Sunni Awakening At Risk

Along with the Surge, McCain is so proud of, the Sunni Awakening or Sons of Iraq taking the part of the US military in action against Al Qaida seriously reduced violence. There are two pieces to that reduction, one the Awakening councils were composed of people who, to a great extent, had been doing their level best to kill Americans and two when fighting on the American side had credence with the local population and intimate local knowledge leading to the destruction or removal of Al Qaida elements. The Shiite government of Iraq is putting real pressure on the councils.

McClatchy reports that the Iraqi government has failed to absorb tens of thousands of the Sunni fighters. The US has paid the former militants about $300 per month and promises of jobs with the government to be on our side. Those jobs have not materialized.

"We cannot stand them, and we detained many of them recently," said one senior Iraqi commander in Baghdad, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue. "Many of them were part of al Qaida despite the fact that many of them are helping us to fight al Qaida."

This attitude is reflected by a possible proposal by the Iraqi Army to set a November 1 deadline for the un-absorbed militias to turn in their weapons or be arrested. The Iraqi and US officials both say the Maliki government never promised to hire more than 20% of the approximately 100,000 militia men. A real problem is in the offing.

"If they disband us now, I will tell you that history will show we will go back to zero," said Mullah Shahab al Aafi, a former emir, or leader, of insurgents in Diyala province who's the acting commander of 24,000 Sons of Iraq there, 11,000 of whom are on the U.S. payroll. "I will not give up my weapons. I will never give them up, and I will carry my weapon again. If it is useless to talk to the government, I will be forced to carry my weapons and my pistol."

It pays to remember that the US disbanded the Iraqi Army after beating it and reaped the whirlwind. The US has so far this year paid $303 million to the militias, the Iraqi government has budgeted $150 million for the vocational training they propose to put the remaining militia into, to be bricklayers and plumbers - along with other unemployed people. It is no stretch of imagination to see that these people see themselves as soldiers and resent being treated differently.

It gets worse as the NYT reports, west of Bhagdad former insurgent leaders claim the government is after 650 Awakening leaders, US and Iraqi officials in Diyala Province say there are arrest orders for hundreds. The Iraqi government is beginning this push at just about the time the councils are beginning to try to translate their actions into political power.

“The state cannot accept the Awakening,” said Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheer, a leading Shiite member of Parliament. “Their days are numbered.”

This hostile attitude is little more than a guess that the improving Iraqi Army can handle Al Qaida and possibly the now US allied Awakening. You can judge for yourself if it seems a good bet, or an invitation to more sectarian violence.

Warfare Is What It Is

Recent news reports, McClatchy, about a Sadr City strike damaging a hospital and ambulances have created a stir. As many as 5 rockets were fired into a house apparently used by militants for attacks on US troops "yards" from the hospital. Civilian casualties are up for the month, as are US troop casualties. This fighting is occurring in a crowded slum of 2.5 million people.

When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.

Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...

We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.

There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.

Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.

Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.

Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.

If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.

I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.

Surge Equals No Political Progress

Now that a bunch of Americans and Iraqis have died for the American "surge" we have exactly not one iota of the political progress that it was "intended" to foster. You may have noticed that when it comes to spending American blood and treasure like it was water the BushCo has no problem, but when it comes to Iraqis doing something to put their country back together all bets are off. Somehow George II can sell the idea that Americans need to die and be blown to broken shreds to fix an Iraq that has no intention of fixing itself. According to the NYT the BushCo's goals for the Iraqi government are that it pass a budget (??), vote to extend the UN mandate (if not, then what?), and take official action to reverse the effects of de-Baathification, already a quietly done deal. There you go. This is what 974 American lives in the last year buy, the dollar cost and wounded costs I won't bother to play pile on with, just actually dead American soldiers.

When you talk to your neighbor who has lost someone in this adventure of George II, this is the measure of his concern - you had better try to make up for it yourself. Asking someone to die for something is no small matter and it would seem as though the Commander in Chief would take that a little more to heart in some issue other than trampling the Constitution. I won't add anything to do with my absolute lack of respect for his Republican Congressional lackeys and their disregard of the sacrifice. This devaluation of what these troops spent their lives doing is, to me, unacceptable behavior. Despite all previous evidence I had hoped that along with the "surge" the BushCo would carry forward something constructive in Iraq. Ooops.

The Bush dead-enders will call any Congressional push as "not supporting the troops," the unending mantra of those with no coherent argument left. Every attempt of Congress to link the war to some practical end has been met with the same phrase, if Congress tries to make the President responsible for the results of spending American blood and treasure the answer is "not supporting the troops." The question that seems beyond the ken of these folks is just exactly how it is supportive of the troops to spend their lives with no result?

Even if you start out from a view point that the Iraq war was somehow justified to begin and then to prosecute for a couple more years on the basis of "you broke it, you bought it," at some point America should see some result of its spending. The election of a non-functioning, corrupt, militia ridden government is not much return for an expense now measure in trillions of dollars, nearly four thousand dead and over twenty thousand broken troops. Is it real clear what BushCo expects back from our investment in that hole? Other than asking us to stay it is pass a budget?

House Iraq War Vote

AP reports that Nancy Pelosi expects a House vote on Friday for a $50 billion Iraqi war funding measure that would set a goal of war's end by December 2008, require troop withdrawal to begin immediately, and require troops spend as much time at home as in combat. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) says the measure sets, "goals instead of guarantees and that makes it a little soft for me."

Rep John Boehner (R-OH) has the expected Republican reaction:

"It's a proposal so backward and irresponsible that it can only be explained as political stunt."

"Our troops need all of the resources Congress can provide to seize upon the tactical momentum they've achieved and eliminate al-Qaida from Iraq's communities once and for all."

The measure is expected to narrowly get through the House and either die in the Senate or be vetoed by George II and sustained in the House. The likelihood of Senate passage is small due simply to procedural processes which will keep it from a vote - cloture. This will, of course, toss the mess right back into the Congress' lap. Push will once again come to shove and by previous behavior a cave in will promptly occur and BushCo will continue to behave as it has and prosecute the war in the face of public opinion. There is an alternative, unlikely but effective, Congress can continue to pass bills slowly tightening the screws on funding each time it is vetoed or not passed in the Senate leaving BushCo with the conundrum of no funding or funding that reflects US public desires.

Congress is afraid of fallout from such a course, memories of Viet Nam and the push back following the de-funding. This is nonsense, the Democrats never paid one cent of political cost for that action, the offended parties would never vote Democratic no matter what course was taken. There is no evidence of any political blow-back from that vote. The noise will come from George II's 28% dead-enders, Christ, himself, couldn't sway them away from their "dear leader." If the Democratic leadership would take a look at the blogs, magazines, newspapers, and TV outfits that back BushCo and the Iraqi war they would see from their other content that there is not a single vote available to them under any circumstances from this bunch. This information is available to anyone who wants to look for it, I guarantee that most left bloggers know where to find it.

So what faces Congress is the choice of whether to insult a group who will not not support Democratic candidates in the 2008 election or 2010 or any other one - not if they behave remotely like Democrats. I have no idea how something this simple and easy to discover if there is any doubt misses the Democrats in Congress. I have repeatedly run the scenario through my mind trying to discover the source of fear in these public servants and cannot get there. No political solution is on even a distant horizon and the only slow down in violence occurs where ethnic cleansing has already occurred. These people have not sorted out their differences and will not sort them out until they are either dead or tired of it and that is not something we can bring about without wholesale slaughter in the first case and not at all in the second. In the second case we provide an additional irritant and target and tamp down the very actions that would finally achieve the first or second cases.

If we "broke it" we have paid sufficiently to consider it "bought." If you want to hold your breath until Congress figures that out, you're going to get very blue in the face; and that may be the only Blue result.

Democrats Want Defeat In Iraq - Boehner

Since GOP House Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made a comment on CNN to Wolf Blitzer referring to the US commitment in Iraq as a "small price" for stopping al Qaeda and stabilizing the Middle East he's been taking all sorts of heat. So, leave it to these sort of people to "spin" the snot out of it in rescue mode.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer wanted to know their reaction to the criticism generated by this remark, "We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al-Qaida here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East." His spokeswoman Jessica Towhey had this to say, "...progress on the ground that some Democrats are so desperate to ignore," and further, It's apparent that some Democrats and the far-left wing of their party are deeply afraid we are winning in Iraq now, and it's clear they will do anything they can - including making false representations - to ensure our troops come home after defeat, not victory."

So, it is the position of the Leadership of the GOP that the Democrats want the US defeated in Iraq. That might be considered rather "hot" rhetoric in any circumstance, but when you consider that the Bush administration has done just about everything possible to guarantee failure, it is reprehensible. Putting troops in harm's way under a false flag was irresponsible in the beginning - that is irresponsibility with people's lives, and from there they botched every major move that might have allowed success. Bush and the Republicans have made such a mess of this that now there is not clear idea of what would define success or defeat, it is a constantly moving goal. The troops have not, of course, failed at any military mission involving opposing troops, but that goal was passed early on, within the space of months. The failures have all been political, Bush and Republican failures.

What Republicans expect you to believe is that we are going to "win" something, that it involves a small price, and that the opposition are traitors who are attempting to defeat US troops in battle. That particular kind of talk would, in many circles, get you smacked in the face. Maybe I am a little too civilized to go find Rep. Boehner and hit him, but boy it sure is irritating and defines him as something other than a politician, unless you consider Joe McCarthy and example of politics. Cheap inflammatory talk based on no more than their emotional response to being called wrong is debasing of the political process and another example of why the Republicans need to spend some time in the political wilderness. What a bunch.

Things in Iraq Are Better - Utter Nonsense

You absolutely have to enlarge this graph, I'm sorry I couldn't enlarge it.

I'd be ecstatic if things in Iraq were better, I may oppose this war but I want the troops doing well and being well. I care deeply how their lives fare, I understand wounds and death are a part of warfare - but lying to the US public is garbage. I took the time to put together this bar graph which contains total Iraq fatalities for each month. One month of one year, April of 2004 has exceed 2007 fatalities by month since the "Surge", January 2004 exceeded January 2007. You can track the ups and downs in a glance. The recent good news is mirrored in every month, it gets really hot in July and August and every year deaths go down.



I can stand a philosophical argument about this war, but outright lying makes me livid. There is a special place for these people if you're religious, it's called Hell and they can't get there too soon to disappoint me. I cannot in anything approaching polite language describe the disconnect between this graph and what we're being told.

Iraq and Reality Ever Collide?

***Since this post required a disclaimer over at CS I'll repost here and not disclaim it, you won't be unpleasantly surprised I didn't.***

Iraq mess is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Republican Party, some misguided (charitably, "misled") Democrats voted for the authorization of force but it is a Republican mess. They have cheered it on, they have labeled traitorous any opThe position, calls for draw down or withdrawal are mocked as cut and run, and finally any changes are simply killed in the Senate. The odd ones talk and vote something else and the very rare bird, Bush acolytes from blue states (Gordon Smith) even vote, but then Gordon is a past master at "Moderate Republican" at election and sycophant after. The reaches of Republican rhetoric on this issue were virtually McCarthyistic and much too public to be repudiated. All the little slogans, signs of progress, and threats of terrorist disaster in America have been played to the hilt. This creates a serious problem when things go south, they've played it so loud and so hardball that even pretty dim Americans won't forget. (This does neglect the hard core who still believe Saddam was driving one of the planes and had WMD down in his spidey-hole.) So they own this clunker and now what to do?


With the loss of lives and treasure piled this high it is simply impossible to admit a mistake and do something responsible about it. Patience is now the watch word, just give the new "new and improved" policy a chance. Patience. If we're just patient enough in 2009 there will a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress and they can have the discredit for defeat. It will be a Democratic loss not a Republican one and for the next 20 years they can say over and over that it wasn't a military defeat, it was a political one and it was the treasonous Democrats who brought it on. The Democratic propaganda disillusioned the public and everything would have gone well under Republican leadership - we could have won. There's the rub, won. Oh you could point out that we'd won when Bhagdad's statue fell, or when Saddam was captured, or possibly when blue thumbs were waved, but no, there is some nebulous win point, a free and stable Iraq.


Some of you may find that analysis entirely too politically cynical to swallow, no political Party do that to the Armed Forces and the American public. Check the record. Certainly no political party would use a brain dead woman and her family's suffering for political gain and they certainly wouldn't pile on to a group's sexual orientation just to win some points and they'd surely never take us to war over hogwash, and they'd never pointlessly scare the willies out of the public with "terror threat levels" to gain electoral points.


Yep, I'm a lefty Democrat, calling me a liberal would be an insult of understatement and I'm more than sure my political agenda leaves me disinclined to give much credit to Republicans but this isn't an ideological quarrel. This war has not squat to do with conservatism or even Republicanism beyond the opportunity to further enrich the elite, it has everything in the world to do with dishonesty and warmongering. If you Republicans think I'm being a little harsh, you'd lose your minds if I used the rhetoric I applied to the Hubert Humphrey Democrats. The Administration's record in this mess and their Republican acolytes in Congress record is available in print and and video. That is the part that they haven't classified. The most secretive administration in American history is running this debacle and you think as bad as it looks you know the whole story?


There are a couple Republican authors on this site that at least have the decency to be conflicted over what to do. They know the thing can't keep on as is but are terrified of the consequences of getting the heck out. We broke it, we bought it. Utter nonsense. If the "bought it" portion involved sending Wolfowitz, Cheny, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang over there naked and alone there'd be some sense of ownership. That's not the deal; the deal is American kids get to own it...and keep paying for it. It's bad enough that they die and get maimed (those numbers are there to see) but just consider the cost of them adapting to that environment. Dust, dirt, death, and destruction as a daily routine, as a lifestyle. A lifestyle that is totally unpredictable, enemies are undetectable until they shoot at you or try to blow you up. A box, a bag of garbage, a car are just that, until they blow up in your face. A marketplace that five minutes ago contained shoppers is now an abattoir greased with blood and organs and garnished with bones and blasted masonry. That's your day for 15 months and then you come home for a year, maybe. And you don't fit in and they just don't understand.


Iraqis are going to sort this out and it's not going to be nice. They're going to sort it out with us or without us and if they have to sort us out in the process they will just get more willing as time passes, because you see, we will have killed their brothers, their fathers, their cousins, and their nephews ten times removed, not to mention destroyed homes, kicked in doors, and committed terminal insults. They are going to sort out al Qaeda, way too many of those relatives are dead thanks to those rat bastards so they're going to get sorted out real thoroughly as soon as we're not in the way. Non-Queda Sunnis are going to get sorted out just as they are now. Shiite Iran will get kicked out just as quickly as soon as they are of little use for gigging the Americans. Iran is playing with fire in Iraq, Iraqis are not Persians, emphatically not. Their history does not include Persian kindness and concern and they are a historical people.


The American public in general is about real tired of excuses and being terrorized by their own government. This Republican adventure is going to end and it is going to end badly. Playing at "responsibility" will only get us more of the same and give the Machevellians a chance to duck some of the blame. If any of you are willing to accept the moral costs of that calculation then be a part of it, but do it honestly and support the most hawkish of the bunch. If you don't like it and have to vote Republican then you're stuck with Ron Paul. You'll lose in the Primary, but you can thank the 12 year descent of the Party into the morass of greed, terror, and theocracy for your loss. If you can toss that bunch overboard you'll at least have the option being a principled opposition for awhile.


I guess it all depends on whether you trust the same people who walked you into this mess or have learned a lesson. I'll put it to you this way, I made the call on WMDs pre-invasion, I made the call on Iraqi resistance, I made the call on "never-ending war", and I made the call on Terror Alert hoaxes, so I have a track record of being right and they have a track record of being entirely wrong, so I must be wrong on this ...


(A lot of being right made me damned unpopular while they were busy being wrong so I sure had nothing to gain; didn't get any lucrative contracts, either; didn't win any elections either; the myths make it clear that being right can be dangerous and unpopular.)

Did You Pass 4th Grade ?

I'm not cherry picking the intelligence (or lack), this was in the Baker City Herald Ed Page. "The Way Forward In Iraq" by James Phillips of The Heritage Foundation. I won't even screw with the quotes to make it seem dumb, I (compared to some important Deciders) will play it straight. He opens thus:

"Critics of the war in Iraq call it a diversion from the broader war against terrorism. But as President Bush emphasized in his 'SOTU' address, this view is 180 degrees off. *** A defeat there would allow al-Queda and other hostile forces to establish a dangerous base in the heart of the Arab world." There are a whole bunch of other words re-stating this premise.

There are essentially 2 forces of nasties in Iraq, al-Queda and assorted Sunni murderers and Shiite militia murderers, the Kurds just want to get on with life and business. Let's deal with nasty Shiites, they want to kill Sunnis and for Americans to get out, otherwise they don't much care about America. The Shiites are the majority ethnic group. The Sunnis used to be the big dogs, now they're not, so they don't like Americans. Then there is al-Queda and its associates, they are Sunni, they hate America and want to hurt us, they are some Iraqis and a lot of foreigners.

Now, do some simple math, the Kurds want to get on with life, they don't want to play the terrorist game and pretty much like America. The Shiites don't like Sunnis who are the minority and especially don't like al-Queda - et al who are a minority of Sunnis. So guess what? al-Queda is not going to win in Iraq no matter what. The Shiites are going to kill them, the Kurds might help with that, depending on how much they screw with their agenda. Iranian Hammas only gains in oppressed Shia communities, that is not going to be Iraq. Iran may be theologically Shia, but Iran is also Persian and you have to be as stupid as BushCo to confuse Persians and Arabs, Iraq is Arab.

BushCo just cannot seem to get the idea that Arabs have long memories. They're still hot about the Crusades, well now since GeorgeII doesn't like to read maybe he's never heard that Persia has been an Empire more than once and was rude to Arabs every time. Last time around was the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs didn't much like that, either. Religion doesn't trump everything with that bunch, Jews should be evidence enough that they're racist bastards to the core, Persians ain't Arabs, Jews are closer to being Arabs.

So if you managed to get out of 4th grade (public school) you can add and subtract and you get - no al-Queda in Iraq if it's left to its own devices. You also don't get Hammas (who have never threatened the US).. You also don't get to own the oil. Neat, ain't it.

This guy Phillips has a bunch of titles and probably gets paid pretty well to write stuff this easy to debunk. But it's not about reaching those who think, it's about repeating the BushCo dogma for the true-believers.

Just so it's clear, the Herald is pretty darn balanced on its Op Ed page.

Middle East Debacle

Les AuCoin sent me a link to a post on Truth Out by Timothy Garton Ash in the Guardian

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121406C.shtml

and this got me to thinking. Back in 2000-01 Bush was rather roundly criticized for "ignoring" the Middle East. ( Apparently in error since he had his eye squarely on Iraq ) Since 9/11 he's been paying attention. If somebody will point out to me just exactly what is going well in the Middle East, I'd be gratified, because I seem to have missed it. I'm sure this could be dismissed as partisan sniping, if anything, in fact, were going well. Afghanistan started off with promise, without large loss of life or widespread additional destruction the Taliban was deposed. Soooo... Lebanon pushed Syria out without loss of life and destruction. Soooo... Both are now on the verge of falling apart. Saudi Arabia and Egypt both sit by the powder keg of Iraq, their populations being further radicalized and anti-Americanized by that debacle. Iran's public government (not to be confused with the actual government) is even less sane than previously. Syria is scared enough of the US to ally itself with its ordinary foe Iran and toe their line, becoming more dangerous than pre-Axis of Evil tripe.

Les advocated holding Congress' feet to the fire over this nonsense, and I agree. In fact I so sincerely agree that I posted Dennis Kucinich's site previous to this post. One thing that you can be sure of with Dennis and with Russ Feingold is that they won't keep their traps shut. This is not the time to be "nice" to the BushCo or to muddle along with them. Whether Dennis Kucinich can win the Primary or beat a Republican is a very open question, but he sure is not a Hillary or Joe Lieberman and that is hugely in his favor as far as getting progressive support at this point. The media will ignore him if he doesn't get money and Blog space. I'm trying to help that out.

I Think I'll Tick You Off

I am not unhappy with the shift in approval for the War in Iraq, I may be a tad bit grumpy about its roots and motivations. One doesn't need to go far to find former Conservative backers and Neocons recanting and the general public's mind set now seems negative. This is good for getting us out of that quagmire, but the whys and where fors of it count for something.

I have a very clear memory of the emotions displayed during "Shock n Awe" and reports from embedded journalists, I think "rah-rah" best describes the scene. I also remember a sinking feeling I had, all this glitz masking the reality of what's happening on the ground and obscuring the motivations for doing it. Even really good war movie trailers paled in comparison, the night sky illuminated by flashes followed by the sound of rolling booms, ghostly images of troops through night vision, great capable machines doing their functions, what a Production, brought to you by Bushco, Inc. Maybe some reality ought to have intruded, this show meant shattered buildings and blasted lives.

I don't pretend to be a pacifist, though I may admire the philosophical underpinnings, I distrust the real world practice. I repeatedly advocated using complete military might in Afghanistan and I was horrified by the Administration's "do it on the cheap" methodology. I have studied war sufficiently to know that if you are going to use that option, it is absolutely necessary to completely break the will of your opponent. This involves the tragedy of making opposition so dangerous and so costly that even an unreasonable human will not engage in it. This means killing, injuring, and destruction on a scale we Americans cannot relate to in real life experience. It doesn't mean pretty pictures, it means the absolute horror of war. Then the victor must engage in the real reconstruction of a shattered nation, and this involves more than just buildings.

The run up to the war in Iraq involved cherry picked "intelligence" and the demonization of Saddam Hussein. Saddam was an easy target in that he was a despicable human, but pre-Gulf War, not bad enough to offend the Adminsitration's "wisemen." The reaction to the intelligence is more troubling, intelligence was not brought forward that provided concrete examples of danger to the US, instead, even all dressed up, any critical thinking would have revealed guesswork. Concrete intelligence - UN Inspectors - was dismissed, despite the near impossibility of proving a negative. The government, media, and public accepted what they rightly should have recognized as guess work. There are serious implications in this acceptance of no more than an opinion.

This indicates an acceptance of the idea that the Government is good and would not mislead us for its own ends. This indicates that the Government is so special that they are exempt from the norms of rationality, the demand that action be backed by evidence. Further this exemplifies a culture of personality rather than law. I'm afraid this also evidences a rather bloodthirsty and thrill oriented society. The polling of approval for this experiment shows huge acceptance of and approval for going to war in Iraq and those number cannot possibly only reflect nutcase Rightwingers.

Now over 60% of the public disapproves and large numbers of Congressmen and pundits rail against the very thing they boosted. The real question involves the driving force for this disapproval. The quagmire aspect is frequently referred to, as though in WWII everything went swimmingly from the outset. The Neocons are now attacking the Administration for ineptitude, the rationale seems to be that it was a good idea done in by asses. These asses were in full public view years before the War, their "ineptitude" isn't a new occurrence. The Neocons refuse to understand that this is an ideological failure, that simply knocking the head off a government does not achieve cultural change. In history books and documentaries the requirements for cultural change are sufficiently demonstrated by WWII, as are the failures of the Wars in Vietnam, Korea, Gulf, ad nauseum. For an example of how not to reconstruct we need look no farther abroad than the Civil War.

The public's reaction may be more understandable considering the role played by media, but is in the end, hugely distressing. No matter the media drumbeat or governmental lying, the public is responsible for its uncritical acceptance of guesswork. It would take a very large book to dissect this tendency, I am only calling attention to it. The question that occurs is to what extent the current dissatisfaction is exactly as poorly based. War is costly in monetary terms and in human terms, it always is, not just in Iraq and ignoring that reality makes war easier to indulge in. Is the public learning something or simply tired of it?

Corporate ownership of media and the constriction of ownership must play a large role in media's reportage and slant of facts and opinion. There is a huge effect on corporate health involved in government spending and tax policies, the more interlinked government and media ownership is, the less reliable it is as a source. The constriction of ownership leads to a less varied news and thus a more consistent view point and reportage. Turning against the war may be reflective of public sentiment but a larger effect could be the economic consequences of this administration's policies in general.

Now I'll see about ticking you off, what was your stand? If it has changed, why has it changed? Have you learned anything about Government from this exercise in neocon ideology? Or, are you simply tired of it all? Has the lack of progress, the death and destruction just disgusted you, or is it a question of what the proper actions of the United States are, its citizens and its representatives? I am not at all satisfied that a meaningful realization has occurred.

Yes, I opposed this mess from the outset and not due to my antipathy for GWB. I opposed it because history showed clearly what happens when a powerful President asks for what he wants from underlings. I opposed it on the basis of Afghanistan and the Adminsitration's reluctance to accept cost. I opposed it because it is not the function of the government of the US to engage in regime change, its warmaking capabilities are for our defense, actual defense. My opposition versus the current general opposition is not a function of being more moral or more intelligent, but it is a case of critical thinking being engaged in.

Just For Scale

Israel and Lebanon are pretty far away and pretty foreign, but for an idea of the scale and distances involved, think about this, Harney and Grant County, Oregon at war. Harney is Israel & Grant is Lebanon, square milage is very close. Of course, populations are a bit different with 7,000 in Harney and 6 million in Israel...

Oh well, Grant and Harney are probably just about as foreign as Israel and Lebanon to most, so I suppose the analogy is pointless...

Oh yeah, they're my neighbors, so it means something to me.