and there is not enough water in Baghdad at the moment, either

It is difficult to continue to be amazed or outraged by the colossal failure of checks and balances in this.

• The National Security Archive released a report Friday Aug. 22, 2008 that sheds even more light on the premeditated lying and deception that took the United States to war in Iraq. The findings are based on new evidence compiled by Dr. John Prados and published by the National Security Archive. See "White Paper" Drafted before NIE even Requested , "Scoop" Independent News, Aug. 24, 2008.

• Most notably, Prados shows the depth of the deception perpetrated against citizens and Congress regarding the alleged threat to U.S. security posed by Iraq. It had appeared that the White House rewrote the Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and then issued that doctored report to Congress on Oct. 4, 2002. Prados reveals convincing evidence that the Oct. 4 White Paper had already been written by July 2002. He shows that it was only slightly altered after the final NIE arrived. This White Paper served as the basis for the war.

• The unavoidable conclusion is that the Bush-Cheney White paper "justifying" the invasion was developed a full three months in advance of the intelligence data and analysis that should have served as the basis for that justification. The National Security Archive summed it up succinctly:

• "The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq,

• "The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002." National Security Archive in "Scoop' Independent News, August 24, 2008.

• The seemingly endless war in Iraq has become a total disaster on multiple levels for all involved. The awful toll in human deaths and casualties is largely ignored but real nevertheless. Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have been lost in battle and tens of thousands injured. In excess of one million Iraqi civilians are dead due to civil strife unleashed by the invasion. The U.S. Treasury is drained and the steep decline in respect for the United States around the world is just beginning to manifest.

• The United States political establishment responds with collective denial on a scale that's incomprehensible. In the presidential campaign, the only sustained public commentary on the war comes from the Republican presidential candidate John McCain who makes the bizarre claim that U.S. is "surrendering" with victory in clear sight. McCain touts the surge without noting that 4.0 million Iraqis are "displaced from their homes." Nearly ten percent of Iraq's population is either dead or injured and there are 5.0 million Iraqi orphans.

• This pathological view of victory claims the "surge' is a success in the context of a devastated population in an obliterated nation lacking in the most essential supplies and services; a nation where death continues on a shopping spree. ("National Security Archive Stunner," by Michael Collins, Washington, DC, August 25, 2008, OpEdNews
  

working?

should i stay, or should i go?...

...or, cut-and-run?

Bush's evolving rhetoric on US-Iraq timetables

By The Associated Press – 17 hours ago

Changes in the Bush administration's rhetoric over the past 16 months on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:

April 3, 2007:

_ "I think setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal is a significant mistake. It is — it sends mixed signals and bad signals to the region and to the Iraqi citizens. Listen, the Iraqis are wondering whether or not we're going to stay to help. People in America wonder whether or not they've got the political will to do the hard work." — President Bush.

___

April 27, 2007:

_ "And if the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one. I just don't think it's in the interest of our troops. I think it — I'm just envisioning what it would be like to be a young soldier in the middle of Iraq and realizing that politicians have all of a sudden made military determinations. And in my judgment, that would put a kid in harm's way, more so than he or she already is." — Bush.

___

Sept. 6, 2007:

_ "The prime minister says: What Iraq and her people now need is time, not a timetable. They seek our patience, not political posturing. They require resolve, not our retreat. We're going to succeed in Iraq. If given a chance, liberty will succeed every time, and liberty will help yield the peace we need." — Bush.

___

July 15, 2008:

_ "There's a temptation to let the politics at home get in the way with the considered judgment of the commanders. That's why I strongly rejected an artificial timetable of withdrawal. It's kind of like an arbitrary thing, you know — 'We will decide in the halls of Congress how to conduct our affairs in Iraq based upon polls and politics, and we're going to impose this on people' — as opposed to listening to our commanders and our diplomats, and listening to the Iraqis, for that matter." — Bush.

___

July 18, 2008:

_ "In the area of security cooperation, the president and the prime minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals." — White House statement that first raised the possibility of timelines.

___

Aug. 21, 2008:

_ "Well, we have always said that the roles, missions and size of the American forces here, the coalition forces, was based on the conditions on the ground and what is needed. We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold are well worth having in — in such an agreement. ... And I have to say, if I could just make the point, the reason we are where we are going, talking about this kind of agreement, is that the surge worked, Iraqi forces have demonstrated that they are strong and getting stronger." — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Baghdad.

good view of post-surge Baghdad, from March 2008

Baghdad, 5 years on (part 1 of 3): City of walls

Baghdad, 5 years on (part 2 of 3): killing fields


Baghdad 5 years on (part 3 of 3): Iraq's lost generation

analysis of how's it going: posting from Helena Cobban

thanks to Juan Cole's Informed Comment for a link to Just World News by Helena Cobban

• This, from Reuters in Baghdad today:
  

Three female suicide bombers killed 28 people and wounded 92 when they blew themselves up among Shi'ites walking through the streets of Baghdad on a religious pilgrimage on Monday, Iraqi police said.

In the northern oil city of Kirkuk a suicide bomber killed 22 people and wounded 150 at a protest against a disputed local elections law, Iraqi health and security officials said. One security official said the bomber may also have been a woman.

The attacks mark one of the bloodiest days in Iraq in months...

• At the discussions I attended Friday in Washington with a group at USIP, and also with former Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi at Carnegie, a number of those who spoke warned with great intensity that the situation in Iraq remains very difficult for Iraqis, very politically fragile, and heavy with the threat of new waves of violence. Those who did so included Charles Knight and Rend al-Rahim at USIP, and Allawi at Carnegie.
• I record the latest spikes of violence with an incredibly heavy heart and no thought of schadenfreude. But they do, certainly, undercut the claims of those who have been crowing "the surge has succeeded."
• "Succeeded" for whom? Not yet at all for Iraqis, though the casualty figures among US troops are sharply reduced.
• Once again I urge that instead of looking at whether Bush's adoption of the surge "worked" or not, it would be far better to look at the costs and consequences of the fact that for 18 months now he has steadfastly refused to follow the excellent recommendations put forward by the Iraq Study Group back in December 2006.
• Those recommendations-- or something even more decisive than them-- are just as valid and urgent today as they were back then.
• But just look at the costs that have been imposed-- on the Iraqis, as well as on US citizens-- by Bush's failure to undertake the transformative and very urgent diplomatic and political moves that the ISG recommended.
• $180 billion of US taxpayer money... 1,110 US service-members killed... and an Iraqi casualty toll among civilians and security forces that is in the tens of thousands over the past 18 months.
• To which, today, add a further 50 Iraqi civilians.(July 28, 2008, "Bush's 'Surge': How successful?," posted by Helena Cobban)

"enemies with benefits"

thanx and a tip of the helmet to Washington Independent for pointing to Army of Dude for the following (the full article is worth visiting):

• Don't tell the pathetic non-serving members of the old media (and new media), but the surge wasn't wholly responsible for the drop in violence seen in Iraq over the last year. I have outlined the three main reasons violence has subsided, but one of the more important aspects is still largely misunderstood and mischaracterized by the punditry across the country.
• The 'awakening group' movement first appeared in Anbar in late 2005 (or if you're John McCain, it started in a time warp before and after the surge) and has since grown to a large, lethal force that battles elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq. That is usually where the media narrative leaves you, insinuating that these groups are patriotic volunteers casting out the demons of al-Qaeda. What they don't mention is both the original motivations for these groups and their history of battling American soldiers. One of the latest to operate (and propped up by my unit in Diyala Province) is the 1920 Revolution Brigade. I covered their nationalist history a year ago, citing their name was a throwback to the 1920 revolution to oust British influence. So this group in particular didn't start in 2005, 2006 or even 2007, but in 2003 for one reason: to attack and kill Americans. (Army of Dude: Reporting On Truth, Justice And The American Way Of War, Sunday, July 27, 2008, "Enemies With Benefits")
  

since we have recently had a dispute over chronology of the surge....

...I thought this might be a relevant post

• In a presentation yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute, escalation architect Frederick Kagan repeated his claim that sectarian cleansing has not affected the drop in violence in Iraq. Kagan called it a “myth”:

The bad news from this perspective is that the sectarian areas of Iraq is still mixed. The good news is that the sectarian areas of Iraq are still mixed. And there is a myth out there that the violence has fallen because all of the cleansing is done. That is absolutely not the case.

• Watch it:

• Kagan makes the same claim in his new report, “Iraq: The Way Ahead“:

One of the persistent myths about the reasons for the success of coalition efforts in 2007 is that the killing stopped because the sectarian cleansing was completed. This myth is absolutely false. Baghdad remains a mixed city. The traditionally Sunni neighborhoods of Adhamiya, Mansour, and Rashid remain predominantly Sunni, and Shiite enclaves in East Rashid remain Shiite. Shia have moved into some parts of the Sunni neighborhoods, and many sub-districts within neighborhoods that had been mixed are now much more homogeneous. But the key components of a mixed Baghdad remain.

• Kagan’s claim is contested by major news organizations and the U.S. military’s own data. In December 2007, the Washington Post published the maps below, comparing the sectarian make-up of Baghdad’s neighborhoods in April 2006 and November 2007, and revealing the transformation of the city resulting from sectarian cleansing:

• The Post’s distribution of sectarian enclaves corresponds closely with these graphs, provided by Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), that chart sectarian violence in Baghdad between July 2006 and July 2007, which is the period in which the U.S. military escalation, also known as the Baghdad Security Plan, took place.
• The August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq also rebuts Kagan’s mythmaking. One of the NIE’s judgements was that where some “conflict levels have diminished,” it was due to sectarian “separation.” (Think Progress, Wonk Room, "Escalation Architect Fred Kagan Doubles Down On His Claim That Sectarian Cleansing In Baghdad Is A ‘Myth,'" By M. Duss on Mar 25th, 2008 at 5:47 pm)

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.
   

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)

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.