A nitpick, soccerdad: While I despise Michael Ledeen, unlike Bill Kristol and Newt Gingrich and other NeoCons, he has NOT been among those calling for attacking Iran. Rather, he has consistently taken the position that the U.S. has failed to support the internal opposition to bring down the mullahs, and that it should do so with vigor. That's what his "Faster, please" signature has always been about.
Otherwise, I'm pretty much in agreement with your essay.
Posted by Meteor Blades at December 20, 2006 08:50 PMEver since the strategerist-in-chief hammered open the hornet's nest in Iraq what has been accomplished is tribal warfare with the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as they fight to gain power of the remnants of the former nation of Iraq and the defeat of US military force to induce states to acquiesce to US demands. The genie is out of the bottle. The world has seen that the US military funded to the tune of what the next 20 largest armed forces combined budgets can be defeated by rag-tag militias with small arms, IEDs and guerrilla tactics in a state of anarchy. So what to do next to maintain US military deterrence and hegemony. Mass Butchery.
The Dumbya wants nothing else. Rather than causing fear and compliance this will unleash revulsion in the rest of the world and further bolster Islamic radicals hell bent on revenge.
Posted by ab initio at December 20, 2006 09:18 PMVery, very powerful stuff, but as an historian, I'm terribly afraid that it's right on target.
Posted by Brian Boru at December 20, 2006 09:23 PMOne of the problems with a "surge" of troops is that we've already had as many troops in Iraq (190,000 at the beginning of 2006) as we would by adding 20,00 troops to the 140,000 we have there now. If we couldn't "win" with that many troops at the beginning of 2006, how can we expect to "win" with the same number of troops now?
Posted by croatoan at December 20, 2006 09:43 PMSorry, 160,000 at the beginning of 2006.
Posted by croatoan at December 20, 2006 09:44 PMWht ld! t's nt mrc tht s wntnly btchrng ppl f dffrnt trb, nd th mlcs ls f th lft nly ncrs th lklhd tht th fnds dng s wll b mbldnd t sclt th crng. ncrsd scrty s ntndd t mtgt th ntrncn vlnc nt s s s flshly mschrctrzd t trmpl th hrds.
[Editor: ignore=off]Let's get this straight.
The Surge has nothing to do with changing the circumstances in Iraq. It is only designed to improve Bush's image in the United States.
The Surge allows Bush to look like he's "doing something" about Iraq. The corporate press/media will cover him "doing something" and will promote it as a good thing.
Bush and the Republicans get another chance to call the Democrats losers, weaklings and traitors if they don't let him do it. (NB - They will do that even if the Democrats do let him do it.)
The time required to do The Surge and the time required to determine if The Surge is working will give Bush two, maybe three, Friedman Units.
Bush is calculating that more dead Americans will produce a stateside surge in patriotism, feelings of revenge and hatred for Iraqis.
Bush, Cheney and Rove have been playing the same song since September 12, 2001. They do not know any other songs.
Posted by James E. Powell at December 20, 2006 10:05 PMIt's really a shame that no president took energy policy very seriously, since the 1973 Arab oil embargo. We should've learned then. Should've built more nuclear power plants.
Heck, we should do that now. The issues from nuclear waste material would be easier to solve than trying to bring democracy to the Middle East.
Who's with me?
Posted by muckdog at December 20, 2006 10:12 PMmuckdog,
Jimmy Carter took energy policy very seriously, but the American people did not want to hear about it.
They still don't.
The media blackout on all photographs of the war in Iraq has contributed greatly to an acceptance of the violence. Out of sight, out of mind. Although some Americans seem to have a great capacity for acceptance of violence, I am not convinced that most Americans fall into the catagory of being desensitized to the anguish of other human beings. The Bush Administration also know this very well. There would be no need for a media blackout of death and destruction, if the American people were desensitized to genocidal warfare and carnage.
Posted by Judith at December 21, 2006 01:30 AM
Energy policy? Isn't that a little OT? I mean, this is a thread about people dying because we invaded Iraq....don't tell me you think we did that because of oil. Our great and powerful leader has spoken and told us it was to bring the glorious gift of democracy to the Middle East...nothing to do with oil.
Posted by ann at December 21, 2006 04:45 AMmucktroll, since 1973 we have had twelve years of Democratic Presidents, and 21 years of your GOP presidents. Whose with you??? apparently not the Republican Party you hold so dear.
Posted by T2 at December 21, 2006 06:35 AMIncreased security is intended to mitigate the internecine violence...
Ummm?
Isn't 'increased security' to 'mitigate internicene violence' what Saddam Hussein was providing before we removed him from power?
Posted by snark at December 21, 2006 07:30 AMShould've built more nuclear power plants.
For the cost of 1 nuclear power plant, $6 billion dollars, 400,000 people can put photovoltaics on their homes and go off grid. The estimate is we need 400 nuclear plants to meet all electricity needs. That means 160 million homes could be off grid for the same cost of NEW nuclear plants. Consider that there are only 125 million housing units in the US, and the cost of retrofit to photovoltaics drops to 1/4 it's current cost due to economies of scale...you can draw your own conclusins.
Energy independence from nuclear? The United States imports 40% of it's uranium fuel. That would have to increase greatly with more nuclear power plants. Only 8% of electrical generation comes from oil based sources, about 1/2 is in peak load generation. You can't fast start a nuclear plant.
Nuclear power generates 20% of our electricity. We waste 20 - 40% of the electricity generated each year. The Japanese use about 40 - 60% less electricity than we do because of conservation. Lots of ways to get energy and save energy. Until the mid 80's, wood burning for heat generated more energy than all of the nuclear plants in the U.S. combined.
Who's with me?
Fools and the uneducated...and conservatives. It fits the conservative ideal. The promise is cheap and efficient power. The reality is bloated budgets and cost over runs, corporate enrichment at the cost of the environment, and 50 tons of nuclear waste per year for each new plant built. Yeah, the conservative dream! Money funneled from the poor and middle class to enrich a few and leaving shit around that kills us all. The conservative dream!
Posted by phidipides at December 21, 2006 08:05 AMI agree that Plan Dirge (if agreed to) will likely keep the troops in our little recalcitrant colony until the Deadeye and Nero jr can hightail it out of town. To that extent it's politics.
But for those who think it's just about politics, make sure you start visiting Col. Patrick Lang's blog Sic Semper Tyrannis. He makes clear that the Dirge means scraping up all available troops, whereever they may be in the rotation "loop", and throwing them into Iraq for a final confrontation with the "enemy"--Sunni guerillas and Mahdi Army.
He calls the resulting battle Stalingrad on the Tigris, because we will be throwing our entire available ground forces at the evildoers, strategic reserve and all, and if we fail to crush them, the Army and Marines will be broken, finis. A fight to the finish.
So, as Billmon says, the resulting combat, in civilian-choked cities, will be no holds barred, kill every suspected insurgent and Mahdi Armyman and their families and neighbors and let Allah sort 'em out. There won't be any television cameras, amigo.
This is what we have been transformed into by our press refusing to reveal Bush's incompetence and by Bushco playing on our fears, although as Soccordad says, this strain of violence against the dangerous "other" has long been a feature of our national psyche.
Who's going to stop the Commander-in-Chief from carrying out his last reckless, brutal throw of the dice? The military takes orders, and their institution will be on the line: "victory" or destruction. The generals will do as they're told and get "on board" with the program, despite their current opposition.
The Dems? They're looking united against the Dirge, but need a rout by which to block an insane president. The people? Happily shopping away.
Carry out this proposed Surge and we will be a nation of ignominy for generations, perhaps all time. People might want to pay attention.
Posted by euzoius at December 21, 2006 08:08 AMSnark points out the obvious......Saddam was in control of this before we invaded.
Posted by T2 at December 21, 2006 09:14 AMSaddam may have been in control but the human cost was terrible. Things may be worse now in most of the country (it is better in others - notably Kurdistan) but the majority of Iraqis would not want him back.
As for the massive slaughter of Iraqis - genocide on a terrible scale is almost certain if the US draws down or pulls out. It may even happen if we do not send more troops in. The original blown up reason for the war (WMD) is water long gone under the bridge. We must now prevent a bad situation from turning far worse - for the Iraqis, and for ourselves - the invasion of Iraq may be a dreadful stain on America but genocide caused by a heartless withdrawal would be a moral wound that would haunt us forever.
Posted by InIraq at December 21, 2006 10:22 AMAs for the massive slaughter of Iraqis...
Much better to have the small Hadithas and cluster bombs? Make Iraq nothing but tent cities? And I really have to wonder why 30% of the military in Iraq are reporting mental health issues? What's going on with that?
Saddam may have been in control but the human cost was terrible.
We're in control, the human cost is greater, and we destroyed the society. You can paint it as you wish, it sucks for the Iraqis under American control. America is responsible for it, not the Iraqis. We destroyed their military, police and bureaucracy and expected everything to just go on as normal. Sorry, even an idiot could tell you anarchy would result.
You want a solution? Get as many former military and bureaucrats back to work as possible. Americans have proven we cannot solve the problems of that country.
Posted by phidipides at December 21, 2006 05:05 PM"the invasion of Iraq may be a dreadful stain on America but genocide caused by a heartless withdrawal would be a moral wound that would haunt us forever."
Glad to hear someone sensible here.
George Bush got America and Iraq into this mess which resulted death of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. Yet, the American media only focuses its attention on the American soldiers who've died. But at least the American soldiers have families and a country that mourns their deaths. No one cares about the Iraqi's. Now if the Democrats decided to leave, there will be mass scale genocide and thousands more innocent civilians will die. While the insurgents will be slaughtering these people, the Republicans and Democrats will debate whose fault it is without doing anything to help quell the violence. Ultimately they will decide to blame the Iraqi's, and everything will be forgotten in a few years.
Bravo America!
Don't expect the world to side with you when the soon to be superpowers (EU, China and India) finally stand up to you.
Most of us ONLY know about Iraq that which we read online and in the press,so why does the Western media always state as an absolute that if the occupying forces leave Iraq there will be a bloodbath? Isn't there a good chance that the citizens of Iraq might come together to rebuild their country once the despised occupiers hightail it out of their country?
Posted by grascarp at December 21, 2006 06:24 PMIsn't there a good chance that the citizens of Iraq might come together to rebuild their country once the despised occupiers hightail it out of their country?
Only 71% of the Iraqis want us gone. We are waitng until 100% want us gone, but we'll only leave if we get to keep the oil.
Posted by phidipides at December 21, 2006 09:26 PM