Iraq is Still a Bad Bargain
Andrew Bacevich eviscerates the Iraq War party with this passionate and clear-sighted essay on 'the Surge to Nowhere' in WaPo. He points out that the real motivation behind last year's troop escalation was to avoid popular outrage building in the US electorate to the point where the troops were pulled out. He observes that the argument for the 'success' of the 'surge' is purely a tactical one. When viewed from the vantage point of grand strategy, the Iraq War is as much a failure as it has always been.
If someone came to you six years ago and said that for only $2 trillion, you could have for your colony a burned out country, a failed state, and a semi-permanent incubator of terrorism and hatred against the US, would you have ponied up the money? That's what you've got, and that is what it cost you. Detroit could have used some of that money. New Orleans could have used some of that money. Appalachia has lots of schools that need to be painted.
The argument could be made that Israel is safer with Saddam Hussein out of power. But that argument does not hold water. Current Iraqi leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr and Adnan Dulaimi are not less anti-Israel than Saddam, and it turns out he did not have WMD with which to attack Israel anyway. The Shiites of Iraq will certainly side with Hizbullah against Israel, which may actually mean that Israel is less secure now than before. Moreover, to have substantial turmoil on their doorstep just cannot be good for the Israelis.
You could argue that US petroleum corporations are now well placed to bid on Iraqi oil development. But what with doomsday cults planning a takeover of the petroleum facilities, it will be some time before it is safe for US corporations to operate in Iraq. China and Holland (Shell) are being looked upon favorably by the Iraqi government as investors.
And anyway, if the US government had thrown the $2 trillion and more that Iraq will end up costing at green energy development, both we and the earth would have been far better off. At a time when the US military is paying 60,000 Sunni Arab Iraqis $300 a month each not to fight us, it is pretty hard to justify letting the US working class sink, without any government help, into penury and homelessness in the face of the mortgage crisis and the recession. The Iraq War may or may not be good for Houston. It is certainly bad for Iraq and for everyone else.
The current round of optimism about Iraq in the Washington press corps will eventually falter against the country's hard realities, just as have previous such rounds. Or maybe worrying about Iraq and continued US troop deaths there is so yesterday for the punditocracy in DC.
The optimism is a planted story, a sleight of hand produced by looking at tactics rather than at strategy, or by making comparative statements (Iraq has less violence today than it did in the volcanic period a year ago) which obscure absolute reality (Iraq is very unstable and dangerous).
What the snake oil merchants like Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol (both of them hard right Zionists) are really saying is that if you just give them $2 trillion more, and are willing to expend another 12,000 killed and wounded American young people, boy do they have a deal on a neo-colony for you.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice-- can't get fooled again.
Labels: Iraq


16 Comments:
Juan, thanks so much for this: one of your best ever!
Greetings from Beirut and Damascus...
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice-- can't get fooled again."
that's how they say it down in Texas.
Bargaining Badly
The shameful sham of all of the Iraqi Débâcli stuff is that the political structure has been one that is not easily rectified. Any corrections to a long-established mode of operations such as what Saddam Hussein developed as an insider, changes coming from without will tend to have more failures than successes until the will of the people has been worn down to the point of their giving up. Once more, the insiders are the ones who aren't going anywhere and basically can sit at the political casino table for as long as they wish. Eventually, the 'Westerners' will tire of the game of bluffs and raises, holding onto their hands without going 'all in,' perhaps taking what's left of their stakes elsewhere, where Lady Luck seemingly smiles more appealingly.
While Younger George might see himself as a Jimmy Bond knock-off, able to woo and wow the masses with some flashy high stakes Back-A-Rat betting, he merely falls in line with all of the others for whom vicarious gratuitous sex and violence are ego boosters, letting the worst case leader soothe his psyche. Of course, the Englanders have no Jimmys who have come into the Middle East to wreak havoc on the locals. Their best feet forward have been on their way back to the their little island, perhaps best suited for a Robin Hood theme park or a replacement for Vieques. Dunkirk redux.
It might be well-stated that the Americans will need to be in Iraq for the next several decades in order to achieve the Buscists' ends or goals. But, what happens will most likely be something along the lines of what Saddam Hussein became, a sort-of client who done did 'Poppy' Bush's Kuwaiti pals wrong by reclaiming what the Englanders had no real right to deprive the Arabs of. While all of the atrocities wrought by Hussein's army in 1990-91 are well-known, how do they compare to what has happened to Iraq under the Buscist disordering? Battles and warring on a biblical scale, forgetting what was merely a collection of tales occurring some two or three millennia ago?
The real results will be known once there is installed a new strongman who will be able to outwardly reorganise the country into something that appears to have 'Western' acceptance. Certainly, very many assurances will have to be made in order to satisfy the NeoCons and their marionettes, dangling for Dollar$ all of them, guarantees that will require constant monitoring of every activity, very much like what the Englanders have allowed, perhaps the next 'growth industry' to be exported to colonies and client states. The Americans have their unmanned aerial vehicles and satellites to keep eyes on things from afar but not able to peer into every nook and cranny, something that will be needed in order to keep those opposed to any colonisation at bay. What occurs inwardly will be reported only as the newly form state and newly installed strongman allow. The words to the 'West' will be something along the lines of "Don't worry, be happy!"
Another trillion or so Dollar$ at what cost? How long will the Chinese and others (the Indians have begun to refuse Dollar$) support the American economy to the point where the foreigners are effectively buying the Iraqi Débâcli, with the Wall Street and Fed financiers merely acting as middlemen and midwives for something that the other nations really don't want to buy. Of course, the most lucrative industry the United States has (after pot) is war, destroying whatever goodwill and prospects for harmony might have existed.
'Peace' is, as we know, something that occurs some six feet under, in one of those climate-controlled chambers lined with silk and made to last forever. 'Peace' will happen when the wills of the people buckle under the strain, those being warped or broken losing heart for their purposes. Their national allegiance will be marked with a monument that reads, in part, "R.I.P." Of course, the danger is greatest for those who will not win, perhaps the Americans themselves who are headed into recession, inflation, and increased prices and taxes to pay for the Buscist boondoggles in foreign lands. An empire in decline where none should have existed at all. Long gone are the dayze when a simple loosing of a cannon like Jimmy could eliminate the offensive persons and their smacking aeroplanes, much like we have seen time and again in 'The Living Daylights,' when the mujahadeen were on 'our' side, fighting against foreign imperialists in and around Afghanistan. The subtle change came about when the 'smack' came in the form of pulverised concrete instead of the dried resin, smacking into NYC's WTC buildings, creating a need for even more anodyne provided by none other than bin Laden's friends and neighbours, now imitated in Iraq, filled with bored and lonely GIs. Vietnam anyone? Deer hunting?
The bargaining and betting chips are getting fewer and more dear as they dwindle. Complaining about this is fun but oft-times there is nothing to be gained but venting frustrations, especially when no one in the power structure is listening, especially when they are not paying the bills, especially when they are more than likely using the situations to their own advantage, sort of like Jimmy who gets to gamble on the Englander doled payroll. The likely scenario is the likes of al-Sadr^ are waiting until the next leader is installed in the White House in about 365 days.* At that point, the direction for the next four years will be set, allowing for some realistic negotiations - if any - for the future of Iraq and the Americans' involvement therein. The emphasis will likely remain on wearing the popular opinion down, eroding support for foreign (mis)adventures, and calling for withdrawal.
At this point, the ones with the real chip counts will be able to make their plays, watching as the American gamblers go off to seek Lady Luck in another venue. Adding to this is the notion that things are 'getting better,' things improving to the point where there will be a false victory declared and a redeployment of forces, allowing for the next real strongman to emerge to fill the vacuum.
In Iraq? Or in the United States? Will it be Ayatollah al-Sadr? Or Ayatollah Huckabee?
^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/96370
The Great Moqtada Makeover
* http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3353777.ece
20 January 2008 03:22
Just one more year! Good riddance to George W Bush
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice-- can't get fooled again."
Really??
I can't help noticing that AIPAC's candidates McCain and Clinton, both with the same attitude to the Iraq war as Bush, are high in he charts for the next Fooling Again prez.
Let's look at the previous ones too: Reagan, Clinton Goofy-Bush, Johnson, Nixon ...
I would say that the Americans have mastered getting Fooled Again.
Here is something to put a smile back on your face:
Bush's visit!
For those not familiar with Steve Bell's cartoons:
Bush-inese "Moxy = Democracy, and Freem = Freedom.)
I've been saying this the entire time since first "Teh SURGE!!!" talk began as a big, prominent middle finger stuck up for the bizarrely overhyped "Iraq Study Group", and the deification of General David Vespasian Julius Claudius Antonio Banderas Petreaus.
The purpose of "Teh SURGE!!!" had NOTHING to do with Iraq (although it tactically involved it) as it was a domestic propaganda assault on the post-2006 Democratic Congressional victory and the ratcheted-up pressures we briefly saw to do something to end this occupation.
And "Teh SURGE!!!" worked perfectly. It shut everyone up and made all the leading Democrats once again agree that to disagree was to Betray The Troops and Want To Lose. And the punditocracy went into "But you'll agree Teh SURGE!!! is working, right?" mode.
And don't think they can't do it again.
Whether it be SURGE II: The Surgening or more hyped incidents with Iran.
"...it will be some time before it is safe for US corporations to operate in Iraq."
It will never be safe for U.S. corporations to "operate" in Iraq.
Unless you can say with any degree of certainty that Iraq will consist of a nation of 'Chalbis', and inmates/POWS at some point in the future
Prof Cole:
In this month's Harper's NOTEBOOK appears an essay by Jonathan Schell: 'The Moral Equivalent of Empire'. Sorry no link. I'll try to paraphrase.
The Nuclear threat is back. For the 4th time in seven decades this perilous question has been faced bythe US, and a clear answer was found each time til now. The policy adopted by the bush administration after 9/11 became Earth-rule by one nation. The elements include: a war on terror, the military dealing with states supporting terroists, and an axis of evil. This last element served as the provocation for nuclear fear.
Bush doctrine assumptions were: an unmanaged world was no longer acceptable; power in last analysis is based on force; the US is the greatest force.
In responding to this universal nuclear threat the US had two fundamental traditionalist choices; 1. Consent and Law. or 2. Force. Bush chose Force, the wrong choice. The US alone would enforce the double standard rules of who did what, where, and when globally.
Subsequent actions have now increased the nuclear threat, engendered pointless - and unsucessful- war and destruction, and set back democracy at home and abroad. Furthermore, the escalating cycle of violence could not succeed And cannot be abandoned until the doctrine is changed. Today that policy lies in ruin; proliferation is unchecked; ham fisted actions have led to North Korea, and now Pakistan's destabilization. Meanwhile the motherlode of nuclear danger, Russia, led by Putin, likens Bush to a 'Madman running around with a razor'.
------
Yes, during the deflation of the dot com bubble and creation of the housing hyperinflation currently hissing around us now, this admin.
adopted Earth-rule by one nation, a global benign Leviathan, and maybe not so benign (Iraq)
Schell has suggestions that appear weak sister to me: Just the mere mention of Henry Kissinger spikes my BP. I ask, where were these voices of restraint the past seven years?
Tolstoy hit the mark: "You have a wolf by the ears. You can't hang on. You can't let go."
Joie de vivre,
Wayne Kincaid
I keep hearing people commenting about whether or not the oil companies will benefit from Iraq. Its framed wrong. They have already benefited greatly from Iraq. The price of oil is 100$ a barrel and it started its clime as soon as we invaded. Anything more will just be a feather in their cap, tripling the price of oil was where they made their money and why Exxon is the most profitable company ever. The average person assumes the oil companies will benefit only by new Oil contracts because they also make the assumption that if the oil companies increase their profits it will somehow trickle down to them. Either lower oil prices or more supply while the oil executives laugh themselves all the way to the bank. Bush paid back the 2 million the oil industry gave him in 2000 a long time ago by trippling their reserve investments. Of course, for the price to remain high, we'll have to stay in the region and make asses of ourselves, but when has common sense stopped us before.
I suppose the upside is $30 trillion in oil reserves and permanent bases. which of course is what makes this imperialism and obsolete as of 1956 ish....
The tactics and methods of counter insurgency do not change; they haven't since XIX Century.
You need intelligence on who is shooting you. For that, you need soldiers and administrators who speak the language, but more, you need people who are experts in the region and the country, preferably who were living in country for a decade or so.
You need an efficient administration who help out the local populace that is not hostile to you or at least refrains from shooting you. Build hospitals, wells, treat the sick kids for free, build good will.
You need a ruthless occupying army, putting into practice that dreadful word called PACIFICATION, which is army (every army in the world) code word for rolling up your sleeves, going into a village and putting all the men (sometimes the women and children too) against the wall and shooting them; then burning the village to the ground.
The combination of these tactics wins a counter insurgency war.
The degree of which each tactic is emphasized over the other depends on local conditions and your military and administrator know how, wisdom and professional skills.
What do we have in Iraq?
We have soldiers whose job it is to drive a humvee back and forth on a road escorting trucks carrying ice cream, fruit juice and Haliburton et al profits.
You have soldiers kicking in doors and intimidating women and children in houses for no apparent reason. Perhaps once you do that, soldier, you should shoot at least the man of the house - that way the Iraqis will be scared of you instead of just being bewildered and bemused.
And the hearts and minds?
The war was lost not when the idiotic Bremer, who really represents the best America has to offer in career diplomats (you get to be a diplomat by graft, corruption and ass kissing); no, the war was lost when, after "liberation", American soldiers did NOT demolish Abu Ghraib, the prison where Saddam's thugs tortured men, women and children, but instead started to use said building complex, for the same reasons - imprison and torture of Iraqis.
THAT was the moment the war was lost.
After that, no amount of hearts and minds, hospital and school building, "surges", kicking down doors will work.
After Abu Ghraib, the only way to win Iraq is to turn on pacification, with whole villages going up in smoke and scores of dead women and children.
And despite US military using an incredible tonnage of bombs on any urban area or village where shots were fired at American soldiers (or thought or heard they were fired) (this is a dirty little secret of Iraq War now - the USAirForce bombing of civilians 100 times more than Israel was doing in Lebanon with 100 times more casualties), the USA is ultimately too squeamish to pull that off.
Sobering conclusion - no matter what we do, the war is already and irrevocably lost. Unless we want the USArmy to complete its transformation and turn into the Waffen-SS.
The amazing thing about the Bacevich piece is that the relentlessly pro-war WaPo published it. I'm sure it was just a hiccup.
I'm old enough to remember similar waves of optimism during our long slog through Vietnam. New tactics, additional resources, followed by signs that we were at last winning hearts and minds, the corner was being turned, democracy was taking root, life was returning to normal etc. Then more turmoil, more incontrovertible evidence that nothing had changed.
American goy says "Unless we want the USArmy to complete its transformation and turn into the Waffen-SS."
Change the tense, and you're on to something. It's not about the conditional future.
Yes, it does seem that the mainstream media primarily covers the "surge" and credits the recent "success" in Iraq to this influx of troops, but one of the major reasons for the decrease in violence is the fact that we're paying former insurgents $10 a day to protect their own towns and roadways. Wow, money really does talk---OUR MONEY! What happens when we stop paying them? God help us.
Bush should be impeached for gross incompetence - and the betrayal of our of our service men and women. The real scandal is not Abu Ghraib, its the poor leadership our service men and women have had to pay for with their lives. American prestige damaged, thousands of American lives lost, a trillion dollars at least by the time its over and wholly preventable. Does anyone ever get fired in the Bush Administration? Bremer got a medal for his incompetence. The following desrves a Congressional investigation- http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA24Ak01.html
Post a Comment
<< Home