Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBush Not Swayed By Iraq Reality
Here's the question that senators ought to have asked General Petraeus (the current Colin Powell):Could you give us a rough estimate, general, of how many more American men and women will die in Iraq? Not a precise figure, just an approximation?
That is an important question. Chicago political guru Don Rose has pointed out that Bush's war in Iraq has caused the deaths of more Americans than died in the Sept. 11 attacks and probably more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein killed. What is the point of all this slaughter?
This is a strange week in America. As we pass the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Bush is still telling us that the Iraq war can be won, that we can achieve victory, that we can create a democratic Iraq. The neocons who created the war are telling us that the "surge" in Iraq has "worked," that the tide has turned, that we see light at the end of the tunnel (well, they don't say that, but it's the same idea). The work of the Iraq Study Group could be cast aside, the grim news in the recent National Intelligence Report can be dismissed, the reports of the Government Accountability Office on the "guidelines" for the Iraqi government were "pessimistic;" Marine Gen. James Jones' reports on the state of the Iraqi police and army did not include August.
All of these attempts to advocate surrender in Iraq (as the TV ads call it) were now irrelevant. General Petraeus had come home from Iraq with the news that the the president's new strategy had worked, as the president knew he would. Petraeus was the ultimate standard. No one else. No other report mattered. Now, since the president had a mandate to continue his optimism, victory in Iraq would be achieved.
The photo opportunity in Anbar province was designed to persuade the military and the American people that he was right to be confident, to be dead certain. That's how you should lead, how you would win. That the surge was originally sold as providing time for the Iraqi government to take charge -- and clearly they had not -- was unimportant in the face of Petraeus's endorsement of the success of the surge.
This might be a good week to read Robert Draper's book Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. Draper is sympathetic to Bush and tries to be favorable, but he wants to understand how the president can be so "dead certain" about everything. It is a question many Americans are asking.
The first interview with Draper occurs after the report of the Iraq Study Group. The president is uneasy. He can't accept what the group wants because that would betray his lack of certainty. Unless he displayed confidence that we would win, the troops and their leaders would lose confidence. He was confident he could stop drinking, never hesitated for a moment. He was confident he would win the Texas gubernatorial race. He never doubted for a moment that he would win both presidential elections. That's why he won. Confidence confirms itself. Similarly with Iraq, if he continued to be optimistic about victory, we would indeed win. Will the American public buy into this hype, so much like that which came before the invasion of Iraq? In the short run, maybe. In the long run . . .
Andrew Greeley is a regular columnist for the Sun Times.
© 2007 The Chicago Sun Times
17 Comments so far
Show Allvinlander
I prefer "Viet-raq" as the new label for this disaster.
einstein
You want the oil, you can have the oil. Price tag ... global warming - everyone's screwed.
In the long run, we are all pawns.
Cocaine is Okay if You Have Connections (Bush)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_hQB3eYUOU
Willie Nelson lyric to start like this:
"Why don't we make war on Canada or Mexico?"
"Bring our boys home, Canada much less far to go"
"First let's teach 'em some proper shock 'n awe,
Sock those socialist Canucks right in the jaw."
Over there in Iraq we're losing,
Over here we can win the day!
Their oil's next door for the taking,
....
(Song idea for Willie Nelson)
Why not just make war on Mexico and/or Canada?
They too have oil, especially Canada, and they are so much closer. We could just role in there with tanks, well, after a 60 day shock and awe bombing campaign, and LIBERATE the Canadians from their socialist overlords. The place is positively overflowing with darkskinned middle-easterners, i.e. terrorists. The fact that Canada harbored draft dodgers, war resisters and protesters during the Vietnam war is clearly good cause enough for military action against this ungodly country, NOW.
Yes, we must shock and awe Canada into submission immediately. There is oil up there folks as well, one of the largest reserves on earth.
It is well known that Canada is fomenting secession in Alaska, and could very well be aiding seperatists up there.
Something must be done. Let's bring the troops home, and use them against Canada, or send them to Texas to invade Mexico.
:0)
Petraeus, like Bush and the corporate media, expects the US audience to be composed of gullible childlike rubes.
If the "surge" worked, then there'd be no excuse for the extra troops to remain in place. I think that's why we've never heard anything related to progress in this war expressed in the past tense since the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner those many years ago.
Instead, they say that the surge IS SUCCEEDING...
...and that we are...erm...MISSION ACCOMPLISH-ING...
I don't get it. If the final seconds of the Superbowl ticked down to zero and the defeated coach implored the stadium to reset the fourth quarter clock and allow him to put additional players on the field, would anyone be much impressed with his ability?
Gold help us if a real army ever attacked us. What'd our precious generals do if they were told they weren't getting anything more and had to make their plan work with what they had?
The slog is through blood as our government stalls a pullout rather than admit failure before an election. Low polls for both bush/republicans and for dems (congress as a whole) are low because americans see they are doing what they want regardless of what most America wants.
They stall to maintain the status quo going into an election. Yeah it is cynical. So would be their hope to maintain a permanent number of large military bases as staging areas for a war with Iran. Agenda driven delusions now.
But delusions which are nevertheless being played out till the end. Likely 08 and then a pull out in 09 or 10 or ?
In the long run? A LONG run of this bad play sees a draft. Will men be forced to serve five and six tours? Or a war with Iran. A stall until elections...freeze in place...stay the course and withdraw only the additional surge forces leaving 120,000 or so in Iraq semi-permanently. As Bush wants to do?
They stall leaving because leaving is admitting failure. They stall for a year and an election or an Iranian War.
Note...war with Iran needs a draft. Whether it comes first or after the start of war...A war with Iran would mean a draft.
Won't that be fun? These kids already know and believe this war is all bunk.
Great report from General Prat-fake-us
...reminded me of Caligua bringing sea shells to present to the Senate along with his tales of his conquest of Briton.
Just read this interview with investigative journalists in www.democracynoe.org 9.12.2007, on the missing NINE BILLION DOLLARS sent to Iraq for reconstruction.
"One month after the invasion of Iraq, the United States began airlifting planeloads of cash to Baghdad...literally. Stacks of $100 dollar bills were packed into bricks, assembled into large palettes and loaded onto cargo planes bound for the Iraqi capital. Beginning in April 2003 and continuing for little more than a year, a total of $12 billion dollars of US currency was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Iraq. The US military delivered the banknotes to the Coalition Provisional Authority where it was to be dispensed for Iraqi reconstruction. What happened to it? To date, at least $9 billion dollars cannot be accounted for."
Impeachment anyone?
Although the US may not be winning in Iraq, George Bush HAS WON in Iraq. Iraq gave him a second term and has enriched the oil industry and the military industrial complex (both of which he and Cheney are a part). The Democrats are fearful of voting against more Iraq occupation funding which will result in the Republicans reviving the wishy washy label that is likely to sink the Democrats in 2008. Bush has won everything and lost nothing other than the US taxpayers money.
He was confident he could get into U of T Law - ooops. He was confident he had what it takes to be a successful businessman - ooops. He was confident massive tax cuts for the super wealthy would cure the entire universe's economic woes - ooops. He was confident New Orleans would quickly rise again - ooops.
And now he's confident he can blow up Iran anytime he damn well pleases... ooops.
U.S. National Interest in Iraq left Undefended?
.
We and the Brits have left the oil rich South of Iraq and its vital international port for shipments, i.e. the most important part of Iraq, to Iranian influenced warring bands of Shiites.
Elsewhere our troops are attacked one hundred and seventy five times a day.
(177.8 attacks a day on troops Reuters 7.20.07)
What in the holy christ are we exactly doing there? Defending the contractors in non National Interest territory???
If we're staying in Iraq in such force to defend the Emerald Palace when we've already lost control over most areas of strategic interest, that's like defending your ego when you're in quicksand. Or like getting a boob job with the last of your cash when the Doc says you've got cancer.
"Bush is still telling us that the Iraq war can be won, that we can achieve victory, that we can create a democratic Iraq."
I agree of course with Greely. But, this is gibberish. It never was a war, it's a genocide, a wanton slaughter from the start. They have no army, never did.
Next, why talk about Bush bringing democracy to Iraq, when he's hell bent on destroying the democracy here in the USA?
Why even use the above phrase saying that Bush is telling us "that we can create a democratic Iraq."
Why bother repeating this nonsense? The repetition gives it credence.
So, Petraeus predicts the dire consequences should we leave Iraq too soon, but cannot even guess when we will achieve success there. He declined to say whether our strategy in Iraq will make the USA safer!
General Petraeus promised that he would withdraw a brigade from Iraq-Nam by year end. What no one seems to have noticed is that a brigade has already come home -- in coffins.
I want to recommend a great book by Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire. I quote", This book was not easy to write. I do not like what it has to say about my country. But I am convinced by the course of events leading up to and the developments following the terrorist attacks of September,11,2001,that this analysis is fundamentally correct. It is because I do not like stating that the United States is probably lost to militarism that this book is so heavily documented." later on he says and I quote"Of course,I leave it to others to decide whether I have been convincing and whether my alarm about the course of our country is taking is well-founded. I do not think we will have to wait long to find out."end of quote. Just as 9/11 altered the course of our United States I feel the horrific blunders committed ny Bush and Company will greatly alter our future lives for a long time to come just as Vietnam did back in the 70's. Great job Bush!! I think historians will look back at Bush's presidency and shake their heads at the lack and/or wonder at the pathetic attempts of congress to change the tragic course our country took!! Thanks, Nancy and Harry Great job!!!! I had one final quote it was what a stewardess was found saying to the tower about the flight that was heading toward the twin towers on 9/11. "Were flying low way too low!" end of quote What an appropriate comment for where our country is heading to today. But this time the towers is a people. Possibly Iran.