More Make Believe from the Democrats: Benchmarks by which to Blame the Iraqis

Democrats seem to understand that they have public support to extract the US from Iraq. They're getting some good press today with Associated Press reporting, "Democrats not backing down on Iraq Bill." They also seem to be considering Congressman John Murtha's idea of limiting the duration of funding through July, contingent on "benchmarks" that the Iraqi government is to achieve.

It's the later part that is generally suspect. True enough that Iraqi's aren't showing the "resolve" necessary to solve the "problems" in Iraq. But the unraveling of Iraq's society is due predominantly to US policies. Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin knew in advance we were going to war on false pretenses, and now hides behind false notions that he was sworn to secrecy and couldn't divulge that fact:

I was angry about it. [But] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy." Durbin went on to say "We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress.

That, as we all know, is BS. Durbin is also sworn to protect the Constitution against all foes, external and internal. Ray MacGovern, who's getting a lot of air play on this blog reacted to the Durbin blather as follows:

Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents, OK? And so, he should have come out and said, “Look, this is not what I’m hearing in the Intelligence Committee. Hold the presses. We’re not going to go to war until I get satisfaction.” He didn’t do that.

And now we're in a war, and Iraq is taking the brunt of it, and these same Democratic politicians are saying Iraq needs to meet benchmarks? As predicted predicted by Robert Fisk and Gary Younge, the US Iraq exit strategy is going to be "Blame the Iraqis." "Oops. They didn't meet their benchmarks for resolving their problems. We gotta go. Sorree." It's pathetic. More make believe by the Democrats.

Sources:

References to Durbin and McGovern from DemocracyNow, May 1, 2007.

misspellings: Durban, bench mark, ray macgovern, secracy
~

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.
~

Mission Accomplished?

.


Four years and counting....

A look at the Iraq war timeline gives a sense of perspective on this.... place it side-by-side with the Vietnam war time line and one gets a sobering perspective.

We won't be leaving Iraq any time soon:

First, the Democrats don't want to own this war. If they "succeed" in forcing a troop withdrawal in the next year or so, they risk being blamed for what happens thereafter... just in time for the November 2008 elections.

Second, the Democrats understand the concept of a power vacuum. They understand that Iran is poised to fill a vacuum in Iraq. You don't hear Democrats talking about removing the "enduring" bases from Iraq. When they secure the White House, US troops will remain in Iraq for a long time.

It's worth noting that former CIA analyst and briefer Ray McGovern thinks I'm wrong on this (who are you going to listen to, me or a CIA analyst with 26 years of experience?). On the April 23, 2007 Flashpoints radio program, McGovern said not to worry about "enduring" US military bases.

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.

Finally, it must be said that there's the public mission, and the covert mission. Many speculate that the unstated mission in Iraq accepts, possibly fosters, the chaos. Why? "I'm a war President." Attorney General Gonzoles says a war president has additional executive powers. If peace broke out in Iraq in 2004, how would the US justify continued dominance of decisions in Iraq? (yea, it's a sovereign state). "Mission Accomplished" might better be measured by the pending petroleum law and other corporate-friendly laws instituted in Iraq.
~