SET FIRE TO A HOUSE ... GET CALLED A HERO? THE ABSURD LOGIC BEHIND THANKING BUSH

If I set fire to a house and then call the fire department - who then put out the fire - am I a hero? No? What if I ran into the house to save a few family members before the fire department arrived. Am I a hero now? This is precisely what Fox News and their conservative drones on the right want us to believe about George W. Bush because of "The Surge" strategy in Iraq.

Let's make this clear. We never should have been in Iraq. It was a war of choice. The Surge was made possible only because George W. Bush and his administration decided, as it were, to set Iraq on fire.

But as long as we're talking about The Surge, let me make this clear too: The Surge was not the primary factor behind the decline of violence in Iraq. Here's why.

As I posted in March 2008 the decline in violence in Iraq was a product of four developments, none of which had anything to to do with The Surge.

1. Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's August 2007 cease-fire.

2. The Anbar Awakening, which began in Sept. 2006 (in essence the Sunni's began saying no to Al Qaeda).

3. The physical separation (which included barrier walls) of Shi'a and Sunnis right before The Surge.

4. The Low-Hanging Fruit of Death were gone. Shi'a & Sunnis, tired of surprise murders, had moved out of previously "integrated" neighborhoods by August 2007.

To be sure, The Surge helped solidify and reemphasize the gains that came from these developments. But this makes The Surge a "supporting" rather than determining factor for Iraq's decline in violence.

More importantly, “the surge worked” crowd (conveniently) ignores that The Surge was designed to provide stability for national reconciliation so that specific political benchmarks could be met. The key here is that while a degree of security and stability has been achieved, violence still plagues Iraq, sectarian divisions continue, while the larger goals of national reconciliation and certain political benchmarks have only been partially met.

Still, to think that The Surge makes George W. Bush a hero, who should be thanked for his military genius, is akin to saying arsonists should be thanked for calling 911 on themselves. Would you give them a parade?
 
Finally, the "We should thank George W. Bush" crowd miss a fundamental point about our nation's war of choice. We spent over $700 billion (interest not tacked on), saw our national prestige decline, had 31,926 U.S. soldiers returned who were injured or maimed (20% of which are serious brain or spinal injuries), and lost over 4,400 U.S. soldiers to the war in Iraq ...
 

 
Should we thank George W. Bush for this too?

- Mark

TEAM McCAIN: MAKING SAUSAGE?

So I'm watching John McCain and Sarah Palin speak in Wisconsin, and what do I see? From the very beginning she's trying to pump up McCain's judgment on The Surge.

As I've said before, this is like putting lipstick on a pig. Here's why ...

The Surge wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't gone into Iraq in the first place. This was a colossal error in judgment, which Senator McCain supported wholeheartedly. If McCain wants to own The Surge, he needs to own the war. He is the Godfather of Bush's Blundering Wars Project.

And let's be clear here ... While the military finally has the manpower they should have had from Day One (another error in judgment) The Surge was not the principle factor behind declining violence in Iraq. Here are the facts.

(1) Declining violence in Iraq is a product of Iraq's religious leaders in the Anbar Province coming together to reject al Qaeda - a group that had no presence in Iraq before Bush and McCain pushed America into a war built on a pack of lies.

(2)The "Anbar Awakening" followed the mass segregation of parts of Iraq, where Sunnis and Shiite moved away from hostile areas on their own. They simply got tired of being targets in a civil war, that Bush & McCain's policies made possible, and moveD into safer areas.

(3) Then we have a city of walls. Miles of concrete fences have been erected throughout Baghdad and other hostile areas (which you and I paid for). The lives of U.S. troops were saved in the process.

The Surge was put in place after all of this happened. What does it say about a party - and a man - that makes catastrophic errors in judgment about a war, and troop levels, and then wants kudos for not making things worse?

Let's make this real simple. This is like a Little Pig building his house out of straw then wanting a pat on the back because the wolf didn't eat him ... as he hides in his brother's brick house.

Anyway you put it, the war in Iraq represents a colossal failure in judgment. Unless you're a republican, you can't make sausage out this pig.

- Mark

UPDATE: A few days after the post, but better late than never ... Here's Joe Biden on Meet the Press explaining why The Surge should not be viewed as the success Bush-McCain-MSM want to portray it as.

McCAIN'S CLUELESS ON "THE SURGE"

With all of John McCain's whining about The Surge, I think it's important to remember that The Surge was not responsible for the decline in violence in Iraq. As I posted back in March the decline in violence is a product of four developments.

1. Moqtada al-Sadr's August 2007 cease-fire.

2. The Anbar Awakening, Sept. 2006 (Sunni's say no to Al Qaeda).

3. The physical separation of Shi'a and Sunnis right before The Surge.

4. The Low-Hanging Fruit of Death are gone (Shi'a & Sunnis move out of old "integrated" neighborhoods by August 2007).

To be sure, The Surge helped solidify the gains that would come from these developments. But this makes The Surge a "supporting" rather than determining factor for Iraq's decline in violence.

Still, John McCain seems to think that supporting The Surge is a sign of good judgment on his part (but curiously says little about his support for going into Iraq in the first place). But his worst gaffe yesterday was making the claim that The Surge made the Anbar Awakening possible. Huh? Doesn't McCain know how to read a calendar (we know he can't read a map)?

And foreign policy is supposed to be his strong point.

Fortunately MSNBC has the goods on McCain's time-line blunder.



So let's be clear here. Supporting The Surge does not make you a military genius, nor does it make you presidential.

It only means you're George Bush's lapdog.

- Mark

McCAIN: BRINGING TROOPS HOME "NOT TOO IMPORTANT ..."

Apart from not understanding the difference between keeping troops in Korea, Japan, Germany (tied to post-war demands and global security) and Iraq (covering a mistake + oil) John McCain seems to believe the surge is working - which simply is not true.



For McCain to say that bringing the troops home is "not too important" demonstrates, once again, that he is not fit to lead.

- Mark

AGAIN, THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING ...

Last week I posted a brief review explaining why "The Surge" is not working in Iraq. The Washington Post is now reporting pretty much the same thing:

A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago.

It really doesn't get any clearer than this.

- Mark

WHY “THE SURGE” IS NOT WORKING …

Here’s “the surge is working” logic in a nutshell: Declining U.S. military deaths in Iraq since August, 2007 means the “the surge” is working.

What the “surge is working” crowd seems to (conveniently) ignore is that the surge was designed to provide stability for national reconciliation so that specific political benchmarks could be met. Let me reiterate. the goals are national political reconciliation and meeting political benchmarks.

National reconciliation is not on the horizon. The benchmarks have not been met. Ergo, the surge has failed. And to the extent that we have seen U.S. casualties decline, we need to understand why …

1. The Moqtada al-Sadr ceasefire. The al-Sadr ceasefire began August, 2007. Let's keep in mind that al-Sadr’s father was roughed up pretty good by Saddam’s henchmen. Al-Sadr has much to seek revenge about. Don’t count on a permanent ceasefire.

2. The “Low-Hanging-Fruit-of-Death” Peak: Simply put, early and vicious ethnic cleansing in Baghdad caused Shi'a and Sunni to separate and move out of old neighborhoods by August 2007. The early low hanging fruit of death – as it were – were no longer hanging out in the old neighborhoods waiting to be shot. As a result, American soldiers no longer have to be in the middle of this mess.

3. The Wall(s) of Love: The physical separation of the Sunni-Shia combatants in Baghdad with 12 ft. high walls. Completed just in time for the surge.

4. The Anbar Awakening: In September 2006 – long before President Bush’s “surge” was implemented – a federation of Sunni tribes came together as the Anbar Salvation Council. They opposed the fundamentalist militants of Al Qaeda. The Sunni dominated council needed-wanted money and security. In return the council volunteered hundreds of tribesmen to serve as police officers and have permitted the construction of police and military outposts.

Let’s be clear here. None of the above - with the possible exception of the Wall of Love - have anything to do with the surge (which, again, has not met its goals).

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION ...
But here’s another problem with “the surge is working” fairytale. While reduced GI killings in Baghdad has happened, and regular violence against Iraqis has remained relatively flat (but it’s still higher today than in ’03, ’04, and ’05), our surge has not reduced overall violence in Iraq.

One of the reasons we don’t know this is because of the way we have counted sectarian violence and civilian deaths. Check this out. It seems that if you are an Iraqi shot in the front of the head you are simply a victim of violent crime. This is a victory for the surge. To be counted as part of the sectarian violence, and to get Gen. Petraeus’ sectarian-death-stamp-of-approval, you need to be shot in the back of the head. This is not good for the surge.

So, essentially, declining sectarian violence in Iraq is a product of bullet hole location. Nice.

- Mark

BAGHDAD: A CITY OF WALLS

Hey, if it worked in Berlin ...

In the first of Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's extraordinary series of films to mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, he investigates the claims that the US military surge is bringing stability to Iraq. By travelling through the heart of Baghdad he exposes how, by enclosing the Sunni and Shia populations behind 12ft walls, the surge has left the city more divided and desperate than ever ...

What's next? An official policy of segregation?

- Mark