The Petraeus Performance
The opening day of the Petraeus performance went pretty much according to script. The somber general and the geeky ambassador were careful to promise not victory but the possibility of success, vaguely defined. And, of course, Petraeus warned of the “devastating consequences” of what he called a “premature drawdown.”
Petraeus threw out a bunch of stats, flipped some charts, and pointed to tables all indicating that the situation is improving. These are suspect. “The number of overall civilian deaths” has declined since December, he said, for instance. But a report by the McClatchy news service on Sunday rebuts this.
“Civilian deaths haven’t decreased in any significant way across the country,” the report says. “According to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, 984 people were killed across Iraq in February, and 1,011 died in violence in August. But an official in the ministry who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized to release numbers said those numbers were heavily manipulated. The official said 1,980 Iraqis had been killed in July and that violent deaths soared in August to 2,890.” (Thanks to Juan Cole’s website for drawing this to my attention.) By the way, Petraeus admitted that he didn’t count Shiite-on-Shiite violence or Sunni-on-Sunni violence.
The Iraqis themselves do not feel safer thanks to the surge. “More Iraqis say security in their local area has gotten worse in the last six months than say it’s gotten better, 31 percent to 24 percent, with the rest reporting no change,” according to an ABC News, BBC, and NHK (Japan) poll. Far more, six in 10, say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.”
More troubling for the American troops, “79 percent of Iraqis oppose the presence” of U.S. troops in their country, and “57 percent call violence against U.S. forces acceptable, up six points” from last year, ABC News says.
Hard to win that way. (Petraeus went to great lengths to stress the progress with Sunnis. But this poll shows 93 percent of Sunnis believe it is acceptable to use violence against our troops.)
Even worse than the numbers game Petraeus played was the political game. While he admitted that “the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources,” this did not stop him from magnifying two other factors: Al Qaeda and Iran.
By my count, he mentioned Al Qaeda 23 times in his statement, and he tended to blur the distinction between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Petraeus simply used the phrase Al Qaeda 16 of those 23 times. He and his commander in chief want us all to think they are one and the same.
When Representative Gary Ackerman grilled him on the so-called threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq, he was nonplussed, and even averred that he didn’t know what the consequence would be if the United States left Iraq before killing every Al Qaeda member.
What’s more, his argument on Al Qaeda in Iraq is self-defeating. He boasts that “the most significant development in the past six months likely has been the increasing emergence of tribes and local citizens rejecting Al Qaeda and other extremists.” And the ABC poll confirms this: 100 percent of Iraqis reject Al Qaeda in Iraq’s policy of attacking civilians, 98 percent reject its attempt to gain control of some territory, and 97 percent repudiate its effort at recruiting foreign fighters. So, if the Iraqi population is so opposed to Al Qaeda in Iraq, then the United States could safely leave and let the Iraqis smash the remaining forces of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which amount to only a few thousand, according to Petraeus.
On Iran, Petraeus played the good soldier. He referred to Iran ten times in his opening statement, decrying its “malign actions.” But Saudi Arabia is the leading supplier of foreign fighters in Iraq. Guess how many times Petraeus mentioned Saudi Arabia: none.
As a mark of progress, Petraeus mentioned that “Iraq is becoming one of the United States’s larger foreign military sales customers, committing some $1.6 billion to FMS already, with the possibility of up to $1.8 billion more being committed before the end of this year.” This is good for U.S. arms manufacturers, but that’s about it.
And Petraeus also crowed that Iraq’s leaders “want to negotiate a long-term security agreement with the United States and other nations.”
That’s short for permanent American military bases in Iraq.
It’s that, and the oil, which is driving U.S. policy.
“The U.S. is putting maximum pressure to pass the [oil] law,” says Nadim al-Jaberi, head of the al Fadhila Party, in a revealing article on Alternet by Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar.
The authors also point out that the United States is leaning against a strong national government in Baghdad, which a majority of Iraqis want, and instead favors a kind of weak federalism.
Ambassador Crocker hinted broadly about this in his testimony. “No longer is an all-powerful Baghdad seen as the panacea to Iraq’s problems,” he said. “This thinking is nascent, but it is ultimately critical to the evolution of a common vision among all Iraqi leaders.”
And it may be critical to the U.S. oil companies that aren’t getting their way just yet from Baghdad.
“Today, we find out the Hunt Corporation of Texas has signed an oil exploration agreement with Kurdistan,” Representative Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii told Petraeus. “The central government is cut out. At the same time, we read that the Commerce Department is seeking an international legal adviser to draft laws and regulations that will govern Iraq’s oil and gas sector. We are going to be doing the drafting of the oil protocols. Iraq is not a sovereign country.”
Petraeus had no answer for that one.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
© 2007 The Progressive
Unreported by corporate media was the arrest just outside the hearing of Reverend Lennox Yearwood (Hip Hop Caucus) as he was waiting in line to enter the hearing. Capitol police grabbed him and forced him to the floor as he kept saying “I’m not resisting.” His leg was hurt as at least 4 officers were involved in the film that is on youtube. I understand that he is in jail and being charged with resisting arrest or possibly assaulting officers…NOT ON THE VIDEO AT ALL.
What kind of Congress do we have that allows this to happen in their very own halls???
(google his name for more info and find the youtube video there)
Let’s be clear about what is happening right before our eyes: the US government itself openly states that it is of no consequence, whether the people of Iraq, or the people of the USA, desire that the occupation be continued. By itself, this means that what the US govt is engaging in is — if we call things by their proper names — tyranny and military aggression.
Yet this very point — which should be perceived as intensely troubling, should it not? — is never addressed in MSM commentary. There are no outraged editorials in the NY Times or Washington Post about the US govt’s tyranny, military aggression, and hence war crimes. The presidential “candidates” never speak of such things; they restrict their remarks to suggestions for how best to “succeed” in Iraq. The underlying crime itself is not “on the table” for discussion. We may only chirp cheerfully about various proposals for helping the crime to succeed.
A great dog and pony show. Now Bush bought himself not another six months, but another year. A big thanks to our castrated congress for letting him get away with this charade. What’s another 100 billion and another 1000 soldier’s lives? Oh, and another 150,000 Iraq lives?
If I remember correctly, the estimate for Al Qaida around about 9-11, 2001 was that it had maybe a little under a thousand members.
Now Petreus is testifying that there are several thousand members of Al Qaida in Iraq alone? If the goal of our policy is defeating terrorism, didn’t Petreus pretty much just prove that our policy isn’t working?
Petrues knows it, as shown by the stumbled when asked point-blank if this was making America safer. He blurted out “I don’t know.” before he realized he was admitting that the entire war on terror policy from this government was a failure.
If the policy isn’t working to make America safer, then we should stop ASAP and try something different.
The two comments above mine are both important. They show the state of freedom that exists, and the mindset of the government of the US that public opinion is at best something to be manipulated … and if that fails then public opinion is just ignored. In a government that was truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, this couldn’t happen.
But I wish people would just shut up about the MSM. Who cares? By this point, we know they lie, obfuscate and mislead? We know they’ll help push whatever propaganda the government puts out? We know they won’t cover stories important to American citizens? But why the constant whining about it?
There’s this parallel myth that the MSM is too lazy to get the story right. And there’s the constant impression that says if we just whine about it some more or send some letters to the editor the MSM will suddenly start acting as journalists.
Face it. The MSM, the WaPost, the NYT, CNN, the rest of them are the enemy. They are fully enlisted on the side of corporate rule, which means if you believe in freedom and democracy and a government that’s for the people, they are the enemy. For all their flag waving and faux patriotism, the MSM is opposed to the very basic ideals that are the foundation of American democracy.
Education on this topic is good. For those who still get their propaganda from the MSM, we need to educate them as to how they are being tricked and fooled by organizations that are fundamentally anti-american. But constantly whining about how they don’t cover something is just a waste of breath. The MSM is the enemy. Accept that. Deal with that. Find other ways of communicating with other American citizens. Work to counter the lies and falsehoods the MSM puts out. But quit whining about it.
General Betrayus’ goal is to read the script, retire and get a high paying “job” with a “defense” contractor and get a book deal to supplement his high paying pension and generous retirement benefits.
“In an interview after his appearance before a congressional panel on Monday, General Petraeus strongly implied that it would soon be necessary to obtain authorisation to take action against Iran within its own borders, rather than just inside Iraq. “There is a pretty hard look ongoing at that particular situation” he said.”
And, since things are “improving” re: the illegal occupation of Iraq, “we” can move more troops out of Baghdad (or Iraqi town X,) and on towards Phase III…
I’ve heard Petraeus described in the last few days as a “good soldier”, “just following orders.” He seems to be taking too literally the line from the Tennyson poem, Charge of the Light Brigade:
It’s not for me to question why
It’s just for me to do and die
As into the Valley of Death
rode the five hundred.
Except it’s not him riding into the Valley of Death. It’s the troops and the people of Iraq.
did he announce he found Colin Powell mythical WMD?
The funniest thing was when Betrayus said with a straight face that he had not consulted with anyone else on what he had in his report. Good actor! Why don`t we just give up and admit we do not have a president anymore, and call him King George. He can force about anyone to do whever he wishes and Congress has gone along with it, so we might just as well watch football and figure what will be will be.
I call for a ordinance exchange program. Every Iraqi who turns in a bullet, the US will match a bullet, every weapon, explosive, and instrument of death will be matched in kind, and disposed of safely.
blessthebeasts September 12th, 2007 6:45 pm Yes, and bless you too.