Iraq the place: everyone's loss

Just wanted to link to this excellent piece by George Packer, author of "The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq" which I also highly recommend. Key quotes:

The American invasion of Iraq was, above all else, a revolution in the lives of Iraqis. Their institutions, their everyday routines, their futures, their sense of order were all turned upside down. This revolution, which is still ongoing and will play out for years to come, was the opening of a prison. When they staggered out into the light, most Iraqis didn’t know where they were, what they wanted, even who they were, and the Americans who had so quickly and casually broken down the gate were standing around as if they had never even considered what to do next.

And:

“I can never blame the Americans alone,” an Iraqi refugee named Firas told me in early 2007. “It’s the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye.” To gain this wisdom, Firas had to lose almost everything. What would it take for Americans to understand what Firas already does? A recognition that Iraq was everyone’s loss, whichever side you were on.

Amen.

Countdown to disaster

According to this piece in the Guardian, the Cheney/Bush white house is planning to attack Iran militarily, with Cheney (as always) playing the role of warmonger in chief:

"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively.

Well, isn't that good news for civilization? Dick Cheney still has the clout to start another war, and apparently has the good judgement to decide what kind of situation the next president should face.

Since common sense dictates that America cannot accomplish some kind of ground invasion/occupation of Iran (a la Iraq), then the options would appear to be a) aerial bombardment with conventional weapons; and b) nuclear attack. Previously I've asked the rhetorical question:

What makes Mr. Lieberman think that Iran -- militant, confrontational Iran -- will respond to a military attack by cowering? By surrendering and backing down?

What makes Dick Cheney think he has the option of "deal[ing] with Iran decisively", short of the nuclear option 'b'? That question scares me, because I don't imagine for one minute that some kind of conventional bombing campaign will defeat Iran, case closed.

Here's a nice nightmare scenario: What if, in response, Iran were to invade Iraq? They've got ~160,000 American soldiers hostage in Iraq, who already have their hands full just dealing with the locals. How big a disaster would it be? How would America hope to repel Iran's half-million-strong army under the circumstances? What would Cheney and Bush do then? Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I can think of only one answer: Option 'b'. In that case, ladies and gents, we're all screwed.

How to cook an occupation

How bad is it when they stop taking you seriously? In Bob Woodward's book "State Of Denial: Bush At War Part III" there is an anecdote relating America's attempt to set up a TV channel promoting America's perspective in Iraq "so that the coalition message could get on the air":

Eventually there was a U.S.-sponsored television network set up. To fill out its schedule, it broadcast Arabic-language reruns from elsewhere in the Middle East. As a result, some Iraqis took to calling it the "Lebanese Cooking Channel," especially after one day when most other major networks, like Qatar-based Al Jazeera, covered a significant news event live but the U.S.-sponsored network ran a foreign program on how to cook a rabbit.

Such a tool Pt. II

Lieberman doesn't seem to understand, by the way, that Iraqi Shiites would mind the US bombing their coreligionists and would probably massacre the entire British garrison in Basra as well as interdict US fuel convoys to the north from Kuwait and Basra. His irresponsible warmongering would get a lot of US troops killed for no good reason.

Lieberman comments from Juan Cole here and 'stilwell' here.

Such a tool

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN)– The United States should consider possible military action against Iran, Senator Joseph Lieberman said Sunday.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq.”

So, Mr. Lieberman thinks that a "strike into — over the border into Iran" would frighten those Iranians silly, does he, so that they would cease and desist all naughty activity?

Foolish, foolish man.

If somebody pushes you, your natural instinct is to push them back, but harder. If they then slap you, your natural instinct is to punch them in return. Escalation like this is how simple disputes turn into serious violence. Or war.

What makes Mr. Lieberman think that Iran -- militant, confrontational Iran -- will respond to a military attack by cowering? By surrendering and backing down? A military strike to "stop them from killing Americans in Iraq" would result in the killing of more Americans in Iraq and elsewhere. Even a little nobody like me can predict that, without mental effort.

Foolish, foolish little man.

This is nearly enough to make me glad Cheney's running things. I mean, Cheney would like to start a war with Iran, but I think he at least knows that if you're going to start one, you start one. And that means taking it very seriously (I never doubt Cheney's seriousness, which makes him that much scarier to me). Mr. Lieberman seems to think that just tossing a couple of bombs at Iran will sort everything out.

Or else he knows better, and he's just pandering to the Rush Limbaughs, Ann Coulters and armchair generals in America. Which wouldn't surprise me at all, either.

Cheney's flying circus

Remember how, back in 2000, Dick Cheney was supposed to be the pragmatic, experienced 'adult' in the Bush-Cheney partnership?

That's kind of laughable now, isn't it?

Today in the news we have Cheney reasserting the thoroughly-discredited theory that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in league with Al Qaida:

Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Why does Cheney continue to insist upon this? Well, keep in mind he's trying to defend the indefensible (the tattered case for the Iraq invasion). Logic theory tells us that when we start with a flawed assumption, we can come to any conclusion we like. That's why it's so important to get your facts straight before you begin using them to test your hypotheses. When you think about how many flawed assumptions underpinned the argument for war in Iraq (WMDs, Al Qaida links, being greeted as liberators, and a quick, cheap war with minimal troops) it's pretty easy to understand why the whole adventure has turned into such a disaster.

Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Al Qaida may well have been operating in Iraq, but then they were (are?) operating in the US and lots of other countries besides. That doesn't mean they had the government's blessing to be there. As a secular, socialist, cult-of-personality dictatorship, Saddam's government had no love for the Islamists who wanted to see him deposed. America was Al Qaida's "far enemy". Regimes like those of Mubarak and Saddam were the "near enemy".

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

Cheney is deliberately fudging the timelines here: Anyone who has read The Looming Tower (a detailed history of Al Qaida before September 11) or indeed, anyone who simply has a good memory, knows that Zarqawi was not a member of the terrorist group before the US invasion of Iraq -- on the contrary, he was a rival.

The vice president is either mendacious to his core, or thoroughly delusional. Maybe it's both. Thankfully, even given the best medical care, we have to suffer at most 21 more months of Cheney's flying circus.

A unified Iraq 'surge' theory

I had a thought the other day, about a possible deal that might have been struck between Bush and Maliki and Sadr. It sort of makes sense, since it's a nominal win-win for all the major players. There have been bits and pieces of this floating around but I haven't seen anyone else put them together in a suitably cynical way:

Since Bush's 2 most attractive remaining options are: a) pacify Iraq enough to declare victory and get out; or b) stay the course long enough to hand the problem (and thus a share of the historical blame) to the next president -- with a) being obviously preferable --

And since the Shia government, who have previously been opposed to more troops (because they apparently want to get on with it and crush the Sunni insurgency militarily), are suddenly so agreeable on the subject --

And since things have suddenly gotten much quieter in Baghdad, despite only the first 'surge' troops being in place, with Sadr and his militia having been been remarkably well-behaved (some say melted away to Iran or Sadr City to "wait out" the surge) --

What if all of the above is part of a grand deal? What if the Mahdi army really have 'disappeared' to wait out the end of the surge, with the agreement of Bush and Maliki? Think about what would follow: Bush's "give the surge a chance" miraculously works (the surge being necessary to demonstrate an assertive action). The Americans stick around for a few months of peace and prosperity, declare victory, and finish the mission. After which, Sadr and Maliki get on with the business of ethnic cleansing. The Shia crush the Sunnis and take full control. From afar, Bush cheerleaders and neoconservatives back home in America get to work writing their "we gave them freedom and they chose civil war" history books as the US administration and the military, looking reasonably clever after finally pacifying Baghdad, decide to wash their hands of the whole affair. The official story: America won the Iraq war, but the Iraqis were intent on civil war and that was none of America's business.

A bit messy, but sort of a win-win, no?

Saddam

Saddam Hussein was executed this past Saturday. I have thought about it a lot these last few days. I will respect the opinion of anyone who says he had it coming, since surely he -- if anyone can be said to deserve it -- deserved it. For me though, I am against capital punishment. I am against killing, period. I am against it when Saddam kills Shiites and Kurds and political opponents. I am against it when a criminal kills somebody. I am against it when George Bush sends American soldiers to kill Iraqis, Afghans, etc. And I am against it when a judge permits a state to kill a criminal. I'm not religious, but I seem to have absorbed a lesson that many religious people appear to have overlooked (since, after all, the religions of the World seem pretty unanimous in this): thou shalt not kill. [ Here's a memorable bit of humour on the subject, from the Onion after the September 11th attacks ].

Normally, I think Christopher Hitchens is a blustery, irritating (though intelligent) blowhard. He's only good at doing outrage. For the past few years, he's distinguished himself as the only pro-Iraq-war pundit I've followed who still manages to be outraged at all the people who disagree(d) with him about Iraq. Still, somehow, this week with his bluster he's managed to sum up my own feelings about the Saddam execution (and the accompanying mobile phone video) better than I could. Here's the article. Here's a quote:

At one point, one of the attending magistrates can be heard appealing for decency and calm, but otherwise the fact must be faced: In spite of his mad invective against "the Persians" and other traitors, the only character with a rag of dignity in the whole scene is the father of all hangmen, Saddam Hussein himself.

Yes, well done Mr. Maliki: you've managed to make people feel pity for the "Butcher of Baghdad".

Deferred success

Last year educators in the UK proposed the idea that no child should be allowed to think they'd failed something, but were instead experiencing "deferred success".

Luckily, common sense prevailed over the educators' amateur child psychology, and the "deferred success" initiative [ insert obvious joke here ] failed:

Ian Pringle, from Canvey Island, Essex, said: "We'll be ridiculed. Please do not vote for this motion."

So was Tony was having a little fun at George's expense here, by not stopping him from saying this about Iraq?:

With chief war ally Tony Blair of Britain by his side, Bush declared he's "disappointed by the pace of success"

The blame game

The time for feeling smug about my vociferous pre-war opposition to George Bush's Iraq adventure has long since passed, if there ever was such a time. It became apparent some time ago that not only is America going to 'lose' in Iraq (due to the persistent insurgency) but that barring unforseen miracles, Iraq is going to tear itself apart. A lot of people are going to die, and even after the dust has settled it will take a generation to fully recover. I saw that in Lebanon last November (before America decided to let Israel have another go at them, too). A lot of things in Lebanon still had bullet holes in them, 15 years after the fact.

This descent into civil war in Iraq is much more serious to me than America's (or my own) pride, and despite my antipathy toward the current American government, I truly, honestly never wanted to see this project fail so disasterously -- indeed, I wouldn't have thought it possible. The indifference to the magnitude of the task at hand, the ineptitude, and the incompetence, are staggering. I highly recommend the book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" by Thomas E. Ricks. It will set your blood boiling, if it doesn't make you weep in despair. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that warmongering cabal are callous, criminal, and inhuman. They have only slightly more concern for the thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers than they do for the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dead Iraqis. These men are little better than Saddam himself.

As it has become apparent that America wants to "get out" of Iraq -- besides a dozen or so permanent military bases, that is -- I've come to disagree with the Cindy Sheehans and John Murthas on the anti-war side in America. Morally, America cannot simply walk away just as the slaughter begins in earnest. America created this situation, and it falls to America to put it right, or at least mitigate the disaster. The only moral thing America can do in Iraq is persist. Personally, I don't care if it pains them to do so; Maybe they'll think twice before starting their next war.

So this morning comes an article on MSNBC about how the new game in town, in Washington, is the blame game. Everyone sees the Iraq project is a failure, and they know that history will record it as such. So now they're casting about for a way to make it someone else's fault. This is quite aside from the fact that the Bush crew are flailingly trying to discourage people from using the term "civil war" to describe what's happening. We know why this is so; it's all about the history books. The President most certainly does not want his legacy to be summed up with the sentence, "Following Bush's half-baked invasion, and ignominious withdrawal, Iraq descended into civil war". It will be difficult to leave and declare victory while everyone thinks there's a civil war going on.

Back to the blame game: Whose fault will it be? Why, the Iraqis' fault of course. They just weren't good enough to live up to America's lofty vision. From the article:

From troops on the ground to members of Congress, Americans increasingly blame the continuing violence and destruction in Iraq on the people most affected by it: the Iraqis.

And another quote:

"It is the first manifestation of a 'Who lost Iraq?' argument that will likely rage for years to come," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University expert on terrorism who has worked as a U.S. government consultant in Iraq.

I don't think the history books will say that this was the Iraqis' fault. Just in case anyone needed reminding, the Iraqi people didn't ask to be invaded, have their government, army, police, ministries, and institutions dismantled. Let's say someone came along and effectively removed all functioning government in Detroit, increased unemployment to 50% (would that be an increase in Detroit?), cut the power supply to 4 hours per day, and made day-long queues for a tank of gasoline at several times the current price. I'm sure, in such a situation, Detroit would be the model of civility. And if things were to go pear-shaped after 4 years of this? Well, blame it on the citizens.

Never mind, install a few military bases behind high walls, strong-arm a few oil deals, declare victory, and hang Saddam on your way out of town, George Bush. Those things are all you ever really cared about anyway. Mission nearly accomplished. That other democracy stuff was just supposed to be frosting.

Following President George W. Bush's half-baked invasion, failure to find weapons of mass destruction, failure to install democracy, and ignominious withdrawal, Iraq descended into civil war. Iraqis just didn't do enough to help themselves.

Police innovation

The latest suspicious behavior targeted by British police:

Iraqi man 'filmed terror targets'. An Iraqi man filmed video footage of potential targets for a terrorist attack on London, a court was told. Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament and the London Eye were among the sights on tapes made by Rauf Mohammed, Woolwich Crown Court heard on Tuesday. The recordings could be of use to someone "angered" by the West's action in his homeland, prosecutors said.

The stupidity and laughability of this should be self-evident. I have nothing further to add, except to say that I too am angered by the West's actions in Iraq, and I too have photographed London tourist attractions. However, I am not an Arab.

If you have any questions, go to the back of the class.