The Real Iraq Progress Report

(The Nation)  The parade of political tourists to Iraq in recent weeks, during which easily impressed pundits and members of Congress came to be dazzled by the wonders of the troop surge, probably ensures that this murderous adventure will continue well into the next presidency--even if the Democrats win.

For example, Kenneth Pollack, a top national security adviser in the Clinton Administration whose 2002 book, Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, convinced many Democratic politicians to support the war, now finds renewed optimism after the surge. In a July 30 New York Times op-ed article, "A War We Just Might Win," which he coauthored after spending eight days in Iraq, Pollack gushed, "We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi army troops cover the countryside."

So much so that a town forty miles northeast of Tal Afar was the scene, on August 15, of the deadliest attack of the war--a quadruple bombing left more than 500 dead and 1,500 wounded, and most of the buildings in ruin. What about those "reliable" police officers and Iraqi army troops whose presence in the area Pollack found so reassuring? If Pollack was asked about that on any of the talk shows that routinely feature him as an expert, I have not found the footage.

Other Democrats brought to Iraq for photo-op visits have similarly descended into total myopia. Take Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., who is suddenly more upbeat about the future U.S. role in the region: "If anything, I'm more willing to find a way forward," he enthused. Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla., proclaimed that the U.S. troop surge "has really made a difference and really has gotten Al Qaeda on their heels." Odd, then, that Al Qaeda was blamed by the United States for that deadly attack near Tal Afar.

In the past week, two Iraqi governors have been assassinated in incidents attributed to intra-Shiite violence that is dramatically on the rise. But not even this bloodshed stops yet another Democratic lawmaker, Brian Baird (Wash.), from proclaiming that he will no longer support measures to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, because "We are making real and tangible progress on the ground."

Contrast the rosy optimism of those day tourists with the assessment of seven active-duty soldiers coming to the end of their fifteen-month tour of duty on the ground in Iraq. They had an op-ed piece in the August 19 New York Times titled "The War as We Saw It":

"To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press reports portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day."

Get their article--excerpted quoting cannot do it justice--and hand it to anyone who prattles on about how "our" leaving Iraq will only make matters worse. "Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence," they wrote. "In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to retain dignity is to call us what we are--an army of occupation--and force our withdrawal."

In the meantime, the seven soldiers urge that we let "Iraqis take center stage in all matters" and "let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities." The plea ends with "We need not talk about morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."

And sadly enough, they will continue to be sacrificed to a policy that makes no sense to them as well as to most other Americans. As their op-ed piece recounts, "one of us, Staff Sergeant [Jeremy A.] Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a 'time sensitive target acquisition mission,' on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive." But what about the next good man sacrificed to the whims of politicians and pundits?
By Robert Scheer
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation

[sjc_1]

"...funding Sunni Al Qaeda in Lebanon to counter Shiite Hamas against Israel."

This starts to look like the old good guy/bad guy stuff from the CIA in the past. We fund shady people all in the name of things ending up closer to the way we want them. Bad guys are bad guys no matter which way you look at it and we should not be funding them. It is very short sighted and only causes future problems.

[bluestardad]

Mr. Bush has stamped on civil liberties in the country and the justice department and FBI are tools for the Administration to attack its political enemies. How he has diverted funds from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin laden to Iraq that did not attack us on 911 and are funding Sunni Al Qaeda in Lebanon to counter Shiite Hamas against Israel. He has cut programs that strengthen the Military and supported the troops in the United States and Veterans affairs realms. How American School Kids are having bake sales to get band uniforms and school supplies while America sends millions of dollars to Israel and Arab states that are fighting each other for the last 1000 years.

Maybe he wants to talk about how Middle East Governments are bragging about their influence in American politics while our troops are being killed in a 1200 year religious Civil War in the Middle East! If you follow the money trail you will find that most of those elected officials who support the war in Iraq are under the influence of AIPAC.

http://www.aipac.org/forms/join_aipacClubs.htm

[bluestardad]

TRUTH AND FACTS ARE HARD TO SWALLOW! If you cant get them down try using them as a suppository!
What would we talk about with Mr. Bush? How he and Condi Rice blew off the Intelligence briefing in August 2001 titled Bin Laden Planning attacks inside the United States Using Passenger Aircraft, as having no actionable intelligence. How he has never addressed the support of our enemies by the Saudi Arabian friends of his! Or that he squandered the good will of the world by starting a War in Iraq outside American National Interest on a Lie because Israeli Neocons wanted Iraq brought down.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Because Saudi Arabia, as well as the rest of the Arab world, understand very well that their campaign contributions to American politicians would be rejected. Posted by closethippy1"

American politicians take money from anyone, John Wayne Gacy included, but the Saudis, for example don''t need to, they have us by the economic balls. Why else are we in Iraq, when the people who allegedly attacked us on 9/11 are Saudis? Don''t you know Bin Laden is a Saudi? AIPAC exists to counter Saudi influence on our economy, by bribing our legislature, we give them both aid from our tax dollars, present and future, and they use our own money to grease our politicians to do what they say, in this manner your taxes are "unlaundered" into the pockets of Washington scum.

[brianbwb-2009]

"I suppose Saudi Arabia could create some kind of Arabic lobbying group with all the money that it has. But why doesn''''t it do it? closethippy1"

They have, but it is not a formal group, it is Amex, owned by Saudis, and controlling 12% of the US money supply. Also remember that the only reason that the US dollar has any worth whatsoever is that the OPEC countries only take US dollars in payment for oil. If they really wanted to, they could destroy the US economy overnight, by following Saddam''s example, take another currency for its oil. That is the main reason why Saddam was lynched.

The conflict suits their purpose also, the "aid" money flowing in, and underground arms sales to both sides of the conflict is very profitable to them, they don''t want it to end.

It is all about corruption, the stories they feed us are only obfuscation. The Israelis also sell weapons to their enemy, so it is not as one sided as they would have you believe.

[closethippy1]

You cannot deny the fact that AIPAC did lobby for the Iraq war as well for attacking Iran.
I suppose Saudi Arabia could create some kind of Arabic lobbying group with all the money that it has. But why doesn''t it do it? Because Saudi Arabia, as well as the rest of the Arab world, understand very well that their campaign contributions to American politicians would be rejected.
So it''s all a matter of whose narrative of history you buy, and AIPAC has been able to sell theirs in such a way that it precludes any other narratives of the situation in the Middle East.
Many Americans have made their minds up based on the AIPAC narrative and they''ve decided that even shaking the hand of a Syrian diplomat, or a member of Hamas or Hezbollah equals treason. There can''t be anything worse than that, can''t it?
And that''s that. Regardless of what the reality of the situation is AIPAC has been able to convince Americans to ignore it and keep going as usual or else you''re an "anti-Semite".
Americans are terrified to simply turn their necks around and make eye contact with the Arab next to them. They''ll ignore everyone just to make sure they don''t lose eye contact with AIPAC for a second. Any hesitation and you''ll be screamed out of your job.

[inventagod]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082407L.shtml

Bu$h readies Pentagon for Iran Invasion...

[gkc99]

"Other Democrats brought to Iraq for photo-op visits have similarly descended into total myopia. Take Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif., who is suddenly more upbeat about the future U.S. role in the region: "If anything, I''m more willing to find a way forward," he enthused. Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla., proclaimed that the U.S. troop surge "has really made a difference and really has gotten Al Qaeda on their heels."

Now there''s a couple of obviously Jewish names--they must have changed them so they could be part of the Great Hebrew Conspiracy to ruin America for right-thinking White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

So Blue Star Dad, you admitted you supported Bushit at the beginning of the war, why don''t you now pony up some money and money from people who think like you to fight off these Talmudic Communists?

[sjc_1]

The surge objective was to bring peace to Baghdad and then they started going outside of the city and the solder deaths went up (I do not call the "casualties") They said this was expected. Then they started using Sunni militia to track down insurgents. They were told not to do this it would backfire. Then they got on the idea of going after Al Qaeda and that HAS brought some success if you can believe what you hear. However, the report we will get will NOT be from the General, it will be the White House''s interpretation of what the General supposedly had to say...who do you believe?

[selenite1]

I didn''t believe any administration could be worse than Reagan''s.

Bush and his administration is 100X worse.

I will NEVER vote Republican.