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.
~

No Honeymoon with the Democrats

Steve Benen, of the Carpetbagger Report, wrote a good critique showing there was "No Honeymoon" between CNN and Democrats even before Democrats took power.

It stuck me as paradox. I agree with Benen's critique, yet I also feel it's appropriate that there be "No Honeymoon with Democrats." I feel that the stakes are so high, and the issues are so time-sensitive and fluid, we need to hold their feet to the fire immediately. I'll say a bit more on this after addressing the apparent paradox.

Honeymoons are defined between two amicable partners who are celebrating a union. So, it isn't appropriate to apply the term to the Democratic leadership and the corporate media. Upon reflection, I was agreeing with the Carpetbagger's critique of CNN's misuse of their FCC license, not the notion of a truncated honeymoon. Yet there's nothing new in Benen's critique, just another example of many. Cable TV's abuses of their privilages are actually far worse than most people think, as documented in Jeff Cohen's "Cable News Confidential."

The paradox is resolved by recognizing that Cable TV and the Democratic leadership don't have a relationship that could involve a honeymoon; however, the voting public, who helped bring the Democrats to power, could have a honeymoon.

Some people, about 70 activists including Cindy Sheehan who shouted down Democrat Rahm Emanuel the day Democrats took power, feel "no" honeymoon is appropriate at this time. An aside, I felt Barbara O’Brien, of Mahablog, carried on longer than necessary questioning the wisdom of Cindy Sheehan's demonstration directed toward Emanuel. Scroll Down to see the Thread. My primary criticism of O'Brien's perspective, that Sheehan's tactics were unconstructive, is that Sheehan is a symbol defined in great part by the corporate media. Focusing a critique on Sheehan plays into the corporate media framing of the peace movement, and isn't fair to Sheehan.

Back to the subject of justifying "No Honeymoon with Democrats." I'll be brief, recognizing more could be said. First, the Democratic leadership are part of the Discredited American Political Elite. Our society is sick and disfunctional. Democrats operate in a context of disfunction so deeply rooted in our culture that even good progressives are guilty of its perpetuation. We need to do everything we can to splash cold water on our collective faces and start breaking out of the grip of this downward spiral.

Second, we know the Democrats have increadible pressure from the commercial sector of society. We need to overcome that with pressure from the unwashed masses. The governing system is geared toward the interests of the plutocrats. I can say this having worked on the inside. Those on the inside absolutely need help from those on the outside. The Democratic leadership doesn't need a frigg'n honeymoon. Democratic politicians need the people to rise up and give them political cover. This will enable the politicians to take bold actions.

To that end, my recent essays have ended with contact links to Congress and the commercial mass media outlets. I'll continue that pattern here:

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
.