Absence of Evidence & the Post-Modern Foreign Policy

Errol Morris on Rumsfeld, the truth and “The Unknown Known” -

The Balkanization Of The Middle East?

I borrow Andrew Sullivan's article heading, which points to the lack of any deep historical identity for any country between Egypt and Iran.  Sullivan quotes Shlomo Avineri who notes:

• "Most international borders in the Middle East and North Africa were drawn by imperial powers – Britain, France, and Italy – either after World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire (the Sykes-Picot agreements), or, as in Libya and Sudan, earlier. But in no case did these borders correspond with local popular will, or with ethnic or historical boundaries. ("The Balkanization Of The Middle East," Andrew Sullivan, Daily Dish, 27 April 2012)

The latest focus is on the future of a Sunnis-Alawite-Druze-Christian-Kurd Syria. But one could also go back to the subject of the fascinating if a tad over-written and self-referential Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq, by Christopher Catherwood (Basic Books, 2004).  [And there is always Michael Zwerin's text from the 70s (see image until I can post a photo of the cover of my personal copy, from which our moniker is derived.]

how much more good news can we take?

Today, the Pentagon announced that American troops had killed Abu Qaswarah, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in a raid in Mosul. U.S. military officials hailed the death of Qaswarah, also known as Abu Sara, as “a major disruption to the terror network, particularly in northern Iraq,” according to the AP.

However, this is at least the third time that U.S. officials have announced the capture/killing of a “No. 2″ leader of al Qaeda in Iraq in the past few years. On each occasion — including when they killed the No. 1 leader — they similarly hailed it as a major victory:

Sept. 2005: U.S. and Iraqi officials announce that they killed al Qaeda in Iraq’s No. 2 leader — Abdallah Najim Abdallah Mohammed al-Juwari, known as Abu Azzam. A spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said that Azzam’s death was a “painful blow” to al Qaeda.

June 2006: U.S. and Iraqi officials announce that they have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the No. 1 leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. President Bush called his death a “severe blow” to the terrorist group.

Sept. 2006: Iraqi authorities capture Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, al Qaeda in Iraq’s No. 2 leader. Iraqi national security adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said that the arrest left the terrorist organization suffering a “serious leadership crisis.” “Our troops have dealt fatal and painful blows to this organization,” he added.

Al Qaeda continues to remain resilient in the face of these attacks from the U.S. military, who are trying to undo a situation created by Bush’s invasion. No matter how many times troops kill top leaders, new ones emerge, because the insurgency continues to be, in part, fueled by the U.S. occupation. As counterterrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann said in 2005, “If I had a nickel for every No. 2 and Nov. 3 they’ve arrested or killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’d be a millionaire.” (Think Progress, "For at least the Third Time, Officials Take down a 'No. 2' leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq," 15 October 2008)

Balkanization in Iraq hits refugees

	Photo 1 of 4
A Palestinian girl pushes a baby in a stroller through the Palestinian housing complex comprising of 16 apartment blocks, lined by two streets of shops, most of them closed, in the Baladiyat district of Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, Aug. 24, 2008. In recent months sectarian violence has dropped sharply across Iraq, however Iraq's Palestinians, who number about 11,000 and have come under attack by Shiite gunmen in the past, remain one of the most vulnerable groups, a U.N. official says. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

just a reminder why iraq matters in domestic elections...

...our tax dollars at work.

• One of America’s biggest military contractors is being sued by a Nepali labourer and the families of a dozen other employees who say they were taken against their will to work in Iraq. All but one of the Nepalese workers were subsequently kidnapped and murdered.
• According to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles, the Nepalese workers were recruited in 2004 in their home country by KBR and its Jordanian contractors, Daoud & Partners, to work as kitchen staff in a luxury hotel in Amman. Once they reached the Jordanian capital, however, their passports were taken from them and they were sent to Iraq. While travelling in an unprotected convoy, the Nepalis were kidnapped and later executed.
• “It doesn’t appear that any of them knew they were going to Iraq,” said Matthew Handley, a lawyer representing the only survivor and the families of those who were killed. “A few were told they were going to work at an American camp ? They thought they were going to work in America.”("Halliburton sued under human traficking laws," by Chris in Paris, AmericaBlog, 8/28/2008)

McClatchy: last home of real, investigative reporters?

CONFRONTING IRAQ

See our interactive media guide on Iraq.

BLACKWATER

See our timeline and interactive guide to Blackwater's activities in Iraq. Also read stories from McClatchy newspapers on the Blackwater controversy.

can someone do the math?

it seems to me, that with 30 in and 45 out a day, less than 1% recidivism, and some 21,000 currently being held, that we are talking a large percentage of iraqis have either been held in prison by the usa, or have someone in their family who has, over the past 4 years. (One of the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was rightly decried was the massive use of incarcerations.)

• BAGHDAD — The U.S. military said Saturday it has released more than 10,000 detainees in Iraq so far this year _ more than in all of 2007 _ as it continues to try phase out its running of Iraqi prisons.
• The military said about 21,000 people remained in custody, and it is currently releasing about 45 detainees and detaining 30 a day.("More than 10,000 detainees released in Iraq,"by SELCAN HACAOGLU, AP, August 2, 2008)

more problematic than his belief that Iraq and Pakiston share a common border

• McCain keeps boasting about being "right" about the "surge" and saying Obama was "wrong."
• Look, it is more important that McCain was consistently wrong. He was wrong about the desirability of going to war against Iraq. He was wrong about it being a cakewalk. He was wrong about there being WMD there. He was wrong about everything. And he was wrong about the troop escalation making things better. The casualty figures dropped in al-Anbar, where few extra US troops were ever sent. They dropped in Basra, from which the British withdrew. Something happened. Putting it all on 30,000 extra troops seems a stretch. And what about all the ethnic cleansing and displacing of persons that took place under the nose of the "surge?" McCain has been wrong about everything to do with Iraq. And he is boasting about his wisdom on it! (Juan Cole, Informed Commment, July 22, 2008, "Troop Agreement Misses Deadline; Provincial Law Misses Deadline; Bombings in Mosul, Diyala, Fallujah")

why wasn't this on the tv news; in the newspapers, etc?

People carry photos of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr during a protest in Baghdad's Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, Iraq, Friday, July 11, 2008. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

BAGHDAD (AP) — Hundreds of followers of a radical Shiite cleric in Iraq have taken to the streets to protest a proposed security agreement between Iraq and the United States.

The supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr say the proposed deal would lead to a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq.

They held their protest Friday in the southern city of Kufa and shouted slogans such as: "No to America."

Such demonstrations have become a weekly event, usually following prayers held in local mosques on Fridays. (AP, "Some Iraqis protest security deal with US," 11 July 2008)

the surge is...

...fill in the blank.

Here is the point: the surge of a 21st army against pipe-bomb insurgents will always "work," in the short run. An invading/conquering army has control of the air, the main arteries, and backup. Insurgents have..., well, time. Until the sides talk and recognize each other's strengths, then the situation that produced the insurgency--lack of jobs, ethnic cleansing, etc.--continues. Of course, the Maliki government will announce the success of the current program, because their continued "success" depends on American, well, continuance. Yet:

1. The insurgency is mainly against American targets, and our allies. Don't we expect at least some decline if those targets are no longer there?
2. The main reason for the decline in violence has little to do with our troops, and everything to do with walls, surveillance, etc., which has resulted in a MORE balkanized Baghdad, and a more balkanized Iraq. Which means, of course, that what we claimed we are fighting for (well the fourth attempt to explain what we were fighting for; remember: Get rid of WMD's?--fake; stop Saddam Hussein from providing safe haven for Al Qaeda?--fake; bring democracy to the Middle East?--fake {and ludicrous}), that is, a stable, unified government is, get this, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Three separate governments, yes; three governments unified in a very loose federation, possibly. But the only thing these folks are unified in, is, that US troops need to leave. Now.
3. The longer we stay, the strong Iran is in the region.
   

thought for the day

from "[Rick] Shenkman: Why the American People Were So Easily Bamboozled by the Bush Administration," in Informed Comment, by Juan Cole, Monday, June 23, 2008

• As we head into the Fall campaign and listen to the debates about the war we should keep in mind the limits of public opinion. If we don't begin to address the problem of gross public ignorance there will be more Iraqs.
• One poll finding we should all keep in mind is this. Even after the 9/11 Commission reported that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 attack 50 percent of the country persisted in believing there was. The implications of this are mind boggling.
  

perhaps if we spent $24 billion?; or, 0 out of 10 is, what, a B-?

• A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms....
• The "pivot point" for addressing the matter will no longer be Sept. 15, as initially envisioned, when a full report on Bush's so-called "surge" plan is due, but instead will come this week when the interim mid-July assessment is released....

meanwhile, of course, the white house thought complete lack of progress on any of the targets was just peachy:

• White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on Monday tried to lower expectations on the report....
• "You are not going to expect all the benchmarks to be met at the beginning of something," Snow said. "I'm not sure everyone's going to get an `A' on the first report."

and the cost of all this non-achievement?:

• The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, with the overall tally for Iraq alone nearing a half-trillion dollars, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.
• The figures call into question the Pentagon's estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar province would cost $5.6 billion through the end of September. ("Official: Iraq Gov't Missed All Targets," by ANNE FLAHERTY and ANNE GEARAN | July 9, 2007 11:34 PM EST | AP)

who's sorry now? (more blackwater blackguards)

remember this?:

• "I need Comms (communications equipment). ... I need ammo. ... I need Glocks and M4s. ... Guys are in the field with borrowed stuff and in harm's way," said the e-mail, released at a House hearing Wednesday.
• Blackwater employee Tom Powell wrote the memo to other company officials on March 30, 2004.
• The next day, a mob in Fallujah ambushed a supply convoy guarded by Blackwater, killing the four employees who all were former members of the military. ("Slain Iraq contractors short on armor, families say," By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press, 8 Feb. 2007)

posted that back in 24 feb. 2007. well, now tom powell looks less like the whistleblower and more the man ordering undermanned groups into harms way:

• When four Blackwater USA security guards were ambushed and massacred in Fallujah in 2004, graphic images showed the world exactly what happened....
• Since then, Congress and the families of the murdered private security contractors have been demanding answers....
• Some answers can be found in memos from a second team for Blackwater operating around Fallujah on March 31, 2004.
• Blackwater, based in North Carolina, sent two squads through Fallujah without maps, according to memos obtained by The News & Observer. Both of the six-man teams, named Bravo 2 and November 1, were sent out two men short, leaving them more vulnerable to ambush.
• The Bravo 2 team members had protested that they were not ready for the mission and had not had time to prepare their weapons, but they were commanded to go, according to memos written by team members.
• The November 1 team went into Fallujah and was massacred.
• The Bravo 2 team memos, in emotional, coarse and damning language, placed the blame squarely on Blackwater's Baghdad site manager, Tom Powell.
• "Why did we all want to kill him?" team member Daniel Browne wrote the following day. "He had sent us on this [expletive] mission and over our protest. We weren't sighted in, we had no maps, we had not enough sleep, he was taking 2 of our guys cutting off [our] field of fire. As we went over these things we new the other team had the same complaints. They too had their people cut." ("Blackwater manager blamed for 2004 massacre in Fallujah: Military contractors write that a site manager sent four Americans on an ill-advised, fatal mission," by Joseph Neff, Staff Writer, The News & Observer, Jul 08, 2007 12:30 AM)

both can be correct, of course. mr. powell knew of the shortcomings and complained of them to his superiors. but he also knew his operations were being judged by their profit/cost ratio and 4 heads per unit cost less than 6. now WHY all this was being done, given that blackwater was hired by Regency Hotel and Hospital Company is another question.

well it has been over a month; how do things look?

greetings. i was unable to post to this blog for a month or so. the usa government has committed additional troops to secure baghdad and iraq. cause for celebration?

well, the overall picture is not rosy:

• The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. ("Administration Shaving Yardstick for Iraq Gains: Goals Unmet; Smaller Strides to Be Promoted," By Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writers, Sunday, July 8, 2007; Page A01)

the alternative "strides" have to do with deaths down in june, but have little to do with any political advances that were supposed to take place with the breathing room provided by the "surge."

but i don't understand how they can take any comfort with the numbers of dead iraqis:

• Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics. ("Body Count In Baghdad Up in June," By Joshua Partlow, Washington Post Foreign Service, Thursday, July 5, 2007; Page A01,)
  

one small piece of good news: the insurgents attack away from the center of the surge, away from the show of force by the usa. but the proof of such a response to american strength is hardly cause for rejoicing:

• A suicide truck bomber blasted a Shiite town north of Baghdad on Saturday, killing more than 100 people, police said, in a sign Sunni insurgents are pulling away from a U.S. offensive around the capital to attack where security is thinner.
• The marketplace devastation underlined a hard reality in Iraq: There are not enough forces to protect everywhere. U.S. troops, already increased by 28,000 this year, are focused on bringing calm to Baghdad, while the Iraqi military and police remain overstretched and undertrained.
• The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, told The Associated Press he expected Sunni extremists to try to "pull off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a `mini-Tet.'" ("Suicide Bomb Kills Over 100 in Iraq," by YAHYA BARZANJI, July 7, 2007, AP, from TUZ KHORMATO, Iraq)

note, too, that for some reason the usa military is allowed to make all sorts of unlikely comparisons to vietnam (a "mini-Tet'!?), but any obvious reference to quagmire, no light at the end of the tunnel, etc., is met by stay-the-course politicians.

in one sense, this war is unlike earlier wars, including vietnam: the vast number of mercenaries, contractors fighting the war by proxy:

• The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort....
• More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
  
• Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq.
• The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq. ("Private contractors outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq: New U.S. data show how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of the war-torn nation," By T. Christian Miller, LA Times Staff Writer, July 4, 2007)

so the number of troops is never going to settle the peace. indeed, the iraq situation will never be solved by surges of any sort. it will be solved by political and economic will (more theirs ; than ours). that is not defeatism; that is the logic of all civil wars.

so, the facts, as mr. gradgrind would note, all militate against any positive result from furthering a build up of military force in iraq. thus, it is not surprising (except that it took them this long to do it, that the new york times, has come out today for a usa military withdrawal:

• It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
• Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.
• At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq....
• But...milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost. ("Editorial: The Road Home," New York Times, July 8, 2007)

time for the freda payne option: bring the boys home.

perhaps the extra troops can use the rooms at the new embassy?

the only difference is that the surge in iraq is more precipitous.

small bit of good news?

well at least a hopeful suggestion for the future. small ax fave, juan cole (see informed comment) has a piece in the nation, April 9, 2007, April 23, 2007 issue, "How to Get Out of Iraq," by Juan Cole. recommended.