Current Article

I Spent a Week in Iraq and Now I’m an Expert

By The Angry Rakkasan on July 31, 2007 at 5:24 PM in Current Affairs

By The Angry Rakkasan

        This is how it happens: A desperate Republican goes to Iraq looking for something—anything—to justify the continuing presence of American troops there. The Republican stays for a week (give or take), and then returns home as if he or she were Moses coming back from Mount Sinai, carrying to the American people stone tablets engraved with The Ultimate Truth About Iraq.
        And of course, this Ultimate Truth About Iraq is learned by the Republican in the chow hall, on the secure base, with the hand-picked soldiers sitting at the table.
        This is what Senator Jim Webb rightly called the “dog and pony show.” For those who don’t know, that’s an old military expression used to describe how troops are often forced to put on a “show” for visiting politicians or VIPs to convey just how swell everything is going on the front lines.
        Politicians or VIPs who’ve served in a combat zone know this. Sadly, the rest visit the troops in a state of blissful ignorance.

Before I started listening to the long and distinguished list of Republicans who took The Trip to Obtain Ultimate Moral Authority on Iraq, I had no idea that this level of enlightenment could take place within a week. But then I started researching it and learned otherwise. Let’s take a look at some of the most notable instances of this:

1. Lindsey Graham

The other day on Meet the Press (while Jim Webb was dismantling him), Senator Graham insisted that troops were re-enlisting at the highest numbers ever because they supported the mission in Iraq. Of course, Graham knew this because, as he was quick to let everyone know, he has been to Iraq seven times. Never mind the fact that Webb is a Vietnam veteran whose son served in Iraq. Never mind that Graham’s trips don’t last longer than two or three days. Graham was perfectly content to smugly retort to Webb: “Have you been to Iraq?” He asked this as if he were the expert—and as if Webb were the neophyte. And why not? Graham has visited the troops seven times. He may only be a never-deployed lawyer in the Air Force Reserves, but his trips to Iraq have given him The Knowledge.

2. Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin couldn’t stand the fact that she didn’t have the moral authority to run her mouth about her Iraq. She’s still young enough to enlist, but apparently that’s just not her thing. Michelle figured out she could just do it the easy way—by taking The Trip to Obtain Ultimate Moral Authority on Iraq. That’s right: She decided to go for a whole week.
By the time she’d returned from the journey, she was qualified to talk down to just about anyone on the subject of Iraq. In fact, she mocked other journalists like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for not being as courageous as she was being. She said this:

In fact, one of our hosts at Forward Operating Base Justice said they would be happy to welcome Keith Olbermann as an embed. And Chris Matthews (last heard smearing U.S. troops as participants in “ethnic cleansing”), too. The rooms at The Tiger’s Lair (pictured above) are spartan, but toasty warm. How ’bout it, boys?

Classy.

3. John McCain

John McCain also knows what daily city combat in Iraq is like. His expertise as a naval aviator in Vietnam has given him more knowledge on urban guerrilla war in the Middle East than any combat-tested American Army generals—like John Abizaid. But more importantly, Senator McCain has been to Iraq “many times over the years.” Going to Iraq “many times,” for periods of 24-48 hours in the Green Zone, is like reaching the Nirvana of ground combat experience and knowledge. It enables one to buy rugs safely in the market, and to say confidently, “Never have I been able to drive from the airport. Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.” He can say these things because, like the infantryman who patrols the darkened Baghdad streets every night, locked and loaded, for 15 months at a time, John McCain knows what it’s like.

4. Joe Lieberman

And we can’t forget Senator Lieberman. I mean, this guy once spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East! Who needs to spend a career studying urban light infantry tactics for use in a guerrilla war when you can gain all that knowledge in less than a week and a half? Joe knows what it means to serve. And he knows what a war with Iran would like. And wars don’t get much easier than that one looks to be.

And this brings me to my point: Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution is a clown. He’s number five:

5. Michael O’Hanlon

Even though he works for the politically liberal Brookings Institution, O’Hanlon (an old friend of David Petraeus) has been going around this week spouting off about his recent eight-day trip to Iraq. He took the trip so that he too could Obtain Ultimate Moral Authority on Iraq. And I must say: Michael really needed to go. Because he’s been really wrong about. . .ummm. . .pretty much everything on Iraq from the beginning. Just look at this compilation of crazy nonsense he’s said about Iraq in the past.
O’Hanlon even said this in today’s New York Times:

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Perhaps someone took O’Hanlon to Fort Irwin, California to meet soldiers—and maybe they just told him he was in Iraq. Because that’s not the same stuff I’m hearing from the troops. And I talk to them daily as part of my work with VoteVets.org. For instance, here is an excerpt of an email I received just two days ago. It’s from an Army captain stationed in Mosul:

(My) decision to get out was solidified by the loss of soldiers, the loss of friends and the poor command leadership . . . (I) should be back by March 2008 with more reasons to be embittered by the war, the effects it is having on soldiers and the millions of US tax payer dollars that we see wasted here.

Obviously this Army officer wasn’t hand-picked to eat with O’Hanlon at the chow hall when he was there.

Perhaps these Bush enablers like O’Hanlon will never learn what life is really like on the ground in Iraq. And it’s clear that they’re really not even trying to pay attention. Take for instance the most recent Republican talking point about the surge: That it’s working because July has seen a sharp decrease in the number of coalition casualties. Mmm. Good thinking guys. I’m sure O’Hanlon buys into it, even though no one has yet stopped to realize that it’s 130 freaking degrees in Iraq right now.
In reality, July is typically a slow month for insurgents because it’s simply too hot to operate. If these Bush enablers like O’Hanlon really wanted to analyze the data, they’d notice that this July has been the deadliest July for American troops since the war began. Don’t believe me? Here are the numbers for every July since 2003:

2007 73
2006 43
2005 54
2004 54
2003 48

Don’t believe these charlatans like O’Hanlon, Graham, Malkin, McCain, or Lieberman. They are ignorant and have no frames of reference on which to build their assertions concerning Iraq.

Leslie

The dog and pony show is in the US to win the hearts and minds of Americans for another 2 years in Iraq. That’s why O’Hanlon and Pollack wrote that piece of propaganda in the NYT, and that’s why we had the MSM fawning all over them yesterday, touting them as former war opponents turned optimists. When they’ve supported this war and the surge.

When did the Brookings Institute become “liberal”? It has close ties to the GOP.
Cee

Pissed me off to see him being described as a critic of the war. The punk was a cheerleader!

As to the Brookings Institute being liberal…please.

Brookings
The Establishment’s Think Tank
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436

Funding

Media Transparency lists the Brookings Institution as having received 78 grants totalling $5,711,782 between 1986 and 2003. (Figures unadjusted for inflation). [4]

The funding has come from:

John M. Olin Foundation
F.M. Kirby Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
Smith Richardson Foundation
In 2002, Haim Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. To put this Policy Center into perspective one should note:

the Brookings Institute is the principal Democratic Party think-tank and all issues, and it is a place where “politicians in-waiting” can bide their time until the next election.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution
Homer

In addition to being an enabler, O’Hanlon is also a protector for the Bush admin.

In 2005, O’Hanlon sought to protect Dr Rice and divert attention away from the fact that Richard A. Clarke had been loudly and repeatedly warning the Bush admin about Al Qaeda in 2001.

01 Memo to Rice Warned of Qaeda and Offered Plan. By Scott Shane. The New York Times [snip]

“I think Condi Rice has at least an arguable case that it’s short of a plan,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a security analyst at the Brookings Institution.

Mr. O’Hanlon called Mr. Clarke’s memorandums a set of “very dry data points. There’s not a heightened sense of, ‘Now our homeland is at risk.’

Perhaps its time for O’Hanlon to get a deep whiff of the pungent stench of death which he has helped come about?
Fred C. Dobbs

Yessiree, nothing quite says, “DANGER JUNKET” like hunkering down in an air-conditioned chow hall for a few hot meals with some pampered REMF’s (Rear Echelon MF’ers, aka, “pogues”), each and every one willing to expansively share HIS particular insights on the war, strategy, tactics, logistics, morale, etc., mostly garnered in bull sessions with other Transportation monkeys, field wiremen, computer operators and Chaplain’s Assistants…you know, the Remington Raiders who do the REAL work of Defending Deomcracy and Projecting American Power.

Just ONCE in this war, I’d like to hear a pundit or politician come back from some garden spot and tell us that he was up where people were pissing in their pants, screaming for Jesus and/or Mommy, and cleaning brains off their clothes.

But then, they aren’t making them like Dickey Chapelle anymore.

W.A.DeFord

I can guarantee anyone that has read Fred C.Dobbs comment,that he has been in a serious combat situation. I’ll bet he was there as a Marine as well. I’d like to see all of the members of the three branches of the federal government,all of the lobbyist,and corporate profiteers acquiring first hand knowledge of what Mr.Dobbs described. Maybe the bastards could replace the troops that are now serving. And I don’t want to forget all of the “reMFs” and “pogues” that boast to anyone that will listen “I’d be glad to go over there if they’d let me.” Yes Sir Dickey Chapelle was a very special lady

Montag

It’s illuminating to note that this is Billy Kristol’s FIRST trip to Iraq, even while he has been warhawking it. So only NOW is he seeing even a part of it for himself. Therefore, even if it is a dog-and-pony-show, he has no standard by which to compare it to previous dog-and-pony-shows.

There’s a phrase for this, “Potemkin village.” This was coined when Russian Czarina Catherine The Great took a tour down the Volga River and her Prime Minister Potemkin “spruced up” the communities along the tour. The extent to which this was done has been debated, but Catherine was definitely getting a dog-and-pony-show to demonstrate how prosperous her realm supposedly was.
Phillip

I just keep coming back to the same point. How do you define “winning” and “victory”??? I think this is the most important point that everyone is missing.

Bush talks about the only choice being “complete victory”. What does that mean?

I feel Iraq is closer to the beginning of its struggle than close to the end.

The on the ground stuff is important, but I think the larger geopolical issues are more important.

It seems to me that Iran, Saudi Arabia and maybe eventually Turkey are really just fighting a proxy war for control of Iraq. I think Iraq is in just a big power vacuum and it has actually stopped being a state or country.

The neighbors are just circling to try and take control.

Once again what is victory? How will we know when we are there?

Is victory just bringing some marginal stability in daily violence and then handing the country over to some Shite government? What happens if there is a coup? Or when will the hand-over occur? In 10 years? Will this victory be worth it? Will it stop global terrorism and the jihadist movement? At what cost?
raoul

I watched some news shows about Iraq so now I am also an expert about it. Ask me anything – I have all the answers. What’s that? How is it over there you ask? It is totally fucked up.
thank you.
Homer

Phillip: The on the ground stuff is important

Yes, there’s no doubt about that.

But in order to see what today’s ground stuff is comprised of one may wish to look back at the vivid and bloody history of the Al-Dawa and the SCIRI.

Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, Bayan Jabr, Hamid Al Bayati, et al have been fighting for the last two (plus) decades to transform Iraq into an Islamic state without the help of the USA.

This is not getting the coverage it deserves.
Shirin

“I watched some news shows about Iraq so now I am also an expert about it.”

LOL! And then there are those experts who got their PhD’s from Google U – they are the ones you REALLY have to watch out for!
Pingback: I Spent a Week in Iraq and Now I’m an Expert at Antony Loewenstein
section9

What a bunch of chumps you people are.

You were played like a Stradivarius by the DNC, gave them all your money, got your asses lied to when they told you they were going to end the war, and now two of their policy wonks are giving Hillary cover in the New York freaking Times, the Volkischer Beobachter of the Democratic Party, to turn on you and sell you out.

Democratic pols can’t campaign against the United States Army in the field, you Clydes! The minute Petraeus started to show decent progress, and John Burns and Gordon started to report on it consistently in the NYT, the Editorial Board of that paper started to see warning flags.

The Times has one interest and one interest only: Get Hillary Elected. If Towering Egos like Larry Johnson and other lefties are willing to be gulled into thinking that they are actually Moving History Along, so much the better. And guess what, Larry, when it’s time to sell you out, you’ll be sold down the river! After all, look what happened to Joe Wilson. His wife went up there and, in all likelihood, perjured herself in front of Waxman’s committee. Now, nobody is looking out for poor ol’ Val.

Nobody does betrayal like the Clintons.

There is, after all, a Sucker Born Every Minute. But you are all being set up for a towering betrayal. That’s what the O’Hanlon and Pollack piece was all about. That’s why the Times ran it.

Do you people think O’Hanlon and Pollack dropped out of the sky? With their DLC lineage? These are two people who would staff a Hillary Administration. They knew where it was going. They knew how it would be trumpeted in the Conservative press. They understood that it would provoke wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Left if it were given pride of place in the New York Times.

Do you people actually believe that Hillary’s staff didn’t know of this article beforehand? Are you that effing naive?

Aside from Larry and this Rakkasan fellow, that is.

You’ve been played. As a Republican, this is fun for me to watch. Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi lied to you when they said they were going to end the war, stole your lunch money in the bargain, and made you think that it was Bush’s fault.

You still support them, too, which only adds insult to injury. Where is your “Kick Me!” sign?

One last thing. This was also directed against Obambi, who’s buttered his bread on his Originalist interpretation of the Antiwar Movement. Barak’s at sea if things start going in Petraeus’ direction, which they appear to be so doing. That’s exactly where Hillary wants him to be.

Homer

Section9

Wow!

A real Bush support!!

If I may:

Why do you so strongly hate people who are trying to stop the maiming, burning, raping, murdering, drowning, starving, etc going on in Iraq?

How many more oceans of blood and treasure must be spilled for the sake of a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic state whose most powerful politicans have close and long standing ties to Iran and Syria?

Do you know that al-Dawa, the party of Al-Maliki, was considered by the US to be an anti-American terrorist cell?

Do you know that Hizbollah took Americans hostage in order to release the Kuwait 17 (Al-Dawa party members) which suicide bombed a US Embassy?

Do you not resent that fact that well-off Chicken Hawks manipulate and exploit people who obviously have been far less privileged ?

HINT: GWB is a loser. Judging by his fake TX accent, which is unique within his family of Northeasterners, he’s like a pre-pubescent boy or girl trying to find a place in the world. This is whom you fervently support, a lost little boy who wants all the love of his Mommy?

Thinker

Section9 what you have written is inconsiderate an irrelevant as what happens, happens and “Larry & his leftie mates” have little bearing on things. I’m gonna chuckle when your redneck hecklers whine about the importance of pulling out of Iraq (completely) when the blues get it. I wonder if you will eat your words (alright, stick to the shorts for now!)

We have all forgotten, including Angry, but who’s at war. I thought the Iraqi leadership was secure and “democratic” now. America was still in Iraq to cull some “minor insurgence”. There you go, section9, your own people are saying that. “Were just turning a corner and almost over the hump”. Isn’t that what your dear leader is saying to effect. No matter how bad it gets, “things are improving”. If America is at war, who are they at war with? Is America at war with disparate Islamic interests connected by a ficticious framework created by her security agents? You see, in my book that isn’t a war. That is a perpetual guerilla engagement where US operatives develop skills in terrorism to combat their terrorist foe. The nature of terrorism determines that America is at war with the World and no country in particular.

Can someone explain how America are “at war” in Iraq, if this isn’t the case?

If this is the case, do the democrats intent to continue the “war” against terrorism? Do they intend to keep all those INSANE security measures imposed by the Republicans? If so, what new measures are intended as [and Larry keeps saying this] “we ain’t winning the war”?
Pingback: All Spin Zone » Opening The Files: 08/01/07
raoul

section9 – or should it be section8??
Anyway – your ‘stunning’ essay begins on a shaky house of cards because I would venture to say that MOST of us over here have probably voted for Republicans as many times, if not more, than we have done for Democrats. You claim we are being controlled by the DNC? A typical neonazicon (my name for your group) mentality – create a strawman and argue from same.
And while anyone, including the 2 misguided souls exclaiming a possible victory in Iraq, is entitled to his/her opinion, there are NUMEROUS other sources that say the opposite. This includes the guy who testified just yesterday to Congress about the lousy conditions over there.
One last thing – even if all of the insurgents stopped fighting us today, it would not change the fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, and justified by a pack of lies created by your little god, bush.
raoul

Pingback,
Isn’t it fascinating how the hypocritical right wing now lauds the NY Times when they have lambasted it previously as being treasonous and in camp with Jihadists?
Mr.Murder

The need to clarify the FISA/spying issue is this:

we don’t have to codify lawbreaking.

There should be US law to address our ability to ‘listen in’ overseas?

That’s hogwash.
This is an attempt to establish precedent applicable at home, not abroad.

Unless it is an attempt to limit the coming look into Halliburton/Carlaysle/Dubai. A plausible lever in that respect.

Think about it.

Sell it as security and set up unnecessary internal firewalls to insulate Bushco interests abroad.

Station to station intercepts abroad, having nothing to do with USA medium, are under intentionally vague status or should be for the reason it’s essentially fair game.
The attempt to connect this to “our interests” will have additional chances to flip the deal and use it on Americans, if so stated or endorsed as grant to do so abroad.

Let’s keep it vague abroad for the purpose of intent, trying to address it in any way opens up an ugly legal loophole, IMO.

Thinker

Well spotted Mr M. You are on the ball as usual. Thanks for the update!

bob h

Odierno will tell the Congressperson that American casualties are falling; Petraeus will report the same in September. The Republican is too stupid to realize that casualties always fall in the Summer when guerrillas try to beat the heat. On a seasonally adjusted basis, casualties are up (Juan Coles)
Phillip

Who cares if casualties are down in July a little bit? This means nothing. What was the goal of the surge, to reduce U.S. casualties? I do not think so.

The goal was to bring some security to the capital city. To emulate the Afghanistan experience. Is there security in the capital city Baghdad? The best way to determine if the surge is working is to actually ask the residents of Bagdad. Do they feel more secure? Can they let the kids out of the house? Can they attend school? Have the deaths of Baghdad residents been reduced? Can people return to their homes?

The second goal was to bring some stability to help the Iraqi government to make some progress. Have they made any progress?

To focus just on U.S. casualties misses the point. The focus should not be on the U.S. military, but on the Iraqis and their government and their progress. That was the point of the surge.

Otherwise why are we there? If we want lower U.S. casualties and that is the measure of the success of the surge, then there is very easy fix, just get the military out of Iraq. It seems a bit ironic for the focus to be on lower U.S. casualties in July in the context of a surge.

I am not sure the surge has been successful at all. I am sure the average Baghdad resident would not think so (I think the population still wants the U.S. military out), and where is the progress from the Iraqi government (I think they are on vacation). Nice surge. Nice strategy from these military and political geniuses, much like the great execution of the war so far. Any of the brains in the military is likely long gone, been drummed out of the miliary by politics long ago….
Vet & Military Mom

Safety in numbers, i.e. surge. Get out? No; too late, even if we WERE doing no good. The “ugly” middle east has been ugly for far too long. When children are coaxed to be ugly… Freedom is something that we take for granted because we have had some measure of it all of our lives and back several generations. Once Iraq has tasted it real good, there will be no turning back for them and they will share with their middle east buddies and hopefully, freedom will prevail. No need for them to be jealous and dig in their heels. Terrorist attempts in our country have failed and will continue to fail. I cannot stand the thought that our effort in Iraq and soon Iran was in vain. Middle East mothers should secretly be helping their sons to see the err of control. Join our team and be free. Big brother is not around the corner, even though it seems like it sometimes.
John

Angry Rakkastan:
We are into our 5th year of a disastrous policy with the same people in charge. The same people commenting on it, the same people making the same bad decisions. We are a late stage empire. This is what happens.
Were this China, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al would have been taken to the banks of the Potomac for execution and organ harvesting after a rather short trial on just the financial corruption in Iraq alone. Or Bush would have been deposed. They would not keep wanking at the same mistake.
This has been going on for a while. I was a draftee in the US Army from 1969-1971 and traveled the farther reaches of the imperium while successfully avoiding VietNam.
I foolishly voted for Nixon in ’68 thinking he would end it. Dumb, dumb, stupid.
It was the corruption in the military that blew my mind the most. Rotten to the core. Money sluts and politicos running the show and just using the patriotic true believers like prison punks. And it is still going on.
There is a certain type of American who knows that war is just a money game. The recent BBC program on the oligarchs of the 1930′s, including grandaddy Bush, describes these people who wanted to pull us out of the Depression with fascism rather than Roosevelt’s New Deal social works programs.
Different day, same shit.
Phillip

Military Mom…

Your point of view is very American on the middle east. Why do you assume the middle east is ugly? Is that your view or the view of the people living there? Are you sure your view and value of freedom is the same as everyone else in the world and the people of the middle east? Are you also sure the U.S. version or view of democracy is the same as the view of the people in the middle east? Also that they want U.S. style democracy or whether it can even work in these countries with very long tribal histories? This is the problem with this country. Always assuming that we know what is right for the rest of the world, and even going further and trying to force the rest of the world to accept the American way by military means. That is why the rest of the world now mostly hates us. Is this what you signed up for the American military for? To militarily enforce the U.S. view on the world, or the U.S. definition of democracy and freedom on the rest of the world? It will never work. Change has to come within.

Also are you sure terrorist attempts in the U.S. have failed? Which ones precisely? The false claims two weeks ago that terrorist were making dry runs at U.S. airports with bricks of cheese? Iraq has created many many more future terrorists. That 12 year old Iraqi kid who had is family vaporized by U.S. missle may just grow up to hate the U.S. The longer the U.S. stays in Iraq the more terrorists it is creating. Iraq is working against making the U.S. a safer place for two reasons;

1) it is a big recruiting tool for the terrorists

and

2) it is distracting the U.S. miliary and resources away from protecting the homeland and hunting the real terrorist around the world.

Bush has made the U.S. less safe not more safe…. he and his cronies have blown it…. time for new leadership

Homer

Phillip: Bush has made the U.S. less safe not more safe…. he and his cronies have blown it…. time for new leadership

What baffles my mind is how 9/11 always gets forgotten within the context of the past and future horrors of Iraq.

In 2001, it was the “most solemn duty” of President Bush to protect the US from attack. (We now know was aware of this since it was one of his most often repeated selling points in the election).

Judging by the nearly 3000 murders and the tens of billions of dollars in damage that occured on and after 9/11, only a juvenile or a moron could say that President Bush has succeeded in doing that ever so highly touted “most solemn duty” of the POTUS.

Then, supposedly to prevent another 9/11, as if he stopped the first, Bush invaded Iraq, deposed SH, and then **inadvertently** thrust the reins of power into the hands of anti-American Shi’a fundamentalists who for the last two decades have been supported and given shelter by Iran and Syria which the Bush admin considers a threat to the US.

Here’s the math:

9/11 = 3000 murders + tens of billions of dollars in damage

Iraq = hundreds of thousands maimed and murdered + $600 million

9/11 + Iraq = Islamistan in Iraq

WTF?

You’re doin a heckuva job Bushies!!

mudkitty

Wouldn’t it be more accurately stated “I spent a week in the Green Zone?”
Melissa

Let’s not forget these diplomatic visits put a strain on our troops and ultimately puts them in more danger by trying to protect them. In my opinion, these diplomats and congressmen should have our troops interests as a forefront thought and not their political agenda.
MataHarley

I agree… a week in the ME makes no one an expert.

And that would *also* include know it all Congressional members – doing their infrequent weekender trips to Baghdad. This would be the same who, after a brief fly thru, came to their own, opposite conclusions and persist in prematurely prounouncing the surge efforts a failure, and a free and self-sustainable Iraq as an unwinnable objective.

When the cry of defeat by nae-sayers becomes indignantly louder in the face of the slightest bit of good news in a doom and gloom media, it becomes clear that all this posturing has little do with the lives of our military and a desired goal to win, and everything to do with losing a progressive jewel issue in a 2008 election. Quite frankly, Iraqi success = progressive defeat.
Homer

MataHarley: Iraqi success = progressive defeat

During the twenty (plus) years prior to the US’ deposing of Saddam Hussein, Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, Bayan Jabr, Hamid Al Bayati, et al fought to transform Iraq into an Islamic state with the help of Iran and Syria who gave them refuge and financial assistance.

Thanks to the GOP and its supporters, the decades old dream of Al-Maliki, Al-Hakim, Bayan Jabr, et al (who are pro-extremist Iranian, pro-Hizbollah, anti-US, anti-Israel, etc) has been realized.

How is their success, which was brought about by your fervent support of Bush, a success for the GOP and conservatives?

How is Iraq being a vassal state of Iran a success?

Thanks to you MataHarley, hundreds of thousands of people in total have been maimed, crippled, raped, hanged, drowned, burned, shot, beheaded, tortured, killed, etc for the sake of a small group of men that will never, as evidenced by their history prior to the deposing, be a true friend to the USA.

WTF?

Thanks to you MataHarley, about $500 billion will be spent for the sake of a small group of men that will never, as evidenced by their history prior to the deposing, be a true friend to the USA.

WTF?
Phillip

MataHarley,

How do you define “success” and “winning”? What is your goal in supporting the U.S. military presence in Iraq? How would you like to see it play out? How long would it take? Is it achievable and at what cost? Would it be worth it? Any why are you not signing up for military service?

A few simple questions.

It is pretty simple. There are many both Democrats and Republicans that no longer support this venture and believe that it is not worth it. Prove to us it is worth it by answer the above questions? The problem is that Bush has never made a strong case as to why the U.S. public should support this war. The reason is is because there is no strong case! I have heard many cases why the war is a terrible waste of time, money and human lives. I have heard almost no cases as to why this war makes sense (maybe oil). Tell us MataHarley…. Make your case….
wethornet

waas reading the lte’s to thursday’s ny times. check out this one. see who it’s from. read it and barf.

To the Editor:

Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack echo what many troops have seen in Iraq. A “good” final outcome is unlikely, but lessons can still be learned and military successes replicated.

Unfortunately, many Americans want out of Iraq now so badly that they fail to analyze tactical changes objectively. This is not new. Political rhetoric on both sides in Washington has always been detached from Iraq’s military realities. Complexity is ignored, and rigorous discussions are replaced by efforts to find information supporting cemented conclusions.

As a result, many Iraq veterans have decided to opt out of the discussion entirely.

Military successes happen in Iraq — even now. But appreciating and exploiting them will be possible only with thoughtful, objective analysis.

I learned an Iraqi saying once that illustrates the complexity of the issues: “All the fingers on your hand are not the same.”

Paul Rieckhoff
New York, July 30, 2007

The writer is executive director of Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America.
wethornet

angry r, from one el-tee to another el-tee,

various thoughts:

1. believe you will be in chicago at dailykos confab. do you know that vvaw, vietnam veterans against the war is also having their yearly convention/meeting this weekend in chicago. go to http://www.vvaw.org for more info.

it would be great for you, imho, to meet some of these folks. ask for barry romo, head organizer and dave cline. two legends. tell ‘em an airborne ranger in st. louis co. mizzourah sent you.

2. re col. ted westhusing and petraeus. any plans by y’all to get this into the hands of the senate & house armed services cmtees. for upcoming petraeus testimony before cong. this sept?

3. point about the surge. the brits started this war w like 45,000 troops. they are now down to like 5,500 troops. how many u.s. troops are in the recent surge? point of story: there’s your whole god dang surge knuckleheads.

cont’d.
wethornet

cont’d.

4. saw somewhere (sorry no link) that gen. keane, key proponent of the surge, was the guy that shot petraeus on a live fire/or range at ft. campbell. IF TRUE, this is wild because how do get an accidental discharge and nearly kill a battalion cdr. w/o consequences, ie, keane stays on duty and becomes, iirc, vice chief of staff of the army.

also, little historical factoid for you. they airevac ltc petraeus to the nashville tramua center hospital. surgeon who worked on him? bill frist. later to become sen. maj. ldr.

also, for me this is wild because a key surge proponent sending petraeus to the quagmire in iraq is the same guy that almost literally killed him. the irony/symbolism (something?) is too rich for words.

cont’d.
wethornet

cont’d.

5. the kagan behind the surge. the aei puke. (there’s 3 of them. dad’s a history teacheer at yale, and 2 sons. anyway, the aei puke is a) yale, and b) wait for it…….skull & bones like w.

supposedly, w was thinking the iraq war could not be won and the kagan puke says it can be. w. grabs the life preserver and goes w it.

6. btw, great catch on the o’hanlon and petraeus at princeton together. w’s david grew up a few miles from west point. married the supe’s daughter.

7. petraeus also had a parachute accident. about 60 feet off the ground “lost his air.” fall. splat. puts self back together. put it’s a great metaphor for iraq. because when i jumped out of perfectly good airplanes if you recognized that you had a major malfunction and took too long to take corrective action and then “pulled the ripcord” you would still die. all mil. hist. from the loser’s point of view is summed up in 4 words: too little. too late.

8. i expect to be in chicago at the vvaw conference. maybe i’ll see ya there. or, we’ll meet down the road.

keep hitting ‘em slugger. (your radio address countering w. still brings a big smile to my face. great job.)
Shirin

“lessons can still be learned”

Yeah, well, the lessons “learned” won’t be the key ones, I am afraid.

Lesson 1: Don’t indulge in pure, unprovoked acts of aggression.

Lesson 2: If you insist upon indulging in pure, unprovoked acts of aggression, don’t f*** with Iraq. Everyone knows that Iraqis are the last people you want to try to f*** with.
wethornet

minor clarification. shirin and lessons learned is re rieckhoff’s lte to the nytimes.
J

one of the biggest instigators of ‘continuing’ the failed iraq policy is the chickenhawk sen. lieberman.

my question, is lieberman the dog or the pony of the dog-n-pony show?
J

as far as the ‘reserve’ jag sen. graham. as he was outstretched with his arms for the bush iraq stone tablets, graham lost his footing and is now a knot-on-a-log as far as brain functions.
Thinker

Your patriotism is creeping up on you Shirin. Iraq is a sesspool of abuse. Nothing more. Nothing less. That isn’t something to be proud of.
Shirin

Thinker,

I did not make my point clear. It has nothing to do with patriotism, which frankly I do not indulge in. It is a matter of neither pride or shame, it is a matter of historical fact that if you want to invade and take over an Arab country, Iraq is the worst choice you can make. Just about any Arab will tell you that, the British learned it the hard way, and now the Americans are learning it the hard way.

And forgive me for correcting you, but Iraq is not just a “cesspool of abuse”, whatever that is intended to mean.
http://www.liberaltopia.org RS Janes

Demonstrating yet another similarity to the Vietnam War — where disgusted grunts would have to line up in the hot sun to salute the latest lying dignitary in from Washington and, should a frown pass over the Happy Face of the Enlisted Rating, there would be hell to pay — we have our guys in Iraq forced to provide grist for the propaganda mill of the Republican warmongers. (As has been mentioned, anyone who might ask unsettling questions was sent to walk point on a mission to find snipers, and leave your body armor here.)

The ‘media victory tours’ didn’t work then, and I doubt that they will work for long now. As we have seen throughout this Bush catastrophe, reality will eventually intrude — perhaps a cheerleading Michelle Malkin type will get caught in a Baghdad ambush or a Liebermanesque senatorial nitwit will be hit by a mortar round in the Green Zone and then the game’s up. “Yes. I may have lost my legs, but the surge is working.”

BTW, Bush-backer Section 9 — isn’t that one degree crazier than a Section 8? How would you like to take a tour of Baghdad courtesy of Uncle Sam — the enlistment offices are open and empty — or, perhaps, you’re not really that crazy after all?
Thinker

Shirin, the cesspool of abuse is the internal machination of today’s Iraq.

The allied powers opened the door and now Iraqis misbehave. Who should God congratulate, the murdering Sunni, or the murdering Shia?

Is it ok to hold a fellow human being in contempt because what they assert they believe doesn’t make you feel comfortable.

I am waiting for the famous retort “kill or be killed.” But, wait, who would be rewarded by the creator of man? The killer of the creation, or the martyr who lays their life down on principle? Those who chose arms as the solution in attack or defense are jointly culpable, under that philosophy.
Shirin

Thinker, Iraqis are, by the overwhelming majority, merely trying to survive. If you call that misbehaving, then perhaps you have never been in the kind of situations they have endured since 1991. For your sake, I hope you never have to endure even a fraction of one per cent of what Iraqis have endured at the hands of the criminals George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and now George W. (I set aside Saddam, because as bad as he was, he was a minor actor in Iraq’s tragedy compared to the other three).
Thinker

Shirin, again,

How do you solve problems if denial is your assessment?

“majority, merely trying to survive” is another version of “Kill or be killed.” No henchmen, no problem. I understand the situation with the infrastucture can hamper basic supplies and/or fuel opportunism.

What would I do if I lived in Iraq? I wouldn’t live there is the answer. If Australia turned into a sesspool of hatred, I wouldn’t live here. If the World became so enraged with itself it could only find solace in hatred and violence, I wouldn’t live.

Iraq is a big place. Though I don’t intend to go and find out, I would be surprise if there was nowhere within its borders offering temporary sanctorary for the sane.