Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, April 11, 2008

Bush Abdicates to Generals on Iraq;
10 Killed in Sadr City;
Al-Maliki Excludes Sadrists

War turns Republics into dictatorships. The logic is actually quite simple. The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush, gutting the constitution and allowing the American Right to start referring to him not as president but as 'commander in chief' (that is a function of the civilian presidency, not a title.)

Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.

So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field.

That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship achieved not by coup but by moral laziness.

Ironically, what officers like Petraeus need from Bush is not deference but vigorous leadership in the political realm. Bush needs to intervene to work for political reconciliation in Iraq if Petraeus's military achievements are to bear fruit. But Bush seems incapable of actually conducting policy, as opposed to starting wars. Bush happened to Iraq just as he happened to New Orleans. He cannot do the hard work of patiently addressing disasters and ameliorating them. He just wants to set people to fighting. Crush the Sadr Movement, perhaps the most popular political movement in Iraq? He's all for it. Risk provoking a wider conflagration in the Middle East by worsening relations with Iran? Sounds like a great idea to him. Bush campaigned on being a 'uniter not a divider' in 2000. In fact, he is the ultimate Divider, and leaves burning buildings, millions of refugees, and hundreds of thousands of cadavers in his wake. He is not Iraq's Brownie. He is Iraq's Katrina itself.

Just as New Orleans's Ninth Ward will still be a moonscape when Bush goes out of office, so will Iraq.

Eugene Robinson nails it: "It's time to acknowledge that Bush has run out the clock. The nation's only recourse is the ballot box."

65% of Americans either want US troops out of Iraq immediately or sometime in 2009, up from 61% in February of this year. Only 31% want to keep them there 'as long as it takes,' and that percentage declined in the past couple of months from 34%. In other words, whatever the success of the troop escalation and COIN techniques in the past year, they have had no impact on the rapid decline in the popularity with the American public of the US presence in Iraq. Most Americans don't seem to care whether the situation is better or worse in Iraq, they just want out.

In part these statistics show you don't need a degree in economics to figure out that the Iraq War is having a negative impact on the US economy. Americans are being hurt where it hurts.

Fighting and Hellfire missiles killed 10 and wounded 22 in Shiite Sadr City, according to local sources. The US was apparently trying to take out rocket launchers that have been targeting the Green Zone, where many US personnel are. Two US military personnel were killed that way on Sunday.

Stephen Farrell of the NYT reports on the conditions in Sadr City, as Shiite militias seem to be making preparations for resisting an all-out assault.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki snubbed the Sadr Bloc in parliament, declining to invite them to a meeting with other blocs on Thursday. Sadrist parliamentarians, who originally elected al-Maliki, complained that he is attempting to deny them a voice.

Reuters points out that the upcoming provincial elections in Iraq have the potential to turn politics upside down in the Shiite south. They also will be a straw in the wind for the likely results of the 2009 parliamentary elections. It is likely that the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shiite parties, has fallen decisively apart, and that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, the Da'wa Party, the Sadrists, the Islamic Virtue Party, and other Shiite parties will run separately this time.

On the other hand, ISCI and Da'wa now are in power and seem to like being in power, and it is not at all clear that there will be any further federal parliamentary elections or that they will be free and fair if they are held. (The Americans may be largely gone by December 2009). Despite what American politicians and generals say, Iran likes the status quo and would back a permanent ISCI-Da'wa semi-dictatorship. And that may be what ultimately matters. Of course, it is possible that if enough Iraqis feel disenfranchised, even more will be drawn to violence.

Reuters reports political violence on late Wednesday through Thursday:


' *Iraqi soldiers discovered 33 bodies in a mass grave at a house in Mahmudiyah south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. It said initial reports indicated the remains had been buried for more than a year. A number of mass graves have been uncovered in Iraq in recent months in the wake of rampant sectarian fighting in 2006-2007.

BAGHDAD - Six people were killed and 10 wounded in air strikes on Thursday in Sadr City, Iraqi police said. The U.S. military confirmed strikes, but said it was unaware of any deaths.

MOSUL - Three mortar rounds landed on a residential area in southern Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, wounding 12 people including an Iraqi soldier, police said.

MOSUL - A bomb exploded in western Mosul, wounding 3 people, police said.

NUMANIYA - A joint U.S.-Iraqi force arrested 15 men during a search and raid operation in the town of Numaniya, 120 km (70 miles) south of Baghdad, and raided a Sadr office in the town, seizing a number of light weapons, police said. They imposed a curfew in the town until further notice. The U.S. military could not immediately confirm the raid.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol, killing one civilian and wounding four, including two policemen, in central Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb wounded six people, including three policemen, on patrol near al-Shaab National Stadium in central Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier was killed by an improvised explosive device in central Baghdad on Wednesday, the U.S. military said on Thursday, taking the U.S. death toll for April to 20.

BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint in Sadr City, eastern Baghdad, with Iraqi police killed one person on Wednesday when they were attacked by small-arms fire, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers killed four people in northwestern Baghdad late on Wednesday when they responded to an attack with rocket-propelled grenades at a checkpoint, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - A U.S. helicopter fired two Hellfire missiles, killing four people who had attacked U.S. soldiers late on Wednesday at a security station in Sadr City, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers killed four people in two different locations in northwestern Baghdad after they were attacked with small-arms fire late on Wednesday, the U.S. military said.

NEAR KIRKUK - In the town of Hawija near Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, gunmen wearing army uniforms attacked a house, killing two boys and wounding the mother and father.

BAGHDAD - A U.S. fighting vehicle took a rocket-propelled grenade round in northwestern Baghdad on Wednesday night, wounding one U.S. soldier, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - A U.S. vehicle in Sadr City, eastern Baghdad, was struck by an improvised explosive device on Wednesday night and one U.S. soldier was wounded, the U.S. military said. '

Labels:

25 Comments:

At 2:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If "The Americans may be largely gone by December 2009", then so would Da'wa and ISCI. They need the protection of the US forces to stay. The Iraqi Army and police couldn't and wouldn't do it. Their militias are mercenries and only in it for the money. They have consistently failed to fight, and are only good in terror attacks on civilians.

Nouri al-Dharrat (the farter) can only remain in power if the Americans stay AND the elections are prevented.

 
At 2:47 AM, Blogger karlof1 said...

Rep. Wexler got some very interesting info from Petraeus. His Email report follows:

I want to thank you for the overwhelming response we received to my request for questions for General Petraeus. Thousands of emails poured in from all over the nation. My staff and I examined every suggested question and we were truly impressed with the passion, sophistication, and knowledge of the submissions. Choosing a few questions out of so many excellent entries was an extraordinarily difficult task.

One of the most commonly suggested questions centered on how General Petraeus defines victory in Iraq. This question struck a chord with me - as it no doubt did with so many of you - because it demands that the Administration actually define its goals (which, as you'll see below, are totally unrealistic).

Underscoring the tragedy of the Administration's failed policy, one of my constituents died in an attack on the Green Zone on Monday. I spoke with his parents yesterday, and they asked me to ask General Petraeus a simple question: For what? For what had they lost their son?

I asked him this question, and then asked him to define "victory."

I did not expect General Petraeus to answer either directly, but he did.

He stated that we were fighting for national interest, including region's "importance to the global economy." (In my mind, a stunning admission of the true motives behind this war.)

He stated that they were trying to achieve a country that is "at peace with itself and its neighbors," "could defend itself" that was "reasonably representative of and broadly responsive to its citizens."

These are not reasonable objectives. Half the countries around the world are not able to defend themselves. Many have internal and external conflict - and few - including our own, are broadly responsive to its citizens.

(I find that last objective sadly ironic, as the Bush Administration, by continuing this misguided war, is broadly unresponsive to American citizens.)

I was out of time before I could ask a follow up… but if you read between the lines, his answer is vast in its scope. Clearly, their goals for Iraq and interpretation of "national interest" are wholly at odds with a swift redeployment of forces.

It has been a year and a half since the 2006 elections - more than enough time for us to have required, through provisions attached to funding, a phased withdrawal. At the least, we could have forced a genuine showdown with President Bush that would have forced him to defend his policies.

There is no excuse for even one more American casualty in Iraq. Our troops must be redeployed. The Bush/Petraeus policy that denies reality must not carry the day.

I urge you to remain active and steadfast in your opposition to this open-ended, vaguely guided war.

Please read my exchange with General Petraeus below.


Congressman Robert Wexler

www.wexlerforcongress.com


TRANSCRIPT

Congressman Wexler:

Thank you. General Petraeus, last week in anticipation of this hearing I sent an urgent e-mail asking my constituents and other Americans: if they were serving on this committee, what is the one question they would pose to you.


There was an extraordinary response, with more than five thousand questions submitted, these e-mails and phone calls expressed deeply held frustrations about the war in Iraq, and reflect the concerns of millions across the nation who feel their opinions and concerns were cast aside by the Bush Administration.

I want to thank everyone who responded and submitted a question for today's hearings. While many of the respondents rightfully-highlighted the bravery of our troops, a majority of the e-mails expressed a strong desire to see withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, and an end to this five year war, that has cost our nation so dearly.

Most of the question! s boiled down to this: General we often hear President Bush and Senator McCain say we must win in Iraq. What is the definition of winning? What would a military victory look like, that was sufficient enough, to allow us to begin leaving?

Then, in a horrific turn of events, two of my constituents: Hester and Linn Wolfer of Boca Raton Florida, learned that this past Sunday their son had been killed for this war. Major Stuart Wolfer was a thirty six year reservist on his second tour. He was married with three young children ages five, three, and twenty months. His family was relieved that he was in the green zone, for they hoped he would be safe there. He was not.

I spoke to Mr. Wolfer yesterday last night, who asked me to ask you, simply: For What, for what had he lost his son? So allow me to combine if you will, the questions from the people that responded to me and Mr. Wolfer: What has all this been for? And please, respectfully, don't tell us as you told Senator Warner yesterday: to remove a brutal dictator. That's not good enough.

There are many dictators in the world. For what did Stuart Wolfer and the other four thousand and twenty four sons and daughters die for? And how will we define victory, so we can bring this never ending war to a close?

And if I will, when Mr. Burton asks for a definition of what is failure, we get a litany of items. But when Mr. Ackerman asks what is the definition of victory, we get little. Please tell us General, What is winning?

General Petraeus: First of all, Congress, let me tell you that what we are fighting for is national interest.

It is interest that as I stated have to do with Al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the United States and the free world, has to do with the possible spread of sectarian conflict in Iraq, conflict that had engulfed that country and had it on the brink of Civil War.

It has to do with regional stability, a region that is of critical importance to the global economy, and it has to do with certainly the influence of Iran, another obviously very important element, in that region.

In terms of what it is that we are trying to achieve, I think simply it is a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors, it is a country that can defend itself, that has a government that is reasonably representative and broadly responsive to its citizens, and a country that is involved in and engaged in, again the global economy.

Ambassador Crocker and I, for what it's worth, have typically seen ourselves as minimalists, we're not after the Holy Grail in Iraq and we're not after Jeffersonian Democracy.

We're after conditions that would allow our soldiers to disengage, and that is in fact what we are doing. As we achieve progress, as we have with the Surge, and that is what is indeed allowing us to withdraw the Surge forces, again well over one quarter of our ground combat power five of 20 brigade combat teams plus two marine battalions and the marine expeditionary unit by the end of July.

Congressman Wexler: Thank you.

 
At 3:02 AM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dear Professor Cole

It may be instructive for your readers to familiarise themselves with this book.


Lloyd George and the Generals


It is available as an eBook.

Your post this morning reminds me of the result of the failure of the civil leadership to adequately control Field Marshal "Bash on regardless" Douglas Haig.

One of the side effects of the conflict were seen in Dublin in 1916 when General Maxwell had the leaders of th rebellion shot three at a time over a period of a week and singlehandedly changed public opinion in Ireland.

If we look at the Battle of Algiers it was the great General de Gaulle who had the strategic understanding and force of character to decide to abandon a battle that couldn't be won and face down the gnerals.

The horrible thought now arises as to which of the three presidential candidates might be strong enough to order General Petraeus to abandon his kingdom and drive south to Kuwait with his tanks and personnel carriers.

Only one of them has military experience. Imaginary sniper fire doesn't count.

 
At 3:14 AM, Blogger Sulayman said...

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) asked Petraeus, "Why are we fighting in Iraq?," Petraeus gave an interesting response: "We are not seeking a Jeffersonian democracy here."

Petraeus' point was that U.S. military leaders aren't seeking a perfectly functioning government in Iraq - what Petraeus called "the Holy Grail" - in order to delare victory and go home. Just one that works pretty well. It was an interesting statement and one needs further exploration. Is it a shift in goals for the United States in Iraq?

(Taken from an article on politico.com)

 
At 5:09 AM, Anonymous Alex said...

Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.

Really? Was not Petraeus' report fixed up in the weekly videoconferences that Bush has personally with P.? That is, the facts are being fixed to fit the policy.

 
At 5:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/10/headlines#1

April 10, 2008

Top Administration Officials Approved Assault, Waterboarding of CIA Prisoners
By Amy Goodman

ABC News is reporting senior Bush administration officials personally discussed and approved how top al-Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA. * The group agreed on controversial interrogation techniques including physical assault, sleep deprivation, and waterboarding. The officials were all members of the Principals Committee on the National Security Council. They included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft....

* http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iA8mY9rbbDdKUe1Y9KObwHhqr9YgD8VVCEG80

 
At 5:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iA8mY9rbbDdKUe1Y9KObwHhqr9YgD8VV9P001

April 10, 2008

Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations
By LARA JAKES JORDAN and PAMELA HESS - Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday....

 
At 5:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We must leave Iraq completely and immediately in the coming Administration, and all that matters to me in voting will be that the Democratic candidate convinces me she or he will be leaving Iraq. I am more doubtful about Barack Obama's determination to leave Iraq than Hillary Clinton's so far, even though I supported Obama.

Samantha Power and Colin Kahl have worried me about Obama, and I want Obama to re-assure me.

 
At 7:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent observations in your first paragraph!
Bush is setting the stage for attack on Iran.
The politician are so cowardly that they do no even ask question about that possibility.

 
At 9:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought that this was an interesting discussion of Bush's delegation of Iraq policy to tactical commanders:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=959

 
At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Only one of them has military experience. Imaginary sniper fire doesn't count."

A completely idiotic comment, since the person who will keep us in Iraq for sure is McCain and Clinton is most likely to get us out.

Shocking idiocy.

 
At 9:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe Mr. Bush has never abandoned the Neocon agenda of establishing a toehold of empire in Iraq. That is why he keeps working for permanent bases and a treaty that commits us for the future. That is why Maliki and his cabinet are the only ones in Iraq who called for long term US troop presence. Mr. Maliki stuck to this even in the face of his own legislature's opposition. The most logical move for Maliki, given some control over his army, would have been to consolidate control in Baghdad, sending the army to discipline the rouge elements in the ministries. He cannot do that because it would frighten Washington, which distributed control of the ministries in the first place.
If Petraeus understands his own COIN doctrine, he would probably prefert to be moving Maliki into coalition with Sadr against ISCI. That is an alignment that could hold out Iran, and survive a US departure. The hard part would be ensuring security for the Sunni, but Sadr has fought in coordination with them against us in the past. Granted, the resulting government would not like us, but it Sadr is capable of forebearance and is better than Iran.
So, to me, the General is limited by the bad policy that remains unspoken.

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Jeff said...

Professor Cole,

From a purely tactical point of view, it seems to me that a phased withdrawal would be the most dangerous type of withdrawal for our troops. As you draw down troop levels, at some point you reach a tipping point at which they will inevitably lose control of the situation and become easily cut off and cut to pieces. The ONLY way a phased withdrawal could possibly work without it eventually dissolving into a mad dash for the border and helicopter gunships rescuing people from rooftops is IF the country is completely secured and passified first.

That's clearly not going to happen while we're there. Therefore, a phased draw down of troops is nothing less than a call to stay until the impossible is achieved.

The only way to get out of country without losing a bunch of people is to go out the way we came in - an invasion. Call it a devasion or unvasion, but it has to be a massive military operation that brings everyone out over a matter of days, blowing up anything we have to leave behind. Anything else and we might as well stay there. We've got a tiger by the tail and dare not let it go.

 
At 10:03 AM, Blogger Dennis said...

"The horrible thought now arises as to which of the three presidential candidates might be strong enough to order General Petraeus to abandon his kingdom and drive south to Kuwait with his tanks and personnel carriers.

Only one of them has military experience."


Is that a joke? Only McCain is strong enough to end this occupation because he has military experience? The same McCain who sees nothing wrong with another 100 years of occupation? The maverick? The straight shooter? You are right, it IS a horrible thought. Try moving onto thoughts that make more sense.

 
At 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

which of the three presidential candidates might be strong enough to order General Petraeus to abandon his kingdom and drive south to Kuwait with his tanks and personnel carriers.

I would hope that any of them would be strong enough to do it. The question is which ones have indicated a willingness to do so. I don't buy the idea that it takes "military experience" for a new elected American President to tell our military what to do. Things are bad, but our officer corps is not ready to stage a coup in order to stay in Iraq.
In fact I think, and hope, that there would be resistance (short of mutiny) from the Pentagon if Bush ordered some reckless adventure that risked exposing our fleet in the Persian Gulf to the advanced anti-ship "sunburn" missiles that Iran has acquired from Russia. The resignation of Admiral Fallon might have been the first sign of such resistance.

 
At 11:54 AM, Blogger Mark said...

Seriously, if we can't or don't have the will to impeach this gang, then we're f-cked.

 
At 1:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Cole,
You wrote in today's blog, "So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field." I don't believe Bush abdicated. As you pointed out earlier, VP Cheney made his Arab nation rounds recently. A little referenced incident in 1991 regarding Cheney was in General H. Norman Schwarzkopf's book, "It Doesn't Take a Hero". Cheney, at that time Secretary of Defense, submitted his own battle plan. Schwarzkopf was incensed (mildly put). He stormed (he wasn't called 'Stormin' Norman' for nothing!) into Colin Powell's office. Powell, of course, was head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, then. Basically, Schwarzkopf said that Cheney's plan would get troops killed and that Cheney didn't know what the hell he was doing. Powell calmed Schwarzkopf down and told him that he would take care of Cheney (diplomatically, that is). At that time, Bush 41 knew the limitations and control-freekishness of Cheney, and put the SME (subject matter expert) decision making power on operational plans squarely back in Powell's and Schwarzkopf's domain. Now, with no one controlling Cheney's reach regarding operational decision making, there is NO abdication to generals in the field. You can be assured that VP Cheney is moving more chesspieces on the battle field than he ever wildly dreamed of during Operation Desert Storm. My humble opinion.

 
At 1:29 PM, Blogger eurofrank said...

"Only one of them has military experience. Imaginary sniper fire doesn't count."

A completely idiotic comment, since the person who will keep us in Iraq for sure is McCain and Clinton is most likely to get us out.

Shocking idiocy.

Dennis and the Anons. Thank you for your pithy comments.

Careful chaps. You should read Alistair Horne on the Algerian war. de Gaulle was expected to continue the war when he went to Algiers and changed his mind.

The horror I express is that a Democrat president might be bamboozled by the DoD into being unable to withdraw.

This is why I referred to the power struggle between Lloyd George and the Generals.

For further illumination you might try Charlie Wilson's War which gives a picture of the way Jimmy Carter was undermined by the gung ho types.

To remind you of Professor Coles opening paragraph

War turns Republics into dictatorships. The logic is actually quite simple. The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush, gutting the constitution and allowing the American Right to start referring to him not as president but as 'commander in chief' (that is a function of the civilian presidency, not a title.)

Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.

So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field.

That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship achieved not by coup but by moral laziness.

 
At 2:24 PM, Blogger MonsieurGonzo said...

imho, it is quite likely that the Administration / Republican Party will do something politically handy just prior to the U.S. general election: it will be either a tokenized "withdrawal", spun to the American media as a re-deployment; or, an attack on IRAN (which could actually be manifested inside IRAQ, within the de facto Zone d'Occupation Iranien).

The latter is preferable, politically... even if it is nothing more than a smokescreen (because, in fact the Americans cannot simply "withdraw" from IRAQ, even if they desired to do so: they will have to fight their way out). . .

. . .because the troops, themselves ~ after months of being corralled in Baghdad, hunkered down in entirely defensive = passive positions, with nothing, really to do other than defending themselves, not the Iraqis; or serving as S.W.A.T. -like Military Police, or even worse, dumbed-down Security Guards ~ our once fine assault troops would probably cheer any attack or action that would restore their lost sense of purpose. And the American people, about to cast their votes, can revel in this now familiar media re-run, the uber-Nationalism flag-waving phantasy Fog of Old Glory: “If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain: You will have entertained us.

imho, the most fascinating thing about ‘IRAQ’ is that the troops sent over there, serving two, three or more tours ~ will have never, really "been to IRAQ"... in the sense that they are forever confined to "base", a kind of ‘Levittown’ anthropological petri dish of American culture, in which little, if anything Arabian or Persian, etc., exists. iow, the most ironic thing about The Occupation, professor is imho that the Americans "occupy" only their own bases; they are entirely impotent defenders of Iraqi peoples, of whatever ethnic origin, tribe or gender... more akin to ‘War Tourists’ than warriors. Were it not for their day-to-day struggle to supply themselves and protect the mates within their own squad-level groups, i imagine that ‘IRAQ’ and ‘The Mission’ remain as much a mystery to many of them as it is a mystery to us just Why The Hell we keep sending them Over There, over and over again, sans raison.

 
At 2:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark says it - that is the truth

 
At 5:02 PM, Blogger Steve said...

C'mon, Dr. Cole,
Bush in not abdicating to his General any more than he abdicates to the Iraqi puppet government. Petraeus is a yes-man for Bush. Bush is "abdicating" to the guy who is doing his bidding. The bottom line is the war will continue as long as Bush is president. Petraeus has gotten the memo.

 
At 5:26 PM, Blogger Joseph Sixpack said...

Professor Cole,

What do you make of Sistani's latest comment that Sadr should disband his militia?

 
At 6:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Raed Jarrar on why both Iran and the US are supporting the same players in Iraq

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19717.htm

 
At 4:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dick Cavett writes:

Memo to Petraeus & Crocker: More Laughs, Please

Once again it is time to bid aloha to that sober team of mirthless entertainers, Petraeus & Crocker.

It’s hard to imagine where you could find another pair of such sleep-inducing performers.

I can’t look at Petraeus — his uniform ornamented like a Christmas tree with honors, medals and ribbons — without thinking of the great Mort Sahl at the peak of his brilliance. He talked about meeting General Westmoreland in the Vietnam days. Mort, in a virtuoso display of his uncanny detailed knowledge — and memory — of such things, recited the lengthy list (”Distinguished Service Medal, Croix de Guerre with Chevron, Bronze Star, Pacific Campaign” and on and on), naming each of the half-acre of decorations, medals, ornaments, campaign ribbons and other fripperies festooning the general’s sternum in gaudy display. Finishing the detailed list, Mort observed, “Very impressive!” Adding, “If you’re twelve.”

(As speakers, both Petraeus and Crocker are guilty of unbearable sesquipedalianism, a word wickedly inflicted on me by my English-teaching mother. It’s one of those words that is what it says. From the Latin, literally “using foot-and-a-half-long words.” We all learned the word for words that sound like what they say — like “click” or “pop” or “boom” or “hiss” — but I’m sure the mercifully defunct Famous Writers School surely forbade using the “sesqui” word and “onomatopeia” in the same paragraph. (You can have fun with both of them at your next cocktail party.)

But back to our story. Never in this breathing world have I seen a person clog up and erode his speaking — as distinct from his reading — with more “uhs,” “ers” and “ums” than poor Crocker. Surely he has never seen himself talking: “Uh, that is uh, a, uh, matter that we, er, um, uh are carefully, uh, considering.” (Not a parody, an actual Crocker sentence. And not even the worst.)

These harsh-on-the-ear insertions, delivered in his less than melodious, hoarse-sounding tenor, are maddening. And their effect is to say that the speaker is painfully unsure of what he wants, er, um, to say.

If Crocker’s collection of these broken shards of verbal crockery were eliminated from his testimony, everyone there would get home at least an hour earlier.

Petraeus commits a different assault on the listener. And on the language. In addition to his own pedantic delivery, there is his turgid vocabulary. It reminds you of Copspeak, a language spoken nowhere on earth except by cops and firemen when talking to “Eyewitness News.” Its rule: never use a short word where a longer one will do. It must be meant to convey some misguided sense of “learnedness” and “scholasticism” — possibly even that dread thing, “intellectualism” — to their talk. Sorry, I mean their “articulation.”

No crook ever gets out of the car. A “perpetrator exits the vehicle.” (Does any cop say to his wife at dinner, “Honey, I stubbed my toe today as I exited our vehicle”?) No “man” or “woman” is present in Copspeak. They are replaced by that five-syllable, leaden ingot, the “individual.” The other day, there issued from a fire chief’s mouth, “It contributed to the obfuscation of what eventually eventuated.” This from a guy who looked like he talked, in real life, like Rocky Balboa. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Who imposes this phony, academic-sounding verbal junk on brave and hard-working men and women who don’t need the added burden of trying to talk like effete characters from Victorian novels?

And, General, there is no excuse anywhere on earth for a stillborn monster like “ethnosectarian conflict,” as Jon Stewart so hilariously pointed out.

What would the general be forced to say if it weren’t for the icky, precious-sounding “challenge” that he leans so heavily on? That politically correct term, which was created so that folks who are legally blind, deaf, clumsy, crippled, impotent, tremor-ridden, stupid, addicted or villainously ugly are really none of those unhappy things at all. They are merely challenged. (Are these euphemisms supposed to make them feel better?) And no one need be unlucky enough to be dead or hideously wounded anymore. Those unfortunates are merely “casualties” — a sort of restful-sounding word.

(I have a friend who would like the opportunity to say to our distinguished warrior, “General Petraeus, my son was killed in one of your challenges.”)

Petraeus uses “challenge” for a rich variety of things. It covers ominous developments, threats, defeats on the battlefield and unfound solutions to ghastly happenings. And of course there’s that biggest of challenges, that slapstick band of silent-movie comics called, flatteringly, the Iraqi “fighting forces.” (A perilous one letter away from “fighting farces.”) The ones who are supposed to allow us to bring troops home but never do.

Petraeus’s verbal road is full of all kinds of bumps and lurches and awkward oddities. How about “ongoing processes of substantial increases in personnel”?

Try talking English, General. You mean more soldiers.

It’s like listening to someone speaking a language you only partly know. And who’s being paid by the syllable. You miss a lot. I guess a guy bearing up under such a chestload of hardware — and pretty ribbons in a variety of decorator colors — can’t be expected to speak like ordinary mortals, for example you and me. He should try once saying — instead of “ongoing process of high level engagements” — maybe something in colloquial English? Like: “fights” or “meetings” (or whatever the hell it’s supposed to mean).

I find it painful to watch this team of two straight men, straining on the potty of language. Only to deliver such . . . what? Such knobbed and lumpy artifacts of superfluous verbiage? (Sorry, now I’m doing it…)

But I must hand it to his generalship. He did say something quite clearly and admirably and I am grateful for his frankness. He told us that our gains are largely imaginary: that our alleged “progress” is “fragile and reversible.” (Quite an accomplishment in our sixth year of war.) This provides, of course, a bit of pre-emptive covering of the general’s hindquarters next time that, true to Murphy’s Law, things turn sour again.

Back to poor Crocker. His brows are knitted. And he has a perpetually alarmed expression, as if, perhaps, he feels something crawling up his leg.

Could it be he is being overtaken by the thought that an honorable career has been besmirched by his obediently doing the dirty work of the tinpot Genghis Khan of Crawford, Texas? The one whose foolish military misadventure seems to increasingly resemble that of Gen. George Armstrong Custer at Little Bighorn?

Not an apt comparison, I admit.

Custer only sent 258 soldiers to their deaths.

 
At 8:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting: Nobody dares to Israel card in the whole mess!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home