And So It Ends

The war in Iraq has officially come to a close, as the last convoy of American troops crosses the border into Kuwait.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The last convoy of U.S. soldiers pulled out of Iraq on Sunday, ending nearly nine years of war that cost almost 4,500 American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and left a country grappling with political uncertainty.

The war launched in March 2003 with missiles striking Baghdad to oust President Saddam Hussein closes with a fragile democracy still facing insurgents, sectarian tensions and the challenge of defining its place in an Arab region in turmoil.

The final column of around 100 mostly U.S. military MRAP armored vehicles carrying 500 U.S. troops trundled across the southern Iraq desert from their last base through the night and daybreak along an empty highway to the Kuwaiti border.

After Obama announced in October that troops would come home by the end of the year as scheduled, the number of U.S. military bases was whittled down quickly as hundreds of troops and trucks carrying equipment headed south to Kuwait.

Only around 150 U.S. troops will remain in the country attached to a training and cooperation mission at the huge U.S. embassy on the banks of the Tigris river.

At the height of the war, more than 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq at more than 500 bases. By Saturday, there were fewer than 3,000 troops, and one base - Contingency Operating Base Adder, 300 km (185 miles) south of Baghdad.

news.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/last-us-troops-leave-iraq-ending-war.php?ref=fpa

Well, I guess we should all be glad that it's over, and that Obama kept his promise on Iraq.

Such a stupid and tragic waste. A war begun on lies, whose toll in blood and treasure has yet to be fully paid. The carnage inflicted upon the Iraqi people will linger for decades. And for what? To remove one brutal but impotent dictator from a world with dozens of other brutal dictators, and inflict chaos as a result.

There were never any 'weapons of mass destruction', despite all the right wing media hype. Saddam was never a 'threat' to the United States; only a minor inconvenience with a lot of oil.

We spent (at least) 4,474 American soldiers lives, and well over a trillion dollars destroying Iraq. When it comes to 'weapons of mass destruction', we're by far the world leaders. Meanwhile, we're letting our own country fall into disrepair and decay, citing austerity and budget deficits. Demolishing Iraq's infrastructure took priority over repairing our own. As someone who has worked jobs in both demolition and construction, I know that demolishing things is more fun than building them. But the results are no where near as satisfying.

Have we learned a lesson from our arrogance and hubris? Sadly, I think not. All the republican presidential candidates except Ron Paul are advocating for military action against Iran. The neocons and the military industrial complex continue, their bloodlust unsated. And Dick "the dick" Cheney is still alive, so the world still isn't safe from madmen bent on destruction.

Ending the Disaster

The absolute worst mistake in the history of American foreign policy is coming to an end as Obama has announced the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. I suppose this is a good thing, pursuant to the first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging. But nothing 'good' has or will come out of our horrible misadventure that was the invasion of Iraq. The price paid will be beyond measure, but here's a quick look at some of the costs:

8 years, 260 days since Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program

8 years, 215 days since the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq

8 years, 175 days since President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln

4,479 U.S. military fatalities

30,182 U.S. military injuries

468 contractor fatalities

103,142 – 112,708 documented civilian deaths

2.8 million internally displaced Iraqis

$806 billion in federal funding for the Iraq War through FY2011

$3 – $5 trillion in total economic cost to the United States of the Iraq war according to economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Blimes

$60 billion in U.S. expenditures lost to waste and fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001

0 weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/21/350368/iraq-by-the-numbers-the-worlds-costliest-cakewalk/

When the shrub/Cheney misadministration slunk into power they made clear their intention to invade Iraq as soon as they could conjure up a plausible pretext. 9/11 became that 'justification', despite the fact that there was absolutely zero connection. Let's face it: the American public was rather gullible at the time, and could easily be sold that a known dusky "boogyman" was a valid target for retribution. All that was required to substitute "Saddam" for "Osama" was a relentless front page marketing campaign, and the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" certainly sounds scary, especially when repeated often and loudly enough.

It was all a pack of lies.

The real legacy of the war in Iraq wont be told for years, and many of the realities may never be faced. America unilaterally invaded another country without justification or provocation, slaughtered civilians and committed atrocities that we will never be held truly accountable for. We wasted trillions of dollars on death and destruction, while our own country and citizens fell into poverty and decay. Shrub and 'the Cheney' truly are guilty of an astounding array of war crimes, but will never be tried in any court of law despite all the evidence against them.

In short: an incredible amount was lost and absolutely nothing was gained by going to war in Iraq. Forgive me if I don't feel much like celebrating its end.

And For What?

The end of "combat operations" in Iraq...

The withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops...

But there is no sense of celebration. The 'war' is 'over', except that it isn't. There is no victory, because there was never anything to 'win' in Iraq. All that was achieved was destruction and despair.

I suppose that President Obama deserves some credit for reducing America's presence in Iraq, as he promised in his campaign. OK, Barack, here's a brownie point. A token of achievement for a rather minor accomplishment.

It was a war that never should have happened. Shrub and the neocons lied to create a threat that never existed and led an invasion that should be a war crime. The slaughter of innocent Iraqi's will be America's shame for many decades to come, as will the debts (both human and monetary) for a tragic act of folly. Over a trillion dollars wasted on wanton destruction, yet we "can't afford" to serve our citizens at home.

So we'll call this an "end", but for what? In the "end", what was it all for? Who was saved?

What was it all for?

Seven Years

Seven years ago today, shrub embarked on the worst mistake in United States history: the invasion of Iraq began. The litany of lies that lead up to the invasion is now well documented, but the real basic fact was always clear to many of us: invading Iraq was a really bad idea. Here's some basic numbers:

American War Dead in Iraq: 4385

American War Injured: 40,000+

Iraqi War Dead: 2,000,000

Iraqi War Wounded: Millions

Iraqi War Displaced: Millions

Add at least a trillion dollars spent, and for what? Iraq has a marginal semblance of a democracy, but nothing close to stability. Withdrawing from Iraq is progressing slowly and painfully, and it may be many years before the last American troops actually leave. Getting out has always been much more difficult than getting in.

The atrocities of the war will continue to tarnish America's global image for at least a generation. Sadly, it's doubtful that the perpetrators behind the illegal invasion and ensuing crimes against humanity will ever face justice for their actions, and that is itself a crime. The past cannot be changed, but it would go a long way toward repairing the damage to hold those responsible accountable.

More here:

Seven Years (March 19, 2003)

Added: of course, no one may notice this because today is also World Sleep Day.

More Truth, Too Late

As the Iraqi people celebrate our withdrawal from their cities (but not their country), we are starting to get more of the facts about the lead up to this horribly unethical war:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

I knew most of these things already, but in the media's war lust they got buried. Shrub wanted a war, and no facts were going to stop him. Smart analysis showed that there were no WMD's, and even if there were a few they weren't really a threat.
As we've seen, getting into a war in Iraq was a whole lot easier than getting out will be. But I wish for one big first step: Can we put shrub and the cheney on trial for war crimes yet? That would be the best first move toward healing the damage they've caused.

Another Casualty, Another Senseless Tragedy

It started out a fairly typical local crime story. There was a car-jacking at the Grand Canyon. Later it was learned that this was on the heels of an apparent failed suicide attempt by driving into the Canyon. Two days and a cross state police chase later two men were dead.
Then the human side of the tragedy came out. It was collateral damage from the war in Iraq. Former Marine Staff Sergeant Travis N. "T-Bo" Twiggs was one of the dead. Shaun Mullen at Kiko's House has the details:

Twiggs went AWOL from his job at a Marine Corps laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.
He and his beloved brother, Willard, 38, drove to the Grand Canyon, where their car was found hung up in a tree in what appeared to be a failed attempt to drive into the chasm.

The brothers then carjacked a vehicle. They ended up several hundred miles away at a southwestern Arizona border checkpoint on May 14 and took off when they were asked to pull into an inspection area. Eighty miles later, the car was sighted on the Tohono O'odham Native American reservation, its tires wrecked by spike strips.

As tribal police and Border Patrol agents closed in, Twiggs apparently fatally shot his brother and then killed himself.

His PTSD was diagnosed, but not effectively treated. He had even met with shrub on behalf of veterans:

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — Last month, Marine Staff Sgt. Travis N. "T-Bo" Twiggs went to the White House with a group of Iraq war veterans called the Wounded Warriors Regiment and met the president.

Twiggs had been through four tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and months of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in which he said he was on up to 12 different medications.

"He said, `Sir, I've served over there many times, and I would serve for you any time,' and he grabbed the president and gave him a big hug," said Kellee Twiggs, his widow.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hD0tzsn2RZuCtbFu5SdtwUgYZevgD90NGBP81

Making the case even more tragic is that Sgt. Twiggs was trying to get treatment, but the system is inadequate.

"All this violent behavior, him killing his brother, that was not my husband. If the PTSD would have been handled in a correct manner, none of this would have happened," she said in a telephone interview from Stafford, Va.

Travis Twiggs, who enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1993 and held the combat action ribbon, wrote about his efforts to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder in the January issue of the Marine Corps Gazette.

The symptoms would disappear when he began each tour, he said, but came back stronger than ever when he came home.

He wrote that his life began to "spiral downward" after the tour in which two Marines from his platoon died.

"I cannot describe what a leader feels when he does not bring everyone home," he wrote. "To make matters even worse, I arrived at the welcome home site only to find that those two Marines' families were waiting to greet me as well. I remember thinking, 'Why are they here?'"

Weeks later, Twiggs "saw a physician's assistant who said that was the severest case of PTSD she'd seen in her life," his widow said.

He began receiving treatment, but the Marine wrote that he mixed his medications with alcohol and that his symptoms didn't go away until he started his final tour in Iraq.

When he came home, "All of my symptoms were back, and now I was in the process of destroying my family," he wrote. "My only regrets are how I let my command down after they had put so much trust in me and how I let my family down by pushing them away."

Kellee Twiggs said her husband was "very, very different, angry, agitated, isolated and so forth," upon his return. "He was just doing crazy things."

She said her husband was treated in the psychiatric ward of Bethesda Naval Medical Center and then sent to a Veterans Administration facility for four months.

Most recently, Travis Twiggs was assigned to the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory at Quantico, a job he said helped him "get my life back on track."

"Every day is a better day now," he wrote in the Marine Corps Gazette. "...Looking back, I don't believe anyone is to blame for my craziness, but I do think we can do better."

Twiggs urged others suffering from similar problems to seek help. "PTSD is not a weakness. It is a normal reaction to a very violent situation," he wrote.

Kellee Twiggs said she can't understand why her husband was not sent to a specialized PTSD clinic in New Jersey.

"They let him out. He was OK for a while and then it all started over again," she said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hD0tzsn2RZuCtbFu5SdtwUgYZevgD90NGBP81

This is only one of many tragedies resulting from shrub's Iraq disaster, but one that is growing rapidly. We have more soldiers coming home in need of treatment, but the system is woefully unprepared to meet their needs. Shaun ends his post with a call for volunteers:

If you are not in denial and have some time to spare, there are opportunities to help
returning and troubled veterans at your local VA hospital or military base, or through church and community organizations.

These opportunities include helping fill out paperwork, finding lost forms, acting as a driver for doctors' appointments, and just visiting and listening. Connecting with the right people can be a multi-layered process, so be patient. A good start is to ask for Volunteer Services.

While I support Shaun's call for public help, I strongly believe that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to provide proper treatment to those who've served. It's going to be expensive, but Congress needs to fund PTSD treatment at an unprecedented level. Shrub's misguided war is creating new victims every day. We, as a civilized society, need to help these people in order to prevent future tragedies.

Solving the Big Problems in Iraq

It's nice to see the Iraqi parliament tackling the important issues facing the Iraqi people:

Iraqi lawmakers are working on a bill to ban imports of toy guns and fireworks

Expect this to lead to a major decrease in violence throughout Iraq. Or not. Who needs toy guns and fireworks when AK-47's are so cheap?

Added: What they really need is an amusement park:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3802051.ece

You can't make this stuff up.

The Truth About the Lies

The NY Times is now telling us what has been blitheringly obvious to anyone who has been paying attention: the so called "expert military analysts" are a bunch of paid shills, and their "progress" reports are a pack of lies:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I know that this is common knowledge among many of us bloggers who follow the actual news from Iraq, but it's nice to see it in mainstream print. Part of my "blogger frustration" stems from hearing their bullshit repeated throughout the American media, and knowing that most of the public isn't aware that they are being manipulated. Maybe this article will open some eyes.

The occupation of Iraq is unwinnable and untenable in it's very conception, and no amount of spin will change this fact. "Surges" and "awakenings" are purely propaganda. Calling Moqtada al-Sadr "radical" and any resistance groups "insurgents" ignores the simple fact that we will never be able to impose our will upon the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq have a proud, albeit tragic, history, but they know that Iraq didn't attack America and they have no desire to become an American colony. They will resist foreign occupation as they have for millenia, and no amount of military effort will change that basic fact. The only real question is how much blood will be spilled before our occupation ends and we leave.

The "analysts" can take all this bullshit and pack it in flowery wrapping with positive bows, but they still are selling a package of bullshit. Sooner or later the public will stop buying it.

Odd Events in Iraq

One of the many problems with taking sides in the Iraqi power struggles is sorting out the loyalties of various groups of Iraqi people. Take this incident:

It appears that Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's ultimatum to Shiite Muslim militiamen to surrender to the Iraqi government might not be working precisely as he had intended.

When nobody had turned up by Friday, Maliki gave members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army militia 10 more days to turn in their weapons and renounce violence.

Instead, about 40 members of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and National Police offered to surrender their AK-47s and other weapons this morning to Sadr's representatives in the cleric's east Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

One of the police officers told journalists assembled at Sadr's office that he was heeding a call by an Iraqi cleric based in Iran, Ayatollah Fadhil Maliki, to stop fighting fellow Muslims.

"We came here to tell our brothers, the followers of Sadr, that we will not be against you," said the officer, who was dressed in civilian clothes and had his face covered with a scarf and dark sunglasses.

Sadr's representatives refused to take the men's weapons, saying they belong to the government. Instead, the representatives offered the men olive branches and copies of the Koran.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/03/iraq-not-quite.html

(my bolds)

Part of the army and police are more loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr than they are to Nouri al-Maliki. This is a problem that American soldiers are stuck in the middle of, thanks to the idiocy of our shrub.

Iraq's Getting Worse

I really haven't felt like posting on the latest increase in violence in Iraq. I've been depressed enough, so thinking about impending disaster isn't high on my agenda. But what I'm seeing appears quite ominous, and the media is (as usual) clueless.
The cease-fire with Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army appears to be over. While Sadr's militia is lightly armed and (mostly) poorly trained, they number in the 60,000 to 80,000 range and have the support of several million Shia. al-Sadr had been content to avoid confrontation and await the end of the American occupation before pushing for more power, but his tacit control of Basra may have been too great a challenge to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Basra is the key to the oil:



al-Maliki's hold on power is tenuous at best, but he does have the support of both America and Iran. As usual, read Juan Cole for more in depth analysis, but here are a few bad signs:

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that members of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq
(ISCI, formerly SCIRI, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim); the Da'wa Party led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Badr Corps paramilitary of ISCI have fled their HQs in Basra and Kut, because of the threat that they will be stormed by Mahdi Army militiamen [seeking revenge for the current offensive], In fact, some such buildings already have been attacked.

Eyewitnesses reported clashes on Tuesday in Sadr City, east Baghdad, led by Mahdi Army militiamen against American and Iraqi forces. The latter had encircled Sadr City, while the Mahdi Army roamed its streets within. The sound of gunfire could be heard, and helicopter gunships were seen hovering above.

http://www.juancole.com/

This could turn into a very bloody escalation very quickly:

BAGHDAD — With the United States providing air cover and embedded advisers, the Iraqi government on Wednesday expanded its offensive against Shiite Muslim militias from the port city of Basra to the capital of Baghdad — and many of the provinces in between.

The day saw street battles in Baghdad and Basra, mortar attacks by Shiite rebels against Baghdad's Green Zone, bombing by U.S. aircraft and encounters that left government tanks in flames. More than 97 people were reported killed and hundreds were wounded since the operation began early Tuesday.

In Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City neighborhood, clashes between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi security forces supported by U.S. forces left at least 20 dead and 115 were injured. By early afternoon, people took to the streets in protest of the Iraqi government.

Mortar rounds crashed into the heavily fortified Green Zone for the third straight day, injuring three U.S. government employees, all U.S. citizens, said U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo.

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who's directing the operation from Basra, gave the armed groups 72 hours to give up their weapons and surrender without consequences, warning that they'd be treated as outlaws if they didn't.

But al Sadr demanded that Maliki leave Basra and send a parliamentary delegation to hold a dialogue. Maliki immediately rebuffed the demand.

Maliki appears to be taking a huge risk in confronting the volatile city, which is dominated by the Mahdi Army.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31662.html

Of course, the "success in Iraq" crowd are already spinning events. Check out this headline:

"New Iraq fighting arises from surge's success, Pentagon says"

I had to read that twice, just to be sure I wasn't hallucinating. They really are saying this:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon on Wednesday said an eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a "by-product of the success of the surge."

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said it showed that the Iraqi government and security forces were now confident enough to take the initiative against Shiite extremists in the southern port of Basra.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080326/pl_afp/iraqunrestuspentagon

Whether this is propaganda or delusion I'll let you decide, but it's flat out wrong. The potential civil war that has been simmering in Iraq is now much closer to boiling over, and the American occupation forces are too small to contain it if it does. This could be a very bloody spring in Iraq.

As the Toll Passes 4,000

A sad milestone, the number 4,000. 4,000 soldiers dead in a needless and pointless war. 4,000 families who've lost a loved one for no good reason. 4,000 reasons we never should have invaded Iraq, and 4,000 reasons we need to end the occupation as soon as possible.

Round numbers seem to have a symbolic impact. 4,000 stirs an emotional response that the prior number of 3,996 did not. Round numbers are easier to grasp as "statistics" when a long, slow process is grinding on. The individual numbers don't get much attention until they total up into a round number.

For the Iraqi's there aren't any round numbers to mark. The death toll has been so overwhelming that the world has stopped counting. We only get "estimates", as if Iraqi's don't really count. Some tragedies don't get quantified.

Today four more families are grieving as a result of the horrible misguided policies of the administration. They join 3,996 families before them. They don't feel like "statistics" or a part of a round number. They feel the pain of losing a loved one.

And for what? Iraq was never a threat to the United States, despite the administration's scary rhetoric. The invasion was an exercise in imperial hubris, and the ongoing occupation is the result of a stubborn refusal to face reality. It was morally wrong to use military force in an attempt to impose our will on Iraq, and was doomed to failure from the start. The ongoing disaster of occupation is, and will remain, morally wrong; therefore it is also doomed to failure. A variety of statistics may be reported, but that doesn't change the most basic fact: the occupation is morally wrong.

Brave and honorable soldiers are losing their lives for no good reason. They are not statistics, but good people who are serving the country. My thoughts and sympathies go out to they and their families. But for the administration that chose to waste their lives I have nothing but anger and contempt. The administration should be prosecuted for their criminal actions, including the deaths of 4,000 soldiers.

We need to end this war.



Added: More here:

Iraq war's 4,000 fallen

A Really Bad Idea Turns Five

On March 19, 2003, the U.S. military entered Iraq. The mission to remove Saddam was probably one of the worst ideas in modern times, given that it was based on lies and a delusional disregard for the consequences. The PNAC crowd that was cheerleading for war had no understanding of Middle East history, and the American public had/has no understanding of Middle East culture. This really bad idea has led to the deaths of almost 4000 American troops, countless Iraqi civilians, and the forced displacement of millions. Al Qaeda, which had no presence in Iraq before the invasion, has a new fertile recruiting center, and the entire region has become increasingly unstable. The Baghdad Bureau from the New York Times reports on what Iraq looks like five years after the beginning of the war. (Note: some of the photos are graphic.)

But many of those in power still refuse to face reality. Shrub and the Cheney are still touting "progress" and the media reports the "success of the surge" any time there are fewer people dead at the end of a week (during those weeks when more people die, the media ignores Iraq in favor of celebrity bowling or some such). All this for the price of 12 billion a month.

And we have St. Sleazy McCain promising to prolong this quagmire for decades. He actually stands a chance of winning the presidency, in spite of his insane disregard for reality. Here's the latest example of his delusions:

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan.html

Whether this is propaganda or just a total lack of understanding, it should disqualify him from ever being president. But it wont.

Now the toughest question is how to get out of Iraq without it resulting in genocide. That will be one of the greatest diplomatic challenges ever to face an American president. If St. Sleazy is elected we will postpone facing the challenge of withdrawal, and if a democrat is elected they will be pilloried for any fallout from withdrawing. There are no easy solutions, but perpetual occupation is untenable.

Five years ago I saw the impending invasion as an inevitable disaster. I couldn't bear to watch, so I spent 10 days river rafting. I wish that I could hide from the reality today.

Added: Our shrub is still in "de-nile":

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he had no regrets about the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure" and declared that the United States was on track for a major victory there.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion with a touch of the swagger he showed early in the war, Bush said in a speech at the Pentagon, "The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable."

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1929611920080319

How much more "success" can we stand?

I'll be at an anti-war rally/vigil tonight.

Added added: Fran points out that it's a swarm:

St. Sleazy Slinks into Iraq

As if Iraq didn't have enough problems, St. Sleazy (my new nickname for John McCain, as a retort to the media accolades) decided to sneak in for a visit. Of all the media takes, I really like Jake Tapper's:

"We were informed that John McCain landed in Iraq Sunday morning," Ali al-Moussawi, an official in the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, told the AP. "A meeting will take place with the Iraqi government."

Sen. John McCain and the McCainettes (Sens. Lindsey Graham & Joe Lieberman) landed in Baghdad and are set to meet with deputy PM Barham Saleh, Gen. David
Petraeus, and perhaps al-Maliki as well.

McCain's trip abroad will also include visits in the UK with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Stavros Dimas, the European Union's commissioner for the environment; in Paris with President Nicolas Sarkozy; in Jerusalem with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Likud leader Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu; and in Amman, with Jordanian King Abdullah.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/mccain-iraqs-an.html

Of course, the trip isn't political. St. Sleazy told the press it wasn't political between fundraisers:

McCain says his trip is as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But on Thursday, McCain will hold a fundraiser at Spencer House in London for Americans living abroad -- $1,000-$2,300 per person.

Admitted, the fundraiser is in London. I doubt that St. Sleazy would have as much luck raising money in Iraq (but it's possible). And, of course, we taxpayers get to pay the bill for the trip. I'm really tired of hearing the media portray McCain as a "straight-shooter" when he's been about as corrupt as any member of congress, and more corrupt than most. Using Iraq as part of his campaign strategy is questionable at best (for a variety of reasons), but sneaking in for a quick campaign photo-op on your way to a fundraiser is beyond the pale. Imagine the media reaction if this were [insert democratic senator running for president here] doing the same thing. I know; IOKIYAR. Regardless of the media image McCain truly is St.Sleazy.

Five Years

Next week we'll mark five years of fun and adventure in Iraq. Half a decade wasted on a really bad idea, with no signs of improvement. Real soldiers are still dying:

Guerrillas fired rockets at a US base south of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing 3 US soldiers and wounding 2. An Iraqi civilian was also wounded.

A US soldier was killed and another wounded at Diwaniya on Tuesday by a roadside bomb (that is Shiite territory). So the death toll for Monday through Wednesday was fifteen US troops killed.

If you’re reading these words, you are better informed about US casualties in Iraq than most Americans, for whom it has become a forgotten war. If it is not on television, it does not exist.

http://www.juancole.com/

And here's a brief reminder that this war was started based on lies:

ABC News has requested and obtained a copy of the Pentagon study which shows Saddam Hussein had no links to Al Qaeda.

(READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.)

It's government report the White House didn't want you to read: yesterday the Pentagon canceled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's availability and didn't make the report available via email or online.

Based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion and thousands of hours of interrogations of former officials in Saddam's government now in US custody, the government report is the first official acknowledgment from the US military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.

The Bush administration apparently didn't want the study to get any attention. The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website yesterday, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report was made available to those who asked for it, and was sent via overnight mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

Asked yesterday why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."

Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/report-shows-no.html

It's easy to understand why the administration wouldn't want the public to be reminded that Saddam had no ties to al Qaeda. What's harder for me to understand is how they keep getting away with it.

I haven't posted much lately in part due to my frustration. I wish I could be "live blogging" impeachment hearings.

You Tell 'Em, Shrub

Our glorious shrub, always immune to irony, tells Turkey how to handle Iraq:

On another issue, Bush said that Turkey's offensive against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq should be limited — and should end as soon as possible. The ongoing fighting has put the United States in a touchy position, as it is close allies with both Iraq and Turkey. A long offensive along their border could jeopardize security in Iraq just as the U.S. is trying to stabilize the war-wracked country.

"The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080228/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

I guess there isn't room for two long term occupations in Iraq. If only some one could tell shrub to "get out."

Ritter on Iraq

I haven't written much on Iraq lately, as it's repetative and depressing. But former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has written a very thourough essay that sums up the current mess:

Any analysis of the current state of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq that relied solely on the U.S. government, the major candidates for president or the major media outlets in the United States for information would be hard pressed to find any bad news. In a State of the Union address which had everything except a "Mission Accomplished" banner flying in the background, President Bush all but declared victory over the insurgency in Iraq. His recertification of the success of the so-called surge has prompted the Republican candidates to assume a cocky swagger when discussing Iraq. They embrace the occupation and speak, without shame or apparent fear of retribution, of an ongoing presence in that war-torn nation. Their Democratic counterparts have been less than enthusiastic in their criticism of the escalation. And the media, for the most part, continue their macabre role as cheerleaders of death, hiding the reality of Iraq deep inside stories that build upon approving headlines derived from nothing more than political rhetoric. The war in Iraq, we're told, is virtually over. We only need "stay the course" for 10 more years.

This situation is troublesome in the extreme. The collective refusal of any constituent in this complicated mix of political players to confront Bush on Iraq virtually guarantees that it will be the Bush administration, and not its successor, that will dictate the first year (or more) of policy in Iraq for the next president. It also ensures that the debacle that is the Bush administration's overarching Middle East policy of regional transformation and regime change in not only Iraq but Iran and Syria will continue to go unchallenged. If the president is free to pursue his policies, it could lead to direct military intervention in Iran by the United States prior to President Bush's departure from office or, failing that, place his successor on the path toward military confrontation. At a time when every data point available certifies (and recertifies) the administration's actions in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere (including Afghanistan) as an abject failure, America collectively has fallen into a hypnotic trance, distracted by domestic economic problems and incapable, due to our collective ignorance of the world we live in, of deciphering the reality on the ground in the Middle East.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/76318

For those who may not remember, Mr. Ritter was one of the strongest and best informed voices against the invasion of Iraq, and his assessment deserves attention:

Iraq is dying; soon Iraq will be dead. True, there will be a plot of land in the Middle East which people will refer to as Iraq. But any hope of a resurrected homogeneous Iraqi nation populated by a diverse people capable of coexisting in peace and harmony is soon to be swept away forever. Any hope of a way out for the people of Iraq and their neighbors is about to become a victim of the "successes" of the "surge" and the denial of reality. The destruction of Iraq has already begun. The myth of Kurdish stability-born artificially out of the U.S.-enforced "no-fly zones" of the 1990s, sustained through the largess of the Oil-for-Food program (and U.S.-approved sanctions sidestepped by the various Kurdish groups in Iraq) and given a Frankenstein-like lease on life in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion and occupation-is rapidly unraveling. Like Dr. Frankenstein's monster, present-day Iraqi Kurdistan has been exposed as an amalgam of parts incompatible not only with each other but the region as a whole.

...

One of the spinoffs of the continued success of the Sunni resistance is the focus it places on the inability of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad to actually govern. The U.S. decision to arm, train and facilitate the various Sunni militias in Iraq is a de facto acknowledgement that the American occupiers have lost confidence in the high-profile byproduct of the "purple finger revolution" of January 2005. The sham that was that election has produced a government trusted by no one, even the Shiites. The ongoing unilateral cease-fire imposed by the Muqtada al-Sadr on his Mahdi Army prevented the outbreak of civil war between his movement and that of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and its militia, the Badr Brigade.

The entire essay is well worth reading, albeit depressing. Iraq is one hell of a mess, and there is no easy clean up. The next administration is going to face a lose/lose situation. Thanks, shrub.

Interesting News

One of those little pieces of news that I found interesting that hasn't gotten mainstream attention:

BAGHDAD (AFP) — Iraq has formally ratified the UN's Kyoto Protocol on climate change, according to a government statement seen by AFP on Saturday.

"The presidential council ratified in its session on January 23 a law according to which the Republic of Iraq will join the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol," the statement said.

The Kyoto Protocol legally commits industrialised countries which have signed and ratified it to trim their output of six carbon gases seen as being responsible for global warming.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j36Xc3cFAC5MxVU1kzImFlZPv6Mw

Of course, it's easy to keep your greenhouse gas emissions down when your industrial infrastructure is in rubble.

"Reality is Totally Different"

I haven't written much about Iraq lately (it's still bad), but I've still been following the chaos. I'm sure that shrub will talk about "progress" in tonights SOTU address, but read this piece by Dahr Jamail (a great independant journalist) to get a better sense of the reality of Iraq:

Iraqis, of course, continue to witness firsthand this "decisive stand against chaos and terror." In our world, however, they are largely mute witnesses. Americans may argue among themselves about just how much "success" or "progress" there really is in post-surge Iraq, but it is almost invariably an argument in which Iraqis are but stick figures -- or dead bodies. Of late, I have been asking Iraqis I know by email what they make of the American version (or versions) of the unseemly reality that is their country, that they live and suffer with. What does it mean to become a "secondary issue" for your occupier?

In response, Professor S. Abdul Majeed Hassan, an Iraqi university faculty member wrote me the following:

"The year of 2007 was the bloodiest among the occupation years, and no matter how successful the situation looks to Mr. Bush, reality is totally different. What kind of normal life are he and the media referring to where four and a half million highly educated Iraqis are still dislocated or still being forcefully driven out of their homes for being anti-occupation? How can the people live a normal life in a cage of concrete walls [she is referring to concrete walls being erected by the Americans around entire Baghdad
neighborhoods], guarded by their kidnappers, killers, and occupation forces? What kind of normal life can you live where tens of your relatives and your beloved ones are either missing or in jail and you don't even know if they are still alive or, after being tortured, have been thrown unidentified in the dumpsters?

"What kind of normal life can you live when you have to bid farewell to your family each time you go out to buy bread because you don't know if you are going to see them again? What is a normal life to Mr. Bush? If we're lucky, we get a few hours of electricity a day, barely enough drinking water, no health care, no jobs to feed our kids…

"Little teenage girls are given away in marriage because their families can't protect them from militias and troops during raids. Women cannot move unescorted anymore. What kind of educations are our children getting at universities where 60% of the prominent faculty members have been driven out of their jobs -- killed or forced to leave the country by government militias? Is it normal that areas [on the outskirts of Baghdad] like Saidiya and Arab Jubour are bombed because the occupation forces are afraid to enter the areas for fear of the resistance? It is always easier to control ghost cities. It becomes very peaceful without the people."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174886/dahr_jamail_missing_voices_in_the_iraq_debate

The life of the Iraqi people is not getting better. Shrub is either lying or delusional.

Mohammad Mahri'i, an Iraqi journalist, has a rather different take on the situation: "The problem with Bush is that his people believe him every time he lies to them," he writes me. "His reconstruction teams are invisible and I wish they could show me one inch above the ground that they built."

Jamail's piece is long, with many sources, and well worth reading in full.

Maki al-Nazzal, an Iraqi political analyst from Fallujah who has been forced to live abroad with his family, thanks to ongoing violence and the lack of jobs or significant reconstruction activity in his city, which was three-quarters destroyed in a U.S. assault in November 2004, offered me his thoughts on the Western mainstream coverage of Iraq.

"The media should not follow the warlords' and politicians' propaganda. It is our duty to search for the truth and not repeat lies like parrots. The U.S. occupation is bad and no amount of media propaganda can camouflage the mess inside occupied Iraq. We are ashamed of the local and Western media [for] marketing the naked lies told by generals and politicians. Comparing two halves of 2007 is ridiculous.

"Bush and his heroes, [head of the Coalition Provisional Authority L. Paul] Bremer, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld and now Petraeus always lied to their people and the world about Iraq. U.S. soldiers are getting killed on a daily basis and so are Iraqi army and police officers. Infrastructure is destroyed. In a country that used to feed much of the Arab world, starvation is now the norm. It is ironic that Iraq was not half as bad during the 12 years of sanctions. Our liberation has pushed us into a state of unprecedented corruption."

Oh, and just the usual daily news report:Roadside bomb kills five U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And there is a real potential that things will get worse:

The U.S.-led security crackdown, along with a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have been credited with a dramatic drop in attacks in the capital.

However, influential members of al-Sadr's movement said Monday they have urged the anti-U.S. Shiite cleric to follow through with threats not to extend the cease-fire when it expires next month, a move that could jeopardize the recent security gains.

The Sadrists are angry over the insistence of U.S. and Iraqi forces on continuing to hunt down so-called rogue fighters who ignored the six-month order, which was issued in August. Al-Sadr's followers claim this is a pretext to crack down on their movement.

The maverick cleric announced earlier this month that he would not renew the order unless the Iraqi government purges "criminal gangs" operating within security forces he claims are targeting his followers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-01-28-07-52-20

The cease fire by al-Sadr has been as big a part in the reduction of violence as the "surge." Ignore shrub's words. We need to leave Iraq.

Only 935?

The shrub administration told 935 lies in the lead up to the war with Iraq, according to a new study:

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements
about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

The total number seems low to me, but I admit that I never attempted to catalog all the lies. During the run up to the war, Sweaterman and I tried to keep some sort of track of all the lies, but I think we gave up in disgust. We settled on "everything they're saying is a lie", and we were right.
Can we impeach now?

A Veto for Iraq

My head is now officially spinning. Shrub will veto a defense spending bill at the request of the Iraqi's:

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President George W. Bush intends to veto defense legislation after Iraq objected to a provision that could freeze its assets in the United States if Americans sue the country, the White House said on Friday.

Iraqi officials raised their concerns with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker about 10 days ago and when administration officials took a closer look at the provision they agreed that it could pose "grave financial risk" for Iraq, tying up assets needed for reconstruction, the White House said.

Iraq also discussed with the United States the possibility of pulling its assets, about $20 billion to $30 billion, out of U.S. institutions if the defense policy bill became law, a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity.

Congressional Democratic leaders House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the administration should have raised its objections earlier.

"It is unfortunate that the president will not sign this critical legislation," they said in a statement. "Instead, we understand that the president is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed."

The White House said it became more acutely aware of the potential consequences for Iraq and its relations with the United States after Baghdad raised its concerns.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00814520071228?sp=true

WTF? Does this mean that Iraq can now tell shrub what to do? Can they tell us to leave Iraq? (please). The bill included a pay raise for troops, so maybe shrub was just looking for an excuse:

The broad defense policy bill also authorizes a pay raise for U.S. troops, expands the size of the Army and sets conditions on the Bush administration's plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.

Either way, this is one of the strangest political moves I've ever seen.

Added: Pelosi and Reid respond:

“Despite the Administration’s earlier support for the Department of Defense authorization bill, it appears that President Bush plans to veto this legislation, which is crucial to our armed forces and their families.

“The Defense bill passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming bipartisan margins and addresses urgent national security priorities, including a 3.5 percent pay raise for our troops and Wounded Warriors legislation to remedy our veterans’ health care system. It is unfortunate that the President will not sign this critical legislation.

“Instead, we understand that the President is bowing to the demands of the Iraqi government, which is threatening to withdraw billions of dollars invested in U.S. banks if this bill is signed.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1023

Will they ever learn? If shrub is given a choice between our troops or rich cronies, he always sticks with the cronies.