Sweet Little Lies

Fred Kaplan points out what should be obvious to absolutely everybody:

President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.

The biggest fiction was that because of the "success" of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.

Let's be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone's decision, much less some putative success.

The emphasis is mine.  It's simple math.  130,000 + 30,000 - 30,000 = 130,000.  There will be no troop withdrawal, save in the pettiest technical sense.   It's nothing more than a bone to call off the dogs (which, by the way, is how your elected Chief Executive appears to think of you.)  Here's a hint to Congress, however; if you really want the folks back home to pay attention, draw down the one thing that Bush didn't mention at all, but matters to every one of us.  We're spending $2,000,000,000 a week in Iraq.  That has surged somewhat, but it won't go down in July of next year.  It's just gonna keep bleeding away.  Return on Success?  Bullshit. You are Congress, and have been given the fiscal reigns of the nation.  Demand a Return on Investment, or get the hell out.  Even "libertarians" might understand that  reasoning (though experience with the locals has taught me not to expect it.)

Comments

[Dew-R-Lite]

There is a guy you should here talk to, here in Bozeman, just back from Iraq.

A lifelong democrat, a teacher, a guy who opposed the war from day one, whose take is this; we are stuck, either watching our sons and daughters die, caught between tribal superstitious barbarians, or abandon the Iraqis to a genocidal sectarian holocaust.

It's not unlike George Will's view, or that of Colin Powell; we broke it, we own it.

I can't find it in myself to listen to a thing George Bush says. When he isn't lying, he's being stupid, or pandering to the lowest common denominator of the American people.

But can I save my sons and turn a blind eye to the deaths of millions?

As Richard says, there are no simple answers. I do know this, it's about blood, not money. wulfgar.

[Jeff]

That seems like a false dichotomy to me. There will be a lot of bloodshed if we leave, but there's a lot of bloodshed right now, and things look like they'll continue that way. Plus, we have to leave eventually.

I don't think the choice is genocide or continued loss of American life, but a massive escalation in violence now or continuing the current level and then an explosion a few years down the road.

[Wulfgar]

As Richard says, there are no simple answers. I do know this, it's about blood, not money. wulfgar.

As I'm certain a pasta-wise commenter would agree while plying the right-wing, it's both the blood and the money. But I've lost faith in most of my fellow Americans, for very good reason. If the war isn't put in personal terms (it will cost them money) most folk won't give a shit.

[Mark Tokarski]

We have immense capacity to carry on the violence for decades, not just months or years. It is only a matter of keeping the public involved. To do that, people have to perceive Iraq has an immediate threat tot their well being. "Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" (a moral crime anyway) is not working, the right wing's taunting that we are really fighting the people who did 9/11 isn't either. What next? I don't know.

One thing is for sure - we will have a change in leadership. But the war will go on. It's a marketing problem calloing for a marketing solution. It's time for Hill & Knowlton, not Patraeus.

[Jon]

"we broke it, we own it."

Sorry, but even if we broke it, we don't own it. That's wonderful as folksy wisdom, but haven't we had too much of that? Isn't basing foreign policy on clever, down-home phrases one of the things that got us into this mess?

It's a country. And it's in a civil war. Not our country, not our civil war, not ours to own.

The Iraqis own it. We tried to help them fix it, but they decided to have a civil war instead. That's their right, and their freedom in action. We had a civil war, now they get to have theirs.

"or abandon the Iraqis to a genocidal sectarian holocaust."

So do we call all civil wars a holocaust now? Or just this one?

We have two sects of Islam who are violently opposed to the other. Part of this is religious, part is historical, part is just tit-for-tat revenge, and none of it is our fault. But these people DO NOT WANT a stable, democratic, unified Iraq. And since the task that you say the U.S. "owns" is a unified Iraq where Shea and Sunnis are hugging in the street, I need to ask why you think we should "own" something even the Iraqis don't want.

We went into Iraq (as stupid as it was) to remove WMD and topple a brutal leader.

Done and done. Right?

We were even willing to stick around and help them form a government.

Done. Right?

We even tried to stand in the middle of a civil war to give them time to stabilize, tried to train their police to restore order, tried to rebuild their military, and tried fund new infrastructure. For these, all we can do is try. All we can "own" is a good faith effort.

Done, done, done, and done. Right?

We're done. Expecting us to "own" the task of making the Iraqis want to unify is stupid. There is nothing we can do to make them want to stop hating each other. And if our solution is to build huge walls down the middle of every city (which actually seems to be the case) how is that a solution?

No, we don't own it. The Iraqis own it, and they want to have a civil war. Since it's obvious we can't stop that there is no point in staying.

[Dew-R-Lite]

Jon, your logic certainly appeals to me on a personal and selfish level. I don't want my sons anywhere near the middle east.

To answer your question, I don't know if "all civil wars" are called "holocausts now". But I do know that the personal observation of the guy I talked to, a man I respect who was there, on the ground, and not in command, and not a Republican, and not in support of the orginial invasion, was "holocaust".

If we are urged to by pass the Petraeuses and listen to the men in the field, then I have done so. Have you?