoning or out and out lies on  the part of

the administration about the imminence of the threat Iraq

posed to this country.

I want us to leave, and "peace with honor" isn't a  factor here. 

Call me a defeatist if you must, but I thought Iraq would be a

quagmire before the first boot hit theground, and the last four

years have only verified my fears and suspicions about the

unreasonable"illusion" of attempting to impose "democracy"

by force. 3,337 Americans have been killed,  250,000 to

600,000 Iraqis have been killed (numbers are impossible to

verify and wildly vary),  25,000 Americans have been wounded

(many reportedly  poorly cared for after getting  home again),

almost four hundred "contractors"  (who aren't restrained by

laws, conventions or  rules, as best as I can ascertain) have been

killed,  over 250 "allies" have been killed, and after all  that,

what have we to show for all this death and  destruction? 

This is what I believe has happened in four years. Reconstruction

has either stopped, been frittered away or looted by unscrupulous

contractors. Infrastructure is in worse shape than when Hussein fled

from power. Sectarian hatred and death squads have proliferated all

over the country. The central government cannot control the country,

for all practical purposes is trapped in the Baghdad Green Zone, barely

able to function. The Iraqi army and police are of exceptionally

questionable loyalty, and poorly prepared to take over security functions

were US forces inclined to let them (which doesn't appear likely at

present). There are 4-6,000 "contractors"loose in the country, primarily

security-type souls who are accountable to no one save who pays them

(maybe). Roads, bridges, wells, pipelines,electricity, sewage, garbage,

water delivery are all sporadic at best, unavailable for days or more at

worst. Worse still, billions of the money already allocated for the war has

vanished (now a cost of above $420 billion is stated on various websites

keeping track of such things) or wasted, and now the President wants

about $100 billion more plus a free hand in both spending and strategy.

I agree with him only that the Democrats were stupid to load any pork

into the funding bill, although when the GOP was in charge and passed

funding for this war, there was plenty of pork in those bills too. The bottom

line is no accountability, a rudderless war, a hostile population who wants

us to leave, eroding public support at home -what does all that spell to

anyone save thedie hard ideologues who will settle for nothing less than

"victory," and damn the cost? 

I'm a realist more than a defeatist. I think we

made a really large mistake getting into this

struggle, and somehow we have to get out, and

not have to wait until 20 January, 2009 (or later)

to do so. The current Congress wants that, the

public wants that, only the ideologues and the

President want to "stay the course," even as the

course takes the country deeper and deeper into

the swamp. I do not believe impeachment is the

answer, but the President is skating on thin ice

with the crazies, it would seem, if the war goes

on and on. Lyndon Johnson became trapped in

the White House because of his unpopularity

over the Vietnam conflict, and even some in

this President's party are beginning to think he's

taking them into disaster come 2008  (although

continue supporting the war, and the former

has joined Bush and Cheney in labeling the

Democrats as defeatists). 

I'm not a Democrat, and haven't been for a

Dozen years. I believe that neither party

represents my views, especially about this

war. I am an American citizen not caught up by

blind nationalism, who loves his country, and

who anguishes every time I see the roll calls of

the dead. They're all so young! (the other day

on PBS I saw 23 faces and names, only one was

over thirty) The cream of a generation is slowly

being ground up in the meat grinder of war.

Most are from small towns. They deserve better

Than trying to accomplish a goal almost no one

Seems to believe can really occur save the

President and Vice President and some really

Diehard followers. Even the military is faltering

about the efficacy of "winning" (save for

Petraeus). 

Russia and China feel like bigger threats to me,

one by military behaviors and rising

authoritarianism, the other economically. North

Korea and Iran's nuclear aspirations are greater

worrisome behaviors than Iraq's. Turkey's almost

insane unreason about the Kurds is a greater

threat than even Iraq in three pieces (although I've

been saying partition is likely, I have no idea if

Biden is right that it ought to occur).  Yes, rampant

terrorism could arise from Iraq's disintegration,

and how would that be different than now?

27 April, 2007

I realize that this is now 45 days old, and yet

PS This editor for gather is terrible!