Archive for the 'Iraq debacle' Category

Condi is making a surprise trip to Baghdad to tout the effectiveness of a troop build-up in the city:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad Saturday and hailed early signs of success in a U.S.-Iraqi operation to quell sectarian violence in the embattled capital. But she cautioned that longer-term prospects would depend on how the Iraqi government uses its "breathing space" to promote political reconciliation and economic progress....

She also said the operation was bringing "a new hope and a new optimism" to Baghdad, and she expressed satisfaction with the level of participation by Iraqi army units. Pentagon officials previously had said the Iraqi units being deployed for the crackdown were at 45 percent to 55 percent of their troop strength, which they said was not sufficient. But Rice said Saturday that commanders informed her the troop strength now was as high as 90 percent.

Meanwhile:

Although killings have decreased since the start of the operation in Baghdad three days ago, a double car bombing in the northern city of Kirkuk killed at least 10 people and wounded 60 Saturday in a crowded market. Police reported that a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden vehicle moments after a booby-trapped car exploded in a predominantly Kurdish area of the ethnically mixed city....

Her visit came amid a relative lull in violence, which the Iraqi government held up as a promising sign that the new Baghdad security plan is off to a good start. A top U.S. military official sounded a more cautionary note, saying the capital might be experiencing a temporary respite as militant organizations assess the new measures and gear up to fight back.

The game of whack-a-mole continues, and as they move troops into one area, violence erupts in another. There aren't enough troops to quell it over the entire country. There will never be enough troops to quell the violence in the entire country, absent a draft in this country or an international miracle that would bring a huge influx of foreign troops. Sending a relative handful of new troops into this quagmire only puts more American lives in danger.

There isn't any good solution for Iraq. There's only the hope that we can get our men and women out as soon as possible and as safely as possible.

Everybody loves a celebrity death, the national shared tragedy of a life, however messed up it might have been, cut short. What else could explain the  Anna-fest playing out all over the tv? The cable news networks will tell you that there's a demand for this kind of public mourning, that our society craves it and that the ratings will prove it. But what if there were a concerted effort by our national media to turn that zeitgeist to another, daily tragedy, playing out in the lives of thousands of Americans every day?

They might consider talking to Eric Fair, a linguist recently returned to the U.S. from his job as a contract interrogator. I think he could tell a compelling story:

Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

Or perhaps the story of journalist Michael Hastings, a young man who also just came home from Iraq, accompanied by the coffin of his fiancee, Andrea Parhamovich:

In Iraq since autumn, Parhamovich was hired by the nonprofit National Democratic Institute in Washington, D.C., to help Iraqi politicians communicate with their constituents. "Andi thought the invasion of Iraq was a mistake," Hastings pointed out, "and she was trying to fix the mistake...."

On Jan. 17, Parhamovich left a meeting in a dangerous neighborhood outside the relative safety of Baghdad's Green Zone. As many as 50 insurgents armed with machine guns and grenades attacked her convoy of three armored BMW sedans, Hastings said. Three security contractors accompanying her also were killed.

And finally, there's number 3,115. Jennifer Parcell was 20 years old. She joined her brother in Iraq, and was in a unit supporting operations in Al Anbar province when she was killed in action yesterday.

According to one report, she "always enjoyed the water, including boating and scuba diving. She also liked yoga and music and spending time with family and friends."

This is what her aunt says about this unique woman that America mourns tonight:

"If you knew her, you loved her. She was a go-getter. She knew what she wanted in life and she was doing what she had to do to achieve that."

There's plenty of grief to go around today.

Now this is interesting. Via today's Blogometer, there's news of a "bloggers roundtable" that occurred yesterday with Major General Kenneth Hunzeker, the Army officer in charge of the Iraqi police training program. Who attended this roundtable? Googling reveals no reports other than one by RedState's AcademicElephant.

The contributing editors at Daily Kos weren't invited to this conference call. There's no mention of it in any of the blogs on the left side of the blogosphere that I could find, so presumably no other left bloggers were invited, either. It would appear that the Pentagon has gotten into the game of partisan politics, reaching out to only the "friendly" side of the Internets.

That's not a total surprise. After all, with the right wing blogs he got questions about things like "how Iraqis traditionally have understood a police force," and "what his greatest sources of optimism and frustration are." Essentially, as our RedState colleague sums up,

[H]is purpose was not so much to debunk the relentless reporting that has painted such a grim picture of the Iraqi police as to point out its selective nature. Yes there are problems and challenges--notably in Baghdad and in Diyala province. But there are successes as well, and when you take these into account a very different picture emerges.

Yes, by only talking to the war-supporting arm of the blogosphere, the highly partisan rightwing side of the blogosphere, the Pentagon can find an outlet for all of the "good news" coming out of Iraq, that good news that the damned liberal media just refuses to report on. Including bloggers from the left would certainly have meant for some tough questions for Major Gen. Hunzeker, and it would have been a good deal more difficult to tout those successes.

But since when did the Pentagon become a Republican propaganda machine? When did the Pentagon decide to join with the GOP in making this war a political football?

Salon has published a floor statement made Tuesday by Senator Jim Webb on his support for the Warner/Levin resolution. With all due respect to our new Senator, it's a bit of a disappointment. The Senator describes his surprise and dismay that the administration has not used diplomatic efforts "to bring order out of this chaos," then goes on to say:

The bottom line of all of this is that this administration and its supporters must understand the realities that are causing us, as a Congress, to finally say enough is enough. That the time has come for a new approach. That the answer in Iraq, and to our fight against international terrorism, and to our diminished posture around the world, is for us to show not only our prowess on the battlefield but also our leadership in the diplomatic arena. That indeed we have an obligation to the men and women who have served so selflessly on our behalf to match their proficiency and their loyalties with the kind of thoughtful leadership that will bring this effort to a proper conclusion.

If there are other ways to persuade this administration to change its ineffective, one-dimensional approach to the situation in Iraq, I would welcome them. But after five years of political disarray I do not believe this is so. So I support the Warner-Levin resolution as a first step in reclaiming America's strategic purpose and international reputation. And I urge my fellow senators to do the same.

Senator Webb, do you seriously have any confidence that the administration will do any of the things that you prescribe--that they will understand these realities? Given the history of the last four years, of the administration's efforts in the run up to the war, the conduct of the war, and now the conduct of the occupation, can you reach any other conclusion than that stated by your colleague, Senator Feingold:

There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that’s not their responsibility."

Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It’s not going to stop us."

Senator Webb, you described your support of the Warner/Levin resolution as a first step. But it seems clear that neither the now moribund Warner/Levin resolution, nor any other non-binding wrist slap from the Senate will persuade this adminstration to change. You must know this now, after five years of disarray in this debacle. It's past time to stop trying to persuade the most unpersuadable administration in history. Instead, it is time to show him the way, as you stated in your response to the State of the Union address:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two.  And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas.  If he does, we will join him.  If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Senator Webb, it's time to show the way. Your son deserved and deserves better leadership from his Commander in Chief. He did not get it, and he will not get it. He also deserves better leadership from our Congress. Unlike the President, you have shown realistic, intelligent, and hard-headed leadership on this issue. Your son, all of the men and women serving in Iraq, and the American people deserve nothing less.

Senator Feingold had a conference call with bloggers after the Warner/Levin Iraq escalation resolution fiasco, and had some strong words for his fellow Democrats. From Bob Geiger:

"This is not a time to finesse the situation. This is not a time for a slow walk. This almost reminds me a little bit of the way Democrats behaved in October 2002, which was trying to play it safe, trying to use words such as 'well, we're going to vote for this resolution, but what it really means is that the president should go to the UN. That stuff doesn’t fly. And this kind of attempt to go a little bit of the way just to show you're on the other side of the president doesn’t fly either.

"This is an important moment to see if we're really going to try to end this war and, frankly, I am disappointed that Democrats are playing it too safe on this....

"They want to be immune from criticism from the White House. That's not how you win, by being afraid of the criticism. You stand up to the criticism and you say 'they were wrong. They took us in there on a fraudulent basis, they’ve screwed this up, they've screwed up the war against terrorism, they’ve weakened out military. We are going to take a completely different approach.'

"But the tragedy that we're facing, is that people simply will not do the strong thing when it needs to be done. They wait and they wait and they wait -- and in the meantime, thousands of Americans have died unnecessarily."

He also discusses the pernicious influence of the DC Democratic consultant class on keeping this war going. Sirota has the audio links here, and I've transcribed the most damning part (all errors mine):

What I think is happening is that the Washington consultants, particularly those who were part of the previous Democratic administration, come in to a room with the leadership and tell them, "Look, if you propose a timeline or if you try to cut off the funding Republicans will tear you apart. So I think it comes from the other side. I think it comes from teh Washington inside crowd that sets the parameters of this debate. This Washington inside crowd was for this war and they can't figure out how to get out of this situation. . . .  So this assumption that somehow it's Democratic Senators coming in saying you know this is a tough vote for me--I don't think that's where it's coming from. I think it's coming from the power structure in Washington that's desperately trying to figure out how to explain how they made one of the biggest mistakes in the history of our country. And that's why you have to go right at them. The people of this country want this over. Washington consultants supported this. So it's us versus them on this issue.

It is us versus them on this issue. Actually, on a lot of issues, but this one just happens to be the most critical issue we've faced in recent history. The people of this country do want this over, and that's why they sent Dems to Congress last November. Senator Feingold understands that implicitly. It's our job to make sure that the rest of them get it, too.

Update: Crooks and Liars has the video of Senator Feingold's appearance on Countdown last night. Don't miss it.

In an earlier post, I posited that the way to any desired attack on Iran by the Bush administration is through Iraq, and that the recent preoccupation by the left blogosphere is serving the administration too well in its aims on Iran, and argument continued today by Big Tent Dem at TalkLeft.

In the post, I linked to Ed Kilgore, who expressed surprise at recent news reports that the Bush administration was looking to build up (or cook) the intelligence on Iran's activities in Iraq. Ed responds with this:

What's confusing to me about both posts is a pretty simple point: is the Iran war talk really a "red herring?" Or is the administration really lusting for immediate war with Iran?...

If the White House really wanted to throw sand in the eyes of Iraq War critics, including a sizable majority of the American people, they'd be doing some very high-profile Iran scaremongering, not focused on Tehran's role in Iraq, but on the nuclear program, which has indeed gotten significant public and MSM attention....

...The administration either wants war with Iran, or it doesn't, and if it does, it needs a plausible rationale a hell of a lot more than it needs congressional authority (remember its continuing claims of all sorts of inherent presidential national security powers?). And there's an obvious scenario where that could happen: the U.S. strongly encourages the Israelis to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and then intervenes to help our ally as a matter of emergency military action, subject only to after-the-fact congressional endorsement under the War Powers Act, if the need for any authority was admitted.

I think the Bush administration would love nothing more than to extend this war to Iran.  Every indication in the administration's actions is that they are looking for justification for an attack on Iran not becuase of it's nuclear facilities, but because of its rumored involvment in the Iraqi insurgency:

President Bush's tough new stance on Iran and his military buildup in the Persian Gulf recall some of the drumbeats that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As then, the Bush administration is making allegations about Iran without providing proof.

It is suggesting Iran is sending weapons to Iraq, yet offering no evidence the supplies can be traced to Tehran. There are whispers, too, that Iranian intelligence agents were behind the recent abduction and execution of five U.S. soldiers....

Administration critics suggest the White House is exaggerating Tehran's ties to attacks inside Iraq to justify a possible future military assault just as it manipulated prewar intelligence to build its case for its 2003 invasion of Iraq, they claim.

Seems pretty likely, no? But why looking for a reason in Iraq rather than focusing on the Iran's nuclear facilities? As I explained before,  because an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could not be justified as part of the war in Iraq, the war that Congress has authorized. What are the chances that Congress would authorize war with Iran?

[Pelosi] told lawmakers that "if it appears likely that Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take up a bill to deny him the authority to do so," the Post quoted Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly as saying.

Many bloggers have been calling for Congress to start hearings on Iran, or for the netroots to call their members of congress, demanding that they stop an attack on Iran. Those calls are for the most part unnecessary. The Democratic Congress is firmly behind that. Here's Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Biden:

"I made it clear when Secretary (of State) Rice was before us: if the president has plans to go to war with Iran he has no — emphasize no — constitutional authority to do that without the consent of the American people," Biden told her. "Were he to do that, it would generate a constitutional crisis and we’ve been absolutely crystal clear with him on that."

If we are going to call for Iran hearings, let's call for hearings about the administration's efforts to build a case against Iran in the context of the Iraq war. Those hearings could lead to a revision of the AUMF to explicitly prohibit strikes against Iran.