Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Real Iraq Progress Report
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, "The 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 40 miles northeast of Tal Afar was the scene, on Aug. 15, of the deadliest attack of the war-a quadruple bombing left more than 500 dead and 1500 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-Qaida on their heels." Odd, then, that al-Qaida 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, D-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 15-month tour of duty on the ground in Iraq. They had an Op-Ed piece in the Aug. 19 New York Times entitled "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?
Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle.
© 2007 TruthDig.com



37 Comments so far
Show AllAre we to believe the Politician and Pundit tourists or the guys with the boots on the ground?
My bet is the intellectually challenged American public will believe what the media and most of the so-called progressive blogs(DKos) tell them.
Some Democrats are as bad as Republicans when it comes to party loyalty, there is no difference between the two "My party right or wrong" is just bad.
On the other hand for the real story:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/21/1349252
vern - thanks!!!
The similarities between Vietnam and Iraq grow every day. Democrats would do well to remember that Nixon inherited Vietnam, just as they may very well Iraq.
What that might mean is they (dems) then get to share in the corporate spoils, which would explain the pussy-footing taking place, wouldn't it?
DEMOCRAT = REPUBLICAN
CORPORATION = GOVERNMENT
Where did all the patriots go? Are flat-screen tv's so nice you'd sell your country to get one?
The vast majority of Americans aren't worth piss.
Peace to you and yours.
The 'Progress Report' for Iraq will be presented to the American people in September.
Who will present it?
Who hasn't lied to our faces yet?
Is there any person in this administration with enough integrity left to be believable?
The evidence is already conclusive: when it comes to foreign policy, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Clinton actually proved this quite decisively in the 90s, but we are served constant reminders. Progressives who believe in peace cannot believe that the cause of peace will be advanced in any way by Democrats.
Let's face it - we are a one party government (GOPocrats/Dempublicans) bought and paid for by corporations especially the defense establishment.
Even greater profits will be there when we bomb Iran and create a need for even more weaponry to be sold.
CNN is already prepping up the people for the September report.
They're working the heartstrings by showing pictures of children 'injured by the violence' so people will be convinced we need to stay and help.
It's annoying to see this BS from the media as they vainly to garner support for this occupation.
Nevertheless, on domestic policy issues there is some (marginal) difference between the two parties. I know that those differences are slim from an objective standpoint, but, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, those slim differences make the difference between ordinary hard times and pure miserable desperation for millions of people. I, for one, don't want that much misery on my conscience, so I will vote for the Democrat, no matter what.
It's the only choice we EVER have--voting Democrat no matter what--and that is our real collective tragedy, or one of them. I voted twice for Nader, just to resist the No Other Choice mantra, then I voted for Kerry with my nose clamped in a vise, only to share in the insult and humiliation he and the Dem Party delivered to his voters, once again being reminded of how profoundly feckless and useless the Dems are, after all.
And we go again, with No Other Choice but either Hillary or Obama, all the others being already eliminated by both MSM and the Dem Party itself. Third parties stand no more chance than Kucinich of ever being taken seriously, so we'll get War War War from now to the very end, which will be brought to us by either party, or both, since there's finally no difference worth wasting time discussing.
It sucks, I know. But those are the rules. We always have a choice, of course. We can vote for lost causes, or we can get behind a third party that is serious about winning instead of intellectually jacking off and congratulating themmselves on how superior they are to ordinary people,or we can simply opt out. Personally, I am not willing to abandon those people whose lives would be somewhat better under a Democrat president.
By the way, what, exactly have you done to assist Rep. Kucinich to be taken seriously? Have you donated money, time, or talent to his campaign? Have you hosted or attended a house party or campaign event. Have you even put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker?
We all know that the MSM will never voluntarily take Rep. Kucinich seriously. ABC's miserable performance in Sunday's debate proves that. The fact is, we will have to FORCE the MSM to take him serriously. That means we have to organize and work for it. It can be done. Eugene McCarthy was not taken seriously until we made him a serious candidate. George McGovern wasn't a serious candidate until we made him one.
I am sick and god-damned of you people who do nothing but moan about how bad things are. Get off your ass and DO something about it.
Reportedly, in a blind poll, where responders were asked what they considered to be the major issues of the country, and what were the responders positions on those issues, 53% agreed with Kucinich's position, which was way more agreement shown by any other candidate.
The NYT Sunday Democratic debate report stated Kucinich observed that he waited forty-five minutes before Bill Clinton's old spokesman, and debate 'moderator', asked him a single question.
The Times mention of Kucinich's presence, at the debate, was in the second to last paragraph of the report, as if to confirm that 'Yes, Dennis is still hanging around, I guess he just doesn't get it.'
Is the NYT in the top tier of America's media? If not are they relevant? If so, shouldn't they be ashamed?
And what responsibility does all our MSM share for framing the issue of Iraq as a winning or loosing proposition?
Should anyone, other than a amoral war criminal, want to win a 'preemptive' war of aggression?
While we're at it, why don't we just pardon anyone who ever killed someone in a gas station hold-up?
I heard on the news early this morning that
Quaggenbush today would compare his efforts
in Iraq with the Korean war and with the
reconstruction of Japan after the second
world war.
Isn't it unbelievable that a man who went
Andover, Yale, and Harvard Business School
could make these comparisons? Or is it
not him but the institutions, in each
case instructing all students to compare
apples and bananas?
It's him.
He ATTENDED these schools. I'll wager he has EARNED no degree from any school.
I was told last week by a retired Army General that the soldiers uniformly support the mission in Iraq and are volunteering to return in record numbers. The disinformation coming from Washington and Fox News is nearly impossible to kill.
Lets face it, if GOD is on our side we better find us a better GOD!Because I would hate to meet him in a dark ally.
If all residents of Baghdad were killed and the area so poisonous that no one can live their for 10,000 years. the report would say:
Baghdad has had no incidents and appears to be completely stable and peaceful for the foreseeable future.
New procedures found successful in Baghdad will be extended to all other unstable areas.
Obviously the political tourists and pundits that recently visited Iraq were on their last leg of a broader tour which included parties to which remain anonymous. Yes, the agents of fortune have been busy and are producing fantastic results ! Our system has failed yet few recognize, yet another fantastic achievement of the agents of fortune !
One can only hope KEM.
DISREGARD FOR OF HISTORY, INTELLEGENCE & LOGIC
Historical lessons, current events, and rational interpretation of intellegence have normally precluded egotism & theocracy for major decisions in our republic. Unfortunately, this is not the case now.
The current administration is manipulated by the ego, the energy cartel, & the radical religious right wing to an extent never before experienced in our history. The invasion of Iraq, the current suggestion to invade Iran, & the dreadful war on our environment are only some examples.
Unless Americans begin reacting to logic rather than rhetoric, and take back our government from this illegally placed administration now, the rights that we have enjoyed for two centuries may evaporate--and we can blame ourselves for this
All of these congressmen are going to wish someday they had stayed out of Iraq. the DU radiation readings in Baghdad are 2,000 near the Green Zone. Unless hey held their breath the entire time hey were there, they have inahled DU and it will eventually kill every one of them.___ Slowly.
A Progress Report?
.
How does one publish a progress report when they have set out to rape and rob Mother Teresa? What is 'winning' in Iraq really mean - besides the obvious destruction of the United States?
The policy that people in this country and our soldiers do not understand is quite simple. Stay in Iraq as long as it takes to pacify the populous and get advantageous longterm oil concessions and "reconstruction" contracts for western corporations then use Iraq as a base for more conquests in the region. Maybe I'm oversimplifying but that is the gist of it. I'm not breaking any new ground here just stating the obvious, we've been over this many times before. Mr Sheer and any soldiers who wish to see this occupation ended must see the policy for what it is and come to grips with the fact that our nation is acting as the worst sort of common criminal. Until they do the powers that be will wriggle, squirm and rationalize their way into staying no matter the cost. But what do I know.
doughyden: "I am sick and god-damned of you people who do nothing but moan about how bad things are. Get off your ass and DO something about it."
What self-righteous pills are you taking, doughyden? If you're so sick and god-damned, what amazing political feats are you performing these days to make things better? Are you sporting a bumper sticker for Kucinich, or a lawn sign, and is that can-do spirit going to win him the nomination? How do you type at a computer without sitting on your busy and purpose-driven ass to do it? Tell us of your miracle-working and I'm sure we'll all gasp in envious wonder at your dynamism, get off our asses and DO something. I yearn to feel small before your herculean strength!
Vern, that was an interesting article. Also what I have stated since this occupation started. He went into the situations as far as the larger cities go, but you also have the smaller tribes throughout the country who run their villages independently also. Much like our Native Indians did long ago. You can't govern a country with democracy when everyone around the government follows, so strictly, a different religious belief and or way of life. There are just to many variables going on in Iraq for any one of them to bring order to a chaotic situation. Unless you do like our government did in the 19 century and herd them all into a reservation, forcing them to live together and bond into one. Which is really what Saddom did in a way. I will even go as far as saying, that what Saddom did is much what our government did to the Native Indians. When things seem to get out of hand, send in a squad to quell the up raising. The so called Iraqi government can pass/make all the laws they want. But that's all that's being done, a making. It does no good to the people if they can't get the laws past the very walls in which they were developed. The people either have to want to begin a new way of life, OR, be forced into it as our Native Americans were. I have to wonder how our Native Americans feel about their lives in the States these days. Put aside the atrocities their people went through, and whether they would have rather been allowed to live as was, slowly integrating in their own way eventually, or happy to be a part of our nation as is today. And, do they see their own past in what is going on in Iraq. It would seem to me that the only way to get Iraq to a realm of what our government wants, is to take the many groups of people,such as our Native Americans, and other ethnic groups, there to educate the masses there on a change of society. Such as Bosnia? the Clinton thing we had? I may have the wrong area. Biden has touched on it a few times in the debates. You get the idea though? I guess I should have looked it up before hand. Anyways, These people share similar religious backgrounds that might help Iraqi's to a new life. I once thought the idea of splitting up the country was a good idea. But after learning of all the tribal areas and all, it just seems like a loosing battle. And now you have Al Queada there to force the issues and add decent throughout the country. PLUS, after learning how the oil there is planed to be privatized to our greedy oil corporations. I began to realize why things went/are going down the way they did/are.
There seems to be no strategy, just attrition. To stay there long enough for them to quit. There are some that believe that the plan was to never leave. To have permanent bases there to protect the oil. That seems possible to me. The one flaw is that they did not explain any of this to the American people.
I just got this from Move On, rather interesting.
Dear MoveOn member,
We learned yesterday that the White House and pro-war donors have put together a massive $15 MILLION media fund to keep the war going.1 It's an enormous ad buy—and it's aimed at stopping Republicans from breaking with the president now that it's clear that the surge has failed.
Now is the time to fight back. We don't have super-rich corporate donors to match a $15 million ad campaign—but we do have each other. There are millions of us around the country and we're getting together next Tuesday to tell Congress that the time to stand up to President Bush and redeploy our troops out of this unwinnable civil war in Iraq is NOW.
If your not a member of the MoveOn.org site
I guess I should have added this part also.
The White House front group, "Freedom Watch" is running ads in more than 20 states and they're targeting mostly Republicans, but some Democrats too. They're trying to convince voters and members of Congress that the "surge" is working and that Congress should give Bush more time.
But the truth is time has run out on the White House policy in Iraq. The "surge" is a total failure. Consider these key facts:
2007 is already the bloodiest summer for American troops since the war began.2
There has been little to no progress on the political benchmarks that the president said the "surge" would help accomplish.3
64 percent of conservative foreign policy experts say the escalation is having either a negative impact or no impact at all.4
7 out of 10 foreign policy experts support redeployment of US troops out of Iraq.5
This big ad blitz is happening now because this September is going to bring the biggest showdown on Iraq since the war began. The White House will try to convince Congress to let them continue their reckless policy in Iraq and if they succeed we could be in Iraq for another 10 years.6
We have to show up in force on Tuesday, before Congress returns to D.C. for the big September fight, and show them that voters want our troops out of the religious civil war in Iraq now—not in six months, not in a year, now.
Can you join us at a Stand Up in September Vigil in Barberton on Tuesday?
Freedom Watch!?! That's a joke. Watching freedoms being taken away?
EPHRIAM. Interesting comment. Tell us, Ep, what do you do to solve the problems, could you share some of your wisdom with us? I'd appreciate it if you could.
Kem Patrick: I was merely responding to the guy who said he was "sick and goddamned of you people who do nothing but moan about how bad things are. Get off your ass and DO something about it." Why not ask him how to solve the problems? I never said I have the solutions; in fact I said the opposite, that we are bereft of solutions because we never have any option besides voting for Tweedledum or Tweedledee. It's the same this time around as it's been for decades, and it must remain the same for the Business Party with two wings, nominally Republican and Democrat, to maintain total control over the electoral process. Only Kucinich and Richardson among the Dems in the running have vowed to get us out of Iraq, and the MSM will not take them seriously, will barely even admit they exist. (Peace is decidedly not on the table, not now, not ever.) The Party and the media decide who will be the candidate, not the forlorn people, who never really decide anything in this marvellous democracy. It's a sham democracy, and I can't solve that problem. It's too deeply embedded in the national psyche--that we have a democracy and we the people will fix what's wrong. Look at the disaster Bush and Cheney have wrought, then look at the Democrats' feeble, anemic promises and declarations about how they'll fix it. Mainly by just keeping all the same balls in motion--Iraq war, not gonna quit it; health care, warmed over Clinton-era bullshit that empowers insurers only; the environment, let the oil companies decide since they have nearly all the power anyway; "faith," Hillary has tons of it, Obama has more, Jesus rules or you're political toast, etc. Just like their colleagues across the aisle.
Here's my non-solution: Don't vote. It only encourages the scoundrels. Here's my prediction: Our current rapid decline will continue, regardless of who wins in '08. We'll soon enough be a third world country threatening everyone else with our nukes, bitter over our self-ruination that began in earnest under Reagan and peaked with Bush Jr.
Dang me, I am sorry, I didn't scroll up far enough Ep. Plese forgive my error. I won't bother askng the other guy, we already know the answer.
Democrats are complicit.
Democrats = Bush enabler
kinkygntlmn August 23rd, 2007 12:57 pm
I just got this from Move On, rather interesting.
-------------------
I have LONG ago stopped supporting MoveOn. They keep on supporting these "Bush enablers" (i.e. Democrats)
Proposed solution:
1) campaign finance reform (meaning complete publci financing of all campaigns)
2) term limit
The first one will provide a level paying field for honest candidates with ideas (rather than candidates with money)
And the second one will diminish influence of lobbyists.
citizen1
How did you come to the opinion MoveOn is supporting Bush via the democratic party? I've seen no evidence to warrant that statement. Everything I see on their web site is to a fight against everything this administration is doing. And a lot of the bills and amendments they are fighting to get passed are also to the contrary of the democratic party. After reading your statement I went to see if I could find any evidence to back up your claim. So if you have the time please post some sort of evidence or links to educate me. I didn't ask anyone to give support to MoveOn. I just simply posted what was sent to me in an email that is of grave concern to most people I see posting on these boards. I don't even see them endorsing any one democratic nominee. Inside information?
As a matter of fact, Ephraim, I have donated over $1,000.00 to the Kucinich campaign, I have hosted two fundraising house parties, I have not only bumper stickers and yard signs but also lapel pins ant t-shirts. I have written letters of support to the local paper and help organize my local Kucinich committee. So screw you, buddy.
I think you're just feeling guilty, and justifiably so, for your miserable failure to do anything except sit back on your smug ass and bitch about things. So stand aside and shut up, fool, some of us are actually trying to build a better world.
doughyden, Neither your self-righteousness nor smugness are going to do Kucinich's cause much good. Any idiot can detect that. Not everyone has $1,000 to donate to a campaign. Does that make them all "miserable failures" who sit on their asses bitching? Have you no idea what a complete asshole you are? I'm sure Dennis would if he met you. Last election I sent about $300 to Kucinich, but apparently that makes me a miserable failure. I've talked with everyone I know about Kucinich, and living deep in the country I haven't hosted fundraisings, but I suppose because of that I have no right to any kind of opinion. Sorry to inform you, O high and mighty bumper sticker man, but it will take a lot more than that to elect Kucinich or even get him nominated. Take your little lapel pins and t-shirts and shove them up your self-righteous ass. That would go a long way toward building a better world for us all.
I never accused you of anything, asshole. You, without knowing me, accused me of hypocrisy. I never did anything to you, unless my first post just hit too close to home. I just pointed out that I have, indeed, done something positive. Of course it will take more than what I've done to get Kucinich--or any progressive--elected president! But I have at last expended time, talent, and money on his behalf. If we all did what I have done, Kucinich would be a shoe-in. Most arm-chair progressives have done nothing. You have beat the average, but not by much. Don't have $1,000 to donate? How about $10? How about an hour of knocking on doors? How about just writing a freaking letter to the editor, for god's sake? Something.
In fact, I have met Dennis, and I can't speak for him (neither can you), but he certainly didn't do anything to indicate he thinks I'm an asshole. He wouldn't, of course, but at least I've been face to face with the guy. You're in an even worse position than I am to judge his opinion of me. He probably has none, since we interacted for about 45 seconds.
What is your problem, anyway? All I did was vent some frustration at the fact that the left wing is more talk than action. I certainly didn't say anything to justify the kind of vitriolic personal attack that you levelled at me. You sound as though I've tried to cut your personal nuts off. If you have taken positive action, well, bully for you. That doesn't convince me to change my basic position: most "progressives" would "rather curse the darkness than light a candle."