Time For Serious Talk On Iraq

By Mimikatz

In another couple of weeks, Congress comes back from recess.  On or about September 11 the White House will give its "polished" version of the Petraeus Report.  We already have the bleak political outloook in the NIE, and Kevin Drum shows with statistics that as compared to June-July 2006, Bush's escalation is a failure by any significant measure.  So why do we keep hearing that the Democrats are getting squishy?  Can they really be getting ready to coalesce around a strategy of removing Prime Minister Maliki in favor of General Nguyen Cao Ky--I mean Iyad Allawi--and asking the increasingly restive public for another 6-12 months before anything changes in Iraq?  How can this be?

There were two insightful posts this week that may hold a clue.  One is the piece by Jay Ackroyd at TPM Cafe laying out the DC Consensus (short version:  Iraq is going to be more awful if we leave than we can tell you, so we won't be candid about the fact that we really aren't going to be able to leave for years) and the ensuing comment thread.  The other is an op-ed by of all people Jim Hoagland at the WaPo.  He points out that George Bush most especially, but also the Pentagon and politicians of both parties, are so invested in the Iraq mess that they cannot admit their failure.  Rather than seriously trying to find a way out, they are now simply trying to protect their reputations and hang onto power.

Some military commanders, CIA agents in Iraq, Republican members of Congress, State Department diplomats and others now make their highest priority the protection of their own reputations, careers and institutions -- the three blend seamlessly into a single overriding ambition in Washington -- for the post-Bush era, which thus draws closer, in the manner of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The need to protect the White House, the Pentagon and both major political parties from greater Iraq fallout explains much of the blame being dumped on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at this late date -- even though his deficiencies and close links to Iran and Syria were clearly visible when the administration helped install him in the job in 2006. As he has been throughout the Iraq experience, Bush is condemned to play the cards he dealt himself. (snip)

The U.S. military is helping Sunni tribes organize into armed militias that will owe their loyalty beyond the tribe to American commanders rather than to Maliki's government. Similarly, the CIA has molded an Iraq intelligence service that draws no public funds from the Iraqi government and presumably is paid for by Langley. The agency's reluctance to act against Kurdish rebels operating against Iran and Turkey may also be part of a separate vision of the agency's future role in Iraq.

And what would be motivating the Democrats, who seem by and large to be congenitally unable to think their way to and articulate with confidence a clear view of what we must do?  Fear of being blamed, I think, as much as fear of being thought weak.  As the GOP sharpens its stab-in-the-back rhetoric, the Dems become more reluctant to speak honestly to the country, even as their popularity plummets?

If they could be honest, what should they say?  That there is no military solution in Iraq, as the NIE says.  That it is not "supporting the troops" to ask them to do a job that cannot be done.  That nearly half the troops will have to come home next year, as former General Peter Pace now says, because the military cannot sustain Bush's escalation.  That we have so wrecked Iraqi society by our ill-considered and misguided invasion and even more misguided and ideologically driven occupation that no political reconciliation seems on the horizon, especially not if we are there literally as well as figuratively calling the shots.  Yes, there may be more violence if we leave, at least for a time. But why do we think that a smaller "residual" force in Iraq will be able to pacify the country when 160,000 troops have not succeeded, except in limited areas outside Baghdad, and for limited periods?  If some force is needed to deter others from invading Iraq (and repeating our mistakes), why should that force be pinned down in Iraq, rather than positioned more safely nearby? 

Above all, they should say that Iraq is not the only, or even the most serious, threat we face.  America's existence as a nation is not threatened by the insurgents in Iraq, who overwhelmingly are fighting over who will control Iraq, not the US.  Nor is our existence as a democratic nation threatened by Islamic extremism, even if we may suffer an attack or two in the next several years.  Rather, our existence as a democratic nation is threatened by the drift toward centralization, secrecy and fascism by the Bush/Cheney regime.  By the hollowing out of our industrial capacity and the decaying of our infrastruecture.  By the decline in our schools and our public health system, indeed our whole health care system, that leaves us vulnerable to epidemics and natural disasters.  By climate change, which is already bringing more severe storms and extremes of temperature, and changes in ecosystems. 

And most of all it is threatened by politicans who treat the public like children, who won't speak to us honestly, who tell us to shut up and shop, and not raise our voices and act like citizens.

Update:

This just in:  Think Progress reports that the success in Anbar province and other Sunni areas is due to Sunni anticipation of an inevitable US withdrawal.  In other words, realizing that we are probably going to begin leaving soon, the Sunnis are positioning themselves for the post-US period by cooperating against al Qaeda in Iraq and others to reduce their influence.  This supports the idea that if we left, or were seen to be leaving soon, the Iraqis would have more incentive to resolve their differences or work out whatever modus vivendi they could.

Comments

[bmaz]

The Democratic Congresscritters have more than ganglia for brains. At least a little more. I think. At what point do the realization set in that the Bush Administration does not tell the truth, is incapable of making a good decision and is to incompetent to execute any plan for Iraq? It just defies all logic. Did Cheney put all the Dems in a skinner box and desensitize them or something? They are mindless rats pressing the joy bar of war and fear at this point. Nothing more.

[Jodi]

I can not tell you what my brother tells me from Iraq. And tells no others in the family. They don't know I dabble here.

But he would not disagree much with what you say above Mimikatz.

In my own words it is CYA time for the so called leaders of this country in every party, with the most important thing being the greed for and the acquisition of power.

Being a Geek, I must refer to the Time Honored Code of The Ferengi.

The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
Rule 10. Greed is eternal!

[semiot]

A very cogent analysis, and perfectly reasonable recommendations for a Democratic approach to Iraq right now. Why won't the Dems listen to you, Mimi?

The dolchstoss, that's why. They are willing to remain essentially quiessent on the key issues of our time - because they are afraid of being blamed for the shit that's about to hit the fan.

We have a Congress now that resembles nothing so much as the "Provisional Government" of Russia under Kerenski or the Reichstag under von Papen. Weak Micawber politicians concerned only with personal reputation and the maintenance of a tenuous status quo until "something will turn up."

[Flamethrower]

Iraq is going to explode into violence the day after we leave - be that tomorrow or 10 years from tomorrow. One day in between Iraqis will get sick of it and maybe come together. Or not.

Our side is as cowardly as the other side is mendacious.

[Kathleen]

Has the Bush administration provided Osama Bin Laden with his wish to witness "the U.S. become a shadow of its former self"

The faith in our congress can not go any lower or can it?

Great article at Information Clearing House by Scott Ritter on Cheney. Also great article about the right (wrong) wing radicals pushing us closer to a confrontation with Iran.

[Mimikatz]

If there were a politician who took the risk to speak honestly, the GOP spin machine would gang up on him/her for awhile. But did Harry Reid lose his job for saying the Iraq War was lost? No, and now he's vindicated by the NIE and several generals.

It was probably a poor choice of words, since we are in an occupation not a war, in which we fight this faction or that in this place or that, but have no real country-wide coherent strategy.

I think most recently Obama comes the closest, because he isn't bogged down by having supported the war early on. But he's nowhere near where I would like to see a candidate get. But fer gods' sakes--in Iowa a majority (51%) of Republicans">http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=842C41FC6C2052972E9865678EC62CB8?diaryId=956">Republicans want us out in 6 mos.

As I said, the Dems fear being blamed, but they are much more apt to survive the inevitable blaming if they stand up forthrightly and take a position, rather than weakly acquiesce in what Bush wants, thereby alienating everyone.

[Coral]

Rather, our existence as a democratic nation is threatened by the drift toward centralization, secrecy and fascism by the Bush/Cheney regime. By the hollowing out of our industrial capacity and the decaying of our infrastruecture. By the decline in our schools and our public health system, indeed our whole health care system, that leaves us vulnerable to epidemics and natural disasters. By climate change, which is already bringing more severe storms and extremes of temperature, and changes in ecosystems.

Great post, MimiKatz.

You left out the media in your list of threats to the nation, which have suppressed facts and opinions not to their liking, and ridiculed the few brave politicians who have been willing to be honest.

For me, the great question for the upcoming primaries and general election is: Can this situation be reversed?

Even with a Democratic victory of massive proportions, I'm not sure that it can. Still, I see that as the only thing that could possibly begin to turn the tide, slow down the train wreck...pick your metaphor.

[bmaz]

Um, Rule 10 of the Freenghi Rules of Acquisition is "A dead customer cannot buy as much as a live customer".

[oldtree]

We find an issue where the people of this country find out leaders out of touch and of questionable abilities.
I think for this reason we will never know why they are building permanent bases, talking about staying and continuing a war to provide that one thing that will keep them in power. that which provides power.
if this third world country we live in, lost it's oil as well as it's collective mind, there would be no need for this conversation. I suggest that this is a known fact, and makes all the posturing moot. we, the people, will not give up the almighty oil. our government has stifled new sources of energy on orders of those that make money on energy (re; the people running government)
so we can continue to guess at why a majority of the people are ignored about this matter. our representatives no longer have the fortitude to tell us what is going on. is this because they have been blackmailed with the warrantless wiretapping? perhaps. is it because they are corrupt to the core, perhaps. is it because there is no more oil left greater than what we are negotiating to steal now, perhaps. you don't explain martial law to your constituents.
so, enjoy the show. that dog on pony action continues to amuse and placate the sheep that lives within us. the trusting community member that wonders at how anyone could think our government would so disenfranchise us need look no further than new orleans to realize what you can expect from your country. bridges fall, roads fall into disrepair, the treasury is drained. at any time, any one senator could have stopped the poisoned bills from ever reaching a vote. none did. the only people that stopped a senate vote were republicans that wanted to hide crimes. no democrat has the will to end one of these by putting a hold on it that could not be removed by any other power. that should be enough to explain even to one's children's children that the government of the US was utterly corrupt just before the fall. not one came to our aid folks. not one.

please, look at the real world and realize how many important things we are taking for granted based on words from known serial liars. enjoy the future, it could be a bumpy ride if we remain in denial.

[Sojourner]

bmaz, she is putting the neocon troll spin on it...

[Mimikatz]

Speaking of the ferengi, there is a lovely beach on the island of Penang in Malaysia called Batu Ferengi. Batu means beach in Malay, and ferengi means foreigner. That has to be where the name came from.

[Ace Armstrong]

Both major political parties are deeply invested in the national security state which is animated by the military industrial complex. We are the largest supplier of arms in the world. Why wouldn't it behoove us to promote conflict? Take the recent reporting of the unaccountability for a large number of small arms in Iraq provided by the U.S. They might be unaccounted for, but you can bet they were paid for. Before the war oil was $22/bbl and Haliburton was $22/share. Both now hover around $70, although Haliburton was clever enough to split two for one and obfuscate things a bit.

[freepatriot]

Uhm, bmaz, I think you mean the "Monroe" box

named after it's inventor, Dr Marvin Monroe

High Everybody, (waves hands) I can't resist a "Simpson's" reference

no changes in my situation, but I'm still "out there" somewhere

[bmaz]

Misquoting Ferenghi is the most useful thing Troll has supplied in quite a while. Troll control is hard work, Hard work I'm telling you. (Insert Bush smirk/braindead chuckle here).

[Jodi]

Dear tiny man (excuse me) tiny gentleman, there are lists of rules and lists of rules. I don't know where you got yours, but here are a few of mine.

dmwright">http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm">dmwright

"Rule 010 » Greed is eternal"

startrekfans">http://www.startrekfans.net/lofiversion/index.php/t9469.html">startrekfans

"Rule 010 È Greed is eternal."

Googling on [+"Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" +"greed is eternal"]
I got 537 hits.

Googling on [+"Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" +"greed is"]
I got 578 hits.

I rest my case.

[Sara]

I see the current state of play between Democrats and Republicans vis a vis Iraq a little differently.

I don't think the Democrats are as fearful of the stab-in-the-back argument as they are of being seen to take too much "leadership" and suffering loss of the argument come election time, that this is Bush's war, and that the Republicans in Congress, sticking together like crazy on the Premptive Doctrine and all the rest, are the Authors and Architects of it along with Bush.

Democrats know that many Senate and House Republicans want to run away from that position, tails between legs, but since they were unwilling to vote for any of the timeline limits in the Supplemental, why should the Democrats make it easy for them? My guess is that the Republicans who have indicated some distance from Bush -- Lugar and Warner, have probably been told by Reid precisely how many votes they have to bring to the table for a resolution of limits on troop numbers and a clear plan for departure in the not too distant future, for Reid to recommend any sort of Democratic support for such a Republican back-out strategy. Democrats want the election environment to be about Bush, Cheney and many R Senators and Congresspersons doing a very slow roll down a very long staircase. It is pure legislative politics. You do this when actual leadership (Reid) simply can't get votes for a straight up resolution -- but knowing the other side wants a resolution that gives them cover, you extract the largest price possible.

For comparative purposes, this is exactly the move LBJ put on the Republican Senate Leadership over the matter of the censure of old Joe McCarthy. The Eisenhower WH wanted the censure resolution, the Republicans in the Senate wanted the censure, led by Ralph Flanders and Margret Chase Smith -- but LBJ kept all the Democratic votes he had under his hat until Leadership produced a list of commitments to vote against ole Joe. Only then did he deliver all the Democrats in the chamber. In some circles it is called making the dog clean up its own shit. It was making the Republicans take a major share of responsibility for their own renegade. In this case it is telling Warner and Lugar they can have the pleasure of rounding up enough votes for a veto-proof resolution. If they get enough votes for a reasonable resolution, then Reid will allow it to come to the floor, and furnish the necessary Democratic Votes.

Such protects Democrats from Stab in the Back talk, and it, more or less, keeps Bush and Cheney rolling down that long staircase well into next year, which will suit Democrats just fine.

[what a moron]

is there any commentator more gd stupid that this 'jodi' bot ??

as charles pierce would say, 'jeebuschristmas'.

[AJ]

I know you will all be shocked to open the Washington Post this am and see another self-justifying and intellectually dishonest piece of crap from Michael O'Hanlon...or you could just wait for the Glenn Greenwald eviserceration that is sure to follow.

[bmaz]

wam - NO. However, in the one semi-annual act of kindness I have for the Shit Stain, there does seem to be some variation in the order of rules in different lists of Ferenghi Rules of Acquisition. Who knew?

[Jodi]

: )

bmaz,

the technologically advantaged (sometimes called Geeks) know.

But in the vein of the ordinary everyday kindness I exhibit by not calling people names, I hereby remove you from my category of tiny people.

[Mimikatz]

Thanks, Sara, for the analysis. That gives me some hope. And let's be civil, folks, not knee-jerk. Jodi actually pretty much agreed with my original post, if you look at her comment.

[dougR]

Maybe it's me, or maybe it's the August doldrums, but I'm afraid I can't see anything ahead that represents a "win" for our side--progressive, Democratic, whatever-you-call-us. The Bushies are stalling, with the able assistance of the media and the DC-based "policy" establishment and the charm offensive on how the surge is "working"--until a Democratic president will be forced finally to pull the plug in Iraq. With the resulting post-withdrawal cataclysm in Iraq will come a continual, relentless, shit-storm-tsunami of neocon/crackpot/Republican propaganda about "DEFEAT!!!", and it'll be the Democratic president, rather than George Bush, who will will wear that "defeat" in Iraq around his/her neck like one of those African burning-tire necklaces. We all know the people who have pushed this war will fight one last campaign, once we've withdrawn: to paint their war as headed for victory, but for the dastardly defeatocrats.

All of which is perhaps to be expected, but I see nothing on our side--no recognition of the propaganda shitstorm to come, no preparation to address the impending Iraqi bloodbath on an effective basis--and certainly no unified position for withdrawal now, that gives me any hope here. The malleability of people who ought to know better, to the siren song "the surge is working", proves to me that truth is a dead issue, and the lukewarm spit that passes for Democratic "leadership" will matter not one bit.

Anybody see it differently? Anybody...?

[bmaz]

You are still a troll, but you are our troll I suppose...
Shit Stain may even be a term of endearment by now
Depends on the day.
FYI Here is site I referenced. It is huge list of RofA; like 230 of them
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wakefield/ferenghi.html

[bmaz]

Sara and Mimi - I agree with everything Sara wrote; it is intellectually both correct and consistent. However, it is a view premised on the natural state of politics, and I often wonder if that is still the correct frame of thought. Due to the egregious and malicious policies and actions of this Administration, it is impossible to separate the issue of the war in Iraq from the other front line issues of torture, habeas corpus, 4th Amendment, domestic spying, corruption and was profiteering, theocratic politicizing of civil service government etc. My fear is that by continuing to treat these issues within the standard political framework of posture for the next election plays into the hands of those that brought us those ills, and put us in this situation, to begin with. This has happened time and time again. Every time the radical right wing of the Republican party grabs substantial power, they impose maximum dogmatic policy and standards. If they maintain power, they have accomplished what they intended and keep plowing further and further into their corporate/theological ideology; if they lose power, they have substantially shifted the baseline and acceptable norms in their direction. The Democrats, upon reclaiming power, are never able to fully reset things to where they should be; they always are forced to bring the country back to stability and start governance from the new baseline and ingrained norms.

If we keep giving up ground in this tug of war, we will soon be off the right (i.e. wrong) side of the field altogether. Our Constitutionally proscribed form of contemplated government, with it's inherent checks, balances and wisdom, is in serious danger of being irretrievably broken. It is for this reason that, while I fully accept the logic of what Sara has set forth; I am not sure about the implied conclusion that this is a smart and acceptable way for the Democrats to be framing things at this point. I am not sure it is wrong either. I don't know; but I think it deserves serious discussion and thought. I am concerned that when you keep framing things in terms of "It is ok, it is a smart plan for electing more Democrats in 2008", that you perpetuate what I have described here. Politicians, Democrats quite included, are, by nature, malleable shills; they will shift and do what they perceive as being the path of least resistance to election and reelection. This may grow our Democratic majority and even put us in the White House, but will it put us back on the track that the country should be on? The track that the country was founded and designed to be on? I have my own ideas on the answers to these questions and issues; but I am conflicted and not sure. I am truly interested in hearing what all of you think; please tell me and explain why. Thanks.

[Boo Radley]

Jodi,

Per MimiKatz, I appreciate your comment about your brother.

For the good of the nation, however, I would urge you to tell your brother to get the word out in a way that does not jeapordize him. The Bushies continue to use the military, especially the Generals, to make public statements that we all know are bogus.

"the technologically advantaged (sometimes called Geeks) know."

I have never seen any evidence that you are "technologically advantaged." The few times you ever reference a document to bolster one of your opinions, you don't even know the HTML to make a link.">http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp">link. Leaving a URL, (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL) is fine as long as you don't try to pawn yourself off as "technologically advanced."

Please communicate to your brother that we all pray/hope for his continued safety and are doing our best to get him the hell out of there. Despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with the operation, it's not his fault and I am deeply grateful for his service to our country.