How Long Can US Hang on in Iraq?

I've recently written, and debated on Mahablog, about my sense that the Democrats won't make a move to "own this war" until sometime after November 2008. The Democrats will stay in Iraq even if they take office in 2008, and won't get to choose when combat operations stop.

Then, I made a counter-argument to my position, debating the other side. On the April 23, 2007 Flashpoints radio program, Former CIA analyst McGovern said:

We may be able to have permanent military bases for a year or two, it's not going to be possible to keep them. It's just not possible in this day and age to invade an occupy a country the size of Iraq with 140,000, or if you put in 500,000 it still wouldn't work.

He cites 1.3 billion "ticked off" Muslims, porous boarders, and General Petraus's book on counter insurgency.

Today, we read that a rocket attack on the Green Zone "killed four Filipino contractors working for the U.S. government." We also learned that this "was the third straight day that the zone was hit by rockets or mortars, heightening concerns about security in the area." And we all remember, on April 12, DemocracyNow and others reported:

An explosion has been reported inside the Iraqi parliament building in Baghdad. There are early reports at least two Iraqi parliament members were killed and others injured. The blast took place inside a cafeteria where Iraqi parliamentarians were eating lunch. The parliament building is located inside Baghdad’s heavily-guarded Green Zone.

Cafeteria Bombing in Green Zone

Car Bombing in Green Zone

Hmmm... Bush sends 20,000+ additional forces to secure Baghdad, and there are "heightening concerns" about security in the most secure part of Baghdad. I'll grant it makes sense to have more US casualties during this surge, but one would think there would be more security. If the US is counting on attrition to turn the corner, they might want to get more fingers to count on.

If the Democrats wait just a little longer, according to McGovern, the insurgency might do their job for them. I think they're going to wait until at least November 2008.

Sources:

4 killed in Green Zone rocket attack, Associated Press, May 2, 2007, THOMAS WAGNER.

Photo Credit: This famous picture is the supposedly the property of Corbus-Bettman Archives. It was originally a UPI photograph that was taken by an Dutchman, Mr. Hugh Van Es.
~

Mini US Military Coup Slows Rush to Attack Iran

On February 13, 2007, the US experienced a mini military coup.

On February 11, 2007, the White House engineered a press briefing in Baghdad to announce that Iran was supplying sophisticated armor piercing explosives being used against US soldiers in Iraq.

On the 13th, Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace under cut the White House's now-famous Baghdad briefing. Pace effectively said, yes, weapons made in Iran are entering Iraq. But he said that he was unaware of any evidence that the Iranian government leaders made decisions to provide those weapons. This military statement contradicted the civilian White House message in Baghdad, and thus was a mini military coup.

Since then, the Pentagon has muddied the waters on this subject to give General Pace plausible deniablity in staging a mini coup. Pace's statement had its desired effect, and the coup was successful. The media started saying the White House was "back tracking", and the White House had to move into damage control mode, spinning the briefing to say that the anonymous military briefers had overstated the case. That spin is not credible, because the White House had crafted the briefing, going as far as to delay it:

The briefing was being carefully monitored by the White House -- which had postponed it twice previously. National security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters on February 2: "The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated. And we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts."

In short, the military has learned it cannot trust the White House. It's a frightening time when the stability of the United States depends on military coups because the civilian leaders are out of control.
~

We're Heading for Surge and Iran Unless the Public Speaks Out

Last night as I watched the president's address, I took a couple notes.

Seek out networks in Iran and Syria

Limited diplomacy surge with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, omitting Iran and Syria.

Glen Greenwald was struck by the same point. He urges everyone to pay close attention to Bush's intentions toward Iran in the days and months ahead. Aside from Bush's argument of "disrupting networks" and pre-empting potential Iranian nuclear ambitions, there is pressure to attack Iran.

In short, Busch can't continue occupying Iraq, because it incites unacceptable violent resistance. Bush can't leave, because his failed mission would increase Iran's power in the region with great influence over a Shia-dominated Iraq. So, where does this leave him? It leaves him with the option of attacking Iran to weaken that nation before leaving Iraq. Unfortunately, the Democrats face the same reality.

Another point struck me:

Bush committed 4,000 more troops to Anbar Province.

My count was 20,000 in Baghdad and 4,000, but today's papers cited 21,500. I had expected Bush to focus solely on Baghdad, but he at least has the "sense" to recognize the troubles extend beyond Baghdad.

Another point struck me:

Capital investment funding for jobs

Bush been one step behind at every turn of this war. He commits more troops, when it's too late. He adopts a socialist job-creation policy, when it's too late. It's too late for reconstruction projects because it has become too dangerous to do the work. How long will it be until we hear "A bomb blast ripped through a line of people applying for jobs....." "The Iraqis were killed by small arms fire while working on a....." "A mini bus with eight Iraqi reconstruction workers was riddled with gun fire...." as if this isn't already happening.

Another political reality is that the Democrats have nothing to gain from withdrawing support for a troop surge. If Democrats withdraw funds and authority for troops, they can be blamed for what ever happens there after. Thus, it's in their political interest to let Bush have enough surge-rope with which to hang himself.

Given these "realities," the US is almost certain to surge the troops, and attack Iran, beyond the covert military operations already underway in Iran.

The only way to avoid this is for the US public to demonstrate a historically high amplitude of opposition to these two acts. The first step is for everyone concerned to immediately write and call their elected officials. I've done it, and it feels good to talk to a human. Ask them if they're receiving similar calls. If so, ask from which side of the issue they're receiving more calls.

Congressional Contacts:

Write the US House of Representatives
Write the US Senate

Then, voice the same opinion to local and national media outlets.

Media Contacts:

Write the Major Media Outlets
.