Letters to the Editor
-
With a little more time...
Obama would have had them really squirming. These guys have gotten away with vague, useless platitudes about "success" for too long. He was able to lay out the question of "What is an acceptable outcome?" but didn't have time to hold their feet more closely to the fire. I so wanted him to be able to ask, "If you're telling us that a reduction of violence to 2006 and 2005 levels is an encouraging sign of progress, then what year's level of violence is our target?" As it was, he pretty much staked Crocker out in the sun, left him umm-ing and er-ing by carefully (Obama very lawyer-like here, leading the witness into a trap) putting him in a position of either stating that perfection is the only acceptable outcome or of having to describe some other "acceptable" outcome. If Obama had had another ten minutes, he'd have had them begging for mercy.
-
no win war
This war will never be won because it can't. It can't because we cannot impose a government on Iraq just like we couldn't impose one on Vietnam just like we can't really impose one anywhere except possibly Grenada or Panama or some other small nearby country. To impose a government means you have to stay and make sure it stays imposed. The people are naturally going to resist because, well, why shouldn't they? The reason for this lull is in my opinion that they have realized that in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, years from now they'll still be there but we sure won't. They can wait us out, and meanwhile, help themselves to some nice American money. These war promoters like Bush and McCain have spent so many billions on nothing that it's just disgusting. Let's keep that money here, goddammit. Spend it here, our dollars, by Americans, for Americans, of Americans. You read about all the wonderful projects being provided for the Iraqis with my tax dollars. I don't have an oil well in my back yard. In the old days Bush would have been impeached a long time ago for spending our tax dollars so foolishly.
-
where the hell is the state department?
why have we abdicated diplomacy to the military? the war ended a long time ago. we are now the police, and that never ends well. why are we not hearing from Condi about the "success" in Iraq?
-
"The Surge is working" = "War critics were right"
In the run-up to the war, critics pointed out that it would inevitably be a long, bloody, destructive, and expensive enterprise. War promoters countered by denying all four points. It would not be bloody and destructive; we would be welcomed as liberators. It would not be a long war, but would be over in less than six months. Most important to the tax-cutting Bush administration, it would not cost American taxpayers anything; we would fight the war with no more than 100,000 troops and fund it with Iraq's own oil revenues.
The Surge is an admission of failure on all points. It is an admission that we cannot come close to anything resembling "victory" (no matter how ill-defined) without substantially more troops than were used to launch the war five years ago. It is an admission that the war is and will continue to be infinitely more expensive than the cost-free conflict we were promised. It is an admission that bodies, lives, and property will continue to be sacrificed in the name of the war. And it is an admission that there is no endgame; no conclusion to the war is foreseen or foreseeable; far from ending in six months (September 2003?), the conflict will stretch into the unknown distance.
How can this be spun as a good thing for supporters of the unending war?
-
It's actually funny. . . .
I find it amusing that a lot of war supporters rail on and on about illegal immigrants while citing the "Sons of Iraq" program as a major success. One group earns little money do all of the dirty work in our economy. The other is bought off with taxpayers' dollars, in exchange for not shooting at us, and they are the heroes. Rich indeed.
-
Progress and Victory
In November, 2005, the Bush administration released their "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html), which they thought was a convincing plan for moving forward. In it, "Victory" was defined with three stages: short, medium, and long term. The long term conditions of victory are pretty much unrealistic, except perhaps in McCain's 100-year sense. The medium term conditions are far enough out of reach that they might as well be in the long term category as well. The short term conditions for victory include
"An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy."
In the two and a half years since this was written, the progress Bush, Petraeus, Crocker, and others keep insisting on has been glacial, at best. We haven't even met these "short-term" goals. It's hard to tell which is more appalling: that they keep making these claims, or that the Congress, press, and public have such low standards that they are allowed to get away with it.
-
What about Kudish Iraq?
This was a strange set of hearings today, particularly the mentioning of the design of a flag! What magical thinking!
I find it strange that nobody in the meetings today mentioned the success that the Kurds have had in building their 'nation' in Iraq. Is this because we don't want to mention them because of the skittishness of Turkey, or are loathe to mention them because of their success in rebuilding their society without our military help? Is there a tacit agreement among the people in these hearings and the staffers that this isn't relevant?
It seems to me that we're actually buying off the sides of a civil war in southern Iraq - - - renting their loyalty to us, not to their country, and for some short time, delaying their civil war. As Gen. Oddom said in similar hearings last week, if they're going to have their civil war, we should probably let them get on with it. He went on to posit, "Can you imagine some European power coming into the United States in the 1860's and trying to get the two sides to negotiate with them for a settlement?"
I guess we just have to wait. Until the election-until a Democrat is elected-until Obama, who seems much more realistic, is elected. I was reassured that Biden guaranteed that no document would be signed between the States and Iraq without the congress seeing it. It would be a first.