They face being ordered to serve in the disaster that is Iraq. Futility and potential death await them.
Juan Cole at the invaluable Informed Comment blog thinks this issue is a winner and could help lead to our eventual withdrawal from Iraq.
See here and here.
Write your House Rep here and your Senator here.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Krugman in PDX
He'll be appearing at the Baghdad Theater on Saturday November 3 to promote his new book.
I'm not a big fan of Krugman, but it's hard to disagree with him vis-a-vis the Bush administration (although, like any political mover and shaker, he dishonestly uses his opponent's (Bush) alleged association with certain (good) ideas (like low taxes and smaller government) to discredit them).
Also, since it appears virtually guaranteed the Democrats will hold both the presidency and congress starting in 2009, it will be a good prelude to what's in store for us.
I'm not a big fan of Krugman, but it's hard to disagree with him vis-a-vis the Bush administration (although, like any political mover and shaker, he dishonestly uses his opponent's (Bush) alleged association with certain (good) ideas (like low taxes and smaller government) to discredit them).
Also, since it appears virtually guaranteed the Democrats will hold both the presidency and congress starting in 2009, it will be a good prelude to what's in store for us.
yet another embarassing David Reinhard editorial
The Oregonian is chock full of poor columnists/editorialists. David Sarasohn's columns are generally unreadable. Steve Duin writes nice pieces about his family but otherwise prefers choosing very easy targets for his screeds, and he can't be counted upon to marshal anything beyond a few ad hominems mixed in with a few bromides in support of his position.
But the worst of a bad lot is certainly David Reinhard. His columns are so bad, so illogical, so grossly banal that I at times wonder if he is really a closet leftist who's been planted on the Oregonian staff to help discredit the right. Not that they need much help these days, or that they hold much sway in anywhere but the countryside in Oregon, but his continued presence begs some explanation (trying to keep rural circulation up?).
His latest bomb is a piece about waterboarding where he tries to present us with a situation where obviously no one sane could think it was not right to waterboard. The only problem that David neglects to mention is that interrogation techniques of this type (i.e. torture) are not reliable in eliciting good intelligence. (Of course they are also illegal, immoral, etc., but we'll stick with an argument someone of David's ilk can actually understand).
So given David his scenario, the terrorist is waterboarded, tells us that the target was NYC (certainly a target the CIA or FBI would believe), but oh shit it turns out the target was actually Boston. So even though we failed, acted immorally, and illegally, and helped to further ruin the reputation of the United States abroad, hey - at least we gave it the old college try, right Dave?
But the worst of a bad lot is certainly David Reinhard. His columns are so bad, so illogical, so grossly banal that I at times wonder if he is really a closet leftist who's been planted on the Oregonian staff to help discredit the right. Not that they need much help these days, or that they hold much sway in anywhere but the countryside in Oregon, but his continued presence begs some explanation (trying to keep rural circulation up?).
His latest bomb is a piece about waterboarding where he tries to present us with a situation where obviously no one sane could think it was not right to waterboard. The only problem that David neglects to mention is that interrogation techniques of this type (i.e. torture) are not reliable in eliciting good intelligence. (Of course they are also illegal, immoral, etc., but we'll stick with an argument someone of David's ilk can actually understand).
So given David his scenario, the terrorist is waterboarded, tells us that the target was NYC (certainly a target the CIA or FBI would believe), but oh shit it turns out the target was actually Boston. So even though we failed, acted immorally, and illegally, and helped to further ruin the reputation of the United States abroad, hey - at least we gave it the old college try, right Dave?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Politics of the Surge
General Petraeus' "report" on the surge is due in just under a month now, and the pro-war spin machine is in high gear. The Bush administration wants to keep troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future at all costs and in order to gather just enough public and congressional support to enable them to do this they are employing several different strategies aimed at different sections of the electorate.
The most effective strategy thus far, meant for the right-wing base, the most uninformed of the swing-vote electorate, and the moderate Democrats in congress comes the claim that the surge is working. The right-wing base can be counted on to support and trumpet whatever the administration decides to present as "factual," and a large number of people can be counted on not to check behind the headlines and are therefore easily fooled by the mass media's ever-complicit Iraq war "reporting." In congress, the moderate Democrats who weren't able to turn the tide against the war when coverage in the press was largely reflective of public opinion against the war cannot be counted upon the stand up when the political climate is decidedly mixed. Although in this environment things can change quickly, the opinion that the military part of the surge is working is already fixed in public opinion and will be the ground upon which the post-report debate takes place in September.
Unfortunately, for anyone who wants to check into the matter, the numbers simply don't add up.
For the middle swing voters and especially the moderate Democrats comes news that General Petraeus will likely announce a troop reduction in September. This typical Machiavellian trick of taking your opponent's position in an effort to defeat him will also need to be overcome by those who want the war to end sooner rather than later. The tough questions, such as how long the remaining troops will remain in Iraq, whether there are circumstances in which the troop levels mights actually be increased thereafter, what the position will be if the Iraqi leadership continues to fracture and fail to achieve political reconciliation, will be asked but will not knock the announcement of troop reductions off the headlines.
Beyond the propaganda, the logical of interventionism playing out here is such that good news is interpreted to suggest that we need to stay in Iraq longer, as is the bad news.
Being a pessimist on such matters myself, I think that unless there is a sea-changing event, we will be in Iraq until the 2008 elections and likely beyond.
The most effective strategy thus far, meant for the right-wing base, the most uninformed of the swing-vote electorate, and the moderate Democrats in congress comes the claim that the surge is working. The right-wing base can be counted on to support and trumpet whatever the administration decides to present as "factual," and a large number of people can be counted on not to check behind the headlines and are therefore easily fooled by the mass media's ever-complicit Iraq war "reporting." In congress, the moderate Democrats who weren't able to turn the tide against the war when coverage in the press was largely reflective of public opinion against the war cannot be counted upon the stand up when the political climate is decidedly mixed. Although in this environment things can change quickly, the opinion that the military part of the surge is working is already fixed in public opinion and will be the ground upon which the post-report debate takes place in September.
Unfortunately, for anyone who wants to check into the matter, the numbers simply don't add up.
For the middle swing voters and especially the moderate Democrats comes news that General Petraeus will likely announce a troop reduction in September. This typical Machiavellian trick of taking your opponent's position in an effort to defeat him will also need to be overcome by those who want the war to end sooner rather than later. The tough questions, such as how long the remaining troops will remain in Iraq, whether there are circumstances in which the troop levels mights actually be increased thereafter, what the position will be if the Iraqi leadership continues to fracture and fail to achieve political reconciliation, will be asked but will not knock the announcement of troop reductions off the headlines.
Beyond the propaganda, the logical of interventionism playing out here is such that good news is interpreted to suggest that we need to stay in Iraq longer, as is the bad news.
Being a pessimist on such matters myself, I think that unless there is a sea-changing event, we will be in Iraq until the 2008 elections and likely beyond.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
"No End In Sight"
A fine film which contributes to our understanding of how we got where we are today in Iraq.
Although I don't think it generally offers a lot of new information vis-a-vis the utter incompetence and seeming insanity of the early days of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, this movie offers a lot more of the fine details which have not been widely known. It is also enough to get your blood boiling and remind you just how wrong certain pundits who are now saying the "surge" is working were back in the early days running up to the war ("We will be greeted as liberators.." etc.).
Possibly the most shocking fact presented in this movie was that the post-invasion plan had U.S. soldiers beginning to draw-down by the fall of 2003. It throws a stark light on our leaders' lack of understanding of what we were getting into. Rumsfeld in particular looks extremely bad in retrospect, laughing at and making light of the riots and looting which took place at the beginning of the insurgency. There is a special place in hell reserved for him.
The movie includes very specific examples of the incredible detachment of Paul Bremer from anything resembling the on-the-ground reality in Iraq. The rule you get from the numerous interviews with several members of the post-invasion transition team (the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, also known as ORHA - only brought into being for post-invasion planning some two months prior to the war!) was that the more knowledge and competence you had, the further out of the loop you were pushed by Bremer and his henchmen. Yet another example of what you get when you place ideology and conformity ahead of competence (and this from an allegedly "conservative" administration?).
Also detailed is that fact that ORHA was in touch with a number of Iraqi army commanders who had a large numbers of troops ready and willing to cooperate with the post-invasion planners. It appears that large parts of the army simply did not want to risk their lives on behalf of Saddam and instead had developed elaborate plans to keep the army together for post-invasion cooperation with the U.S. (the army disbanded and went home but kept in contact, sometimes by couriers). ORHA had these contacts ready to go when presidential envoy Bremer came onto the scene, but they were ignored. Worse, as is well known, Bremer had the incredibly self-destructive idea of disbanding the Iraqi army, which he put into force apparently without *any* discussion with the Army, the State Department, or the occupation team already in place in Iraq. The result of this idea and the contribution it had to the Iraqi insurgency that followed is also well known.
There is a special place in hell reserved for Paul Bremer.
One issue that I have with the movie which admittedly might or might not be fair is that it seems to imply that if the post-invasion planning had been done properly the invasion might have gone well (i.e. that it takes issue with the means but not the end of regime change in Iraq). The end is what is illegitimate here.
One question which came to my mind while watching this movie: Did they do it on purpose? Was the plan in fact actually to create a simmering civil war and a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq? Of course you'd then have to ask - who does this benefit? Certainly not the United States. Who then?
Although I don't think it generally offers a lot of new information vis-a-vis the utter incompetence and seeming insanity of the early days of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, this movie offers a lot more of the fine details which have not been widely known. It is also enough to get your blood boiling and remind you just how wrong certain pundits who are now saying the "surge" is working were back in the early days running up to the war ("We will be greeted as liberators.." etc.).
Possibly the most shocking fact presented in this movie was that the post-invasion plan had U.S. soldiers beginning to draw-down by the fall of 2003. It throws a stark light on our leaders' lack of understanding of what we were getting into. Rumsfeld in particular looks extremely bad in retrospect, laughing at and making light of the riots and looting which took place at the beginning of the insurgency. There is a special place in hell reserved for him.
The movie includes very specific examples of the incredible detachment of Paul Bremer from anything resembling the on-the-ground reality in Iraq. The rule you get from the numerous interviews with several members of the post-invasion transition team (the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, also known as ORHA - only brought into being for post-invasion planning some two months prior to the war!) was that the more knowledge and competence you had, the further out of the loop you were pushed by Bremer and his henchmen. Yet another example of what you get when you place ideology and conformity ahead of competence (and this from an allegedly "conservative" administration?).
Also detailed is that fact that ORHA was in touch with a number of Iraqi army commanders who had a large numbers of troops ready and willing to cooperate with the post-invasion planners. It appears that large parts of the army simply did not want to risk their lives on behalf of Saddam and instead had developed elaborate plans to keep the army together for post-invasion cooperation with the U.S. (the army disbanded and went home but kept in contact, sometimes by couriers). ORHA had these contacts ready to go when presidential envoy Bremer came onto the scene, but they were ignored. Worse, as is well known, Bremer had the incredibly self-destructive idea of disbanding the Iraqi army, which he put into force apparently without *any* discussion with the Army, the State Department, or the occupation team already in place in Iraq. The result of this idea and the contribution it had to the Iraqi insurgency that followed is also well known.
There is a special place in hell reserved for Paul Bremer.
One issue that I have with the movie which admittedly might or might not be fair is that it seems to imply that if the post-invasion planning had been done properly the invasion might have gone well (i.e. that it takes issue with the means but not the end of regime change in Iraq). The end is what is illegitimate here.
One question which came to my mind while watching this movie: Did they do it on purpose? Was the plan in fact actually to create a simmering civil war and a long-term U.S. occupation of Iraq? Of course you'd then have to ask - who does this benefit? Certainly not the United States. Who then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)