Anger Management

I’m not quick to anger, but I’ve been doing a slow burn since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Aside from those who listen — my friends, my son, who all share my sentiments — this blog is my outlet to vent.

It seems as though each time I hear some war defender make excuses for our continued presence in Iraq, the fuse burns down a little more. The latest is from the lips of John McCain, in a Senate debate over an amendment to require that troops be given at least as much time at home as they spend in Iraq. McCain said, in opposition, that we would risk the entire region descending into the same kind of chaos that now exists in Iraq.

Well hell’s bells. What I see here is an argument for an extended presence in Iraq. Like… forever? And the second aspect of McCain’s line of thinking that added to my slow burn (the first being his opposition to equal time at home for troops) was the nagging feeling that the entire Iraq exercise was an underhanded, devious way of establishing our presence in the Middle East.

As has been said, there are no good solutions to this mess — only bad and worse ones. It is a sad truth at this point that withdrawing our troops may expand the chaos, and that the alternative — raising troop levels to numbers sufficient to properly prosecute this disaster — is not feasible. In his own dumb way, George Bush will be the only one to come out of this a winner. True, he will probably go down in history as the worst president of all time, but he has one major triumph under his belt — dividing the Democratic party and leaving it the hopeless task of cleaning up after him.

Pegging the Bullshit Meter

As the war in Iraq has worn on, much is often said about the need to train the Iraqi army. Only when the Iraqis themselves can take care of their security will American troops be no longer needed.

When this was first mentioned as an excuse for remaining in Iraq — oh, what… sometime after the first year maybe? — I thought to myself, the US managed to train a damn fine Armed Forces in a much shorter time following the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, good enough to go on the offensive on two fronts.

So there we have it. It’s taking longer to train the Iraqi army than it took to fight WWII following US involvement. What’s wrong with this picture?

As a separate but not unrelated item of interest, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan wrote in his new book that the war in Iraq was all about oil. Well, duh… This is why we went in, and this is why we remain. I’ve touched on the relationship between this war, our foreign policy in general, and our thirst for oil in earlier posts, including in my thoughts about global climate change and our energy policy. Not only have we wasted many thousands of lives, we’ve spent a half trillion dollars on this war. Imagine having invested that much in alternative energy research and development.

It’s Still the War, Stupid

Writing about the Iraq war is like scratching an annoying rash — it feels better for a minute, but it doesn’t make it quit itching. Nevertheless, it’s my periodic vent, so bear with me.

I suppose what most boggles my mind is that there are still many Republicans who continue to support the war and that it was a good idea from the beginning. It’s only fair, of course, to remind everyone that most Americans — and most in Congress, Democrat and Republican alike — were gung ho for the war at first. I wasn’t, and I wish I was on record. I was among the unpatriotic few who thought it was stupid, who believed Saddam Hussein, evil though he was, posed no threat to the US. I also thought that Saddam Hussein, evil though he was, provided some stability in an otherwise volatile region by being a foe of Iran. I thought that every argument for the war put forward by the administration was pure baloney.

I do not hold it against most Americans for getting caught up in the hysterical post-9/11 hue and cry for vengeance. Congress gets some blame for not asking harder questions, but I wouldn’t replace every Democrat who went along with it because too many of them are otherwise good Democrats who I prefer keep their seats. I do hope they learned their lesson, though.

The fact remains, though — it’s still Bush’s war. And if he thought it would be the cakewalk Dick Cheney described back then, it’s become something more diabolical now — a trap for Democrats. Which is why I continue to urge the Democratic candidates for president to unify their message where the war is concerned rather than attack one another. As many have acknowledged, their are only bad and worse answers to the problem. As the situation their continues to unfold, it makes little sense to present various plans of action for late January, 2009. By then, all of Iraq might be in flames, in all-out civil war. The best any candidate can do during the campaign is to promise to work with other nations to try to repair the damage caused by the Bush administration. It has to be that way because we won’t be able to do it alone — nor should we. We might be the leader of the free world, but we should not be the world’s policeman.

Iraq is now, of course, a quagmire, a recruiting poster for terrorists, a drain on precious resources of life, wealth, prestige and credibility. It has made the world a more dangerous place. We are in no way engaging terrorists there who might otherwise be attacking the US. Bush’s remark, “It’s better to fight them there than to fight them here ,” is laughable. It’s very unlikely that terrorists with an eye on US targets are messing around in Iraq — with a few exceptions the tactics there would not apply to attacks here.

Iraq can and should be the unifying message for all Democrats in the next election. Democrats need a strong majority in both houses of Congress, and a wise president to lead. And I continue to believe that the best Democratic candidate for president is still not in the race.

The Blame Game

There are still Iraq war apologists out there who just don’t get it. We must stay, they say, because Al Qaeda is there and we must pursue Al Qaeda wherever it is. In their minds, Iraq is the focal point of the war on terrorism.

The reality, of course, is different. Despite administration claims during the run-up to the war, there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, nor was there a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Al Qaeda has emerged in Iraq now only because we’re there. What we have done, contrary to our supposed goals, is help to expand terrorism rather than shrink or eliminate it. We have bolstered the terrorists’ incentive to wage their war against us, and made the world a more dangerous place. And, by ourselves, we’re not equipped to fight this war — certainly not as the Bush administration has chosen to fight it.

Al Qaeda is now decentralized, with bin Laden more of an inspirational figurehead than a strategic leader. With our help — complicity, perhaps — he has accomplished what must have been a significant goal for him. Essentially, George Bush has been his greatest ally in his war against us.

There is no easy solution. It’s no wonder that Democrats quarrel among themselves about what to do. While the war in Iraq might be a disaster for which many share blame, it is nevertheless this Republican administration’s disaster — and yet, there’s little doubt that many Republicans are sadistically gleeful for the dilemma they have created for Democrats.

The Bush years must go down in history as an era of great sorrow, during which the United States has impoverished itself of not only many young lives, but its wealth and world stature as well. What was once an imposing military has been reduced to virtual helplessness, given a mission that is clearly law-enforcement rather than military in nature — after all, armies were conceived and created to fight armies, not small cells of insurgents.

Where the war is concerned, the logical campaign strategy for Democrats is NOT to attack one another but to remind Americans that they are left with a problem that may be unsolvable, and that the Republicans have NOT earned the right to try to solve it. It’s not a stay-or-leave issue — it’s figuring it out. It’s foolish to demand of either the candidates, or for that matter Congress now, to present a plan. The only plan needed now is to sit down and figure out how to undo the mess created by George Bush — and for that we need an administration and Congress that are not at loggerheads with one another.

The Mess

There may be a better word to describe the Middle East these days, but “mess” will do for now. It is, and will always be, the legacy of one George W. Bush, who was not the people’s choice for President in 2000., but who became president anyway, and went on to prove that his résumé up till that moment was a forecast of things to come.

When describing the presidency of George W. Bush, it’s hard to know exactly where to begin looking when searching for that first failure that would set the tone for all the failures to come. For the moment, let’s focus on that one daily intelligence briefing of mid-August, 2001, when the president was vacationing in Texas — the one that warned of possible Al Qaeda plans to hijack airliners within the United States, the one that was apparently ignored. What followed was 9/11, and what followed that was the almost universal clamor within the US for revenge.

The invasion of Afghanistan was hard to argue against, since that was apparently where the brains behind 9/11 were holed up, with the support of the then-ruling Taliban. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, was a lot easier to argue against, considering there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false as well, was otherwise no justification for an invasion, since many countries already possess such weapons, and we’ve yet to invade a single one of them. But few vocalized opposition to that invasion because of the clamor — including a lot of members of the Senate, who are now struggling to defend their vote, or publicly disavowing those votes.

We always say we want our elected officials to listen to us, so in one way I suppose they can’t be blamed for giving the President what he wanted. Apparently most of the American people wanted it too, at the time. Those voicing opposition were tagged as unpatriotic by the administration, a charge that was picked up by the media and echoed by the public. Always with the next election on their minds, Senators voted with their fingers crossed.

Now of course they wish they hadn’t, but it’s too late. We have the mess — which is still, when you come right down to it, Bush’s mess, despite our complicity. And now we have a country divided on just how to clean up this mess — and Democratic candidates waging ugly primary campaigns against each other as a result.

Candidates, I’m here to tell you today that now is not the time to fight amongst yourselves. There is no easy solution to Bush’s mess. We can’t accurately predict the consequences of remaining in Iraq, nor can we accurately predict the consequences of withdrawing. Either choice could result in continued chaos… more mess. What’s important is to unite behind the theme that it IS Bush’s mess, that it doesn’t matter any more who was a sucker in 2003, and that at this point ANY Democrat would be better than ANY Republican, for a variety of solid reasons. Make your pitch, and let the primary voters decide. Just stand united. I’m already disgusted by the Bush-led Republicans… becoming disgusted by the Democrats will truly dishearten me.

In his book Bush on the Couch, Dr. Justin Frank did a thorough job of psychoanalyzing George W. Bush. His conclusion — that the man wasn’t fit to be president, that he needed counseling badly. However, one didn’t need a PhD to be able to come to that conclusion — and many of us did so, even before the 2000 election. We are now suffering the effects of this man’s damaged mind.

I usually have clear opinions about most issues. I can tell you how I think we should address climate change or the health-care crisis. I can tell you how I think we should fix education. But on Iraq, I’m at a loss — and I think most sound-thinking people are as well. The best solution is impossible — going back in time and undoing it.

Sometimes I think I would like to go to a place untouched by the news of today’s tragedies, but I’m afraid such places have no indoor plumbing and I’m too used to that.

What Was the Mission, Harry?

Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote, in a Huffington Post entry, that “The mission in Iraq has changed and, therefore, so must U.S. policy change. Troops should not be policing a civil war. The current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution.”

He’s right that troops should not be policing a civil war, and that the conflict requires a political solution. Whether one is possible remains to be seen. But our men and women shouldn’t be in the middle of it. If we’re determined to help Iraq, let’s work with Iraq’s neighbors to solve the problem. Then, once the violence ceases and relative stability returns, let’s work with Iraq’s neighbors and our European allies to help rebuild Iraq.

Now, back to Reid’s remarks. The mission has changed? From what? Was the original mission to make civil war possible? Well, if so we’ve succeeded wildly. So, mission accomplished. There is no more mission.

Responsibilities

America’s treatment of its troops returning from Vietnam wasn’t very welcoming. It was our first experience with a truly questionable war though, and we weren’t sure how to handle it. From that sad past we’ve learned something, and today while most Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq for its failure from inception to execution to aftermath, we are at least not placing the blame on the troops.

But listening to a story on NPR about returning wounded troops the other evening gave me pause. One young soldier being interviewed said that he’d volunteered to serve in Iraq. He suggested that the relative merits of the war did not affect his sense of duty.

Americans have a responsibility to know the truth. Our very democracy depends on it. And right now the truth is, as we know it, the war is wrong, probably even illegal, certainly immoral. The reasons given for waging war against Iraq were false. I no longer buy the possibility of flawed intelligence. There was at best conflicting evidence, and one simply does not wage war, putting lives on every side at risk, unless the cause is beyond dispute. This administration permitted no dispute.

I have great sympathy for the men and women who were sent to Iraq before the truth was known. I have great sympathy for those National Guard members who never bargained for the missions they were assigned. True, when one signs up, one must be prepared for anything. But one also has the right to expect that the civilians in charge of their fate will act responsibly.

But as the truth of the administration’s behavior emerged, the post-9/11 hysteria for action, for revenge, should have been replaced by anger and disgust. Even though I was personally skeptical of the administration’s claims as it prepared the nation for war against Iraq, I suppose people can be forgiven for their patriotic fervor. When war was declared against the Axis, men signed up in droves for their country. But there’s nothing patriotic about signing up to fight a war that should not be fought. And I would wish that those still eager to sign up to fight in Iraq would allow themselves to be enlightened, and wage their own silent protest by staying away from the recruiter’s office. Stay away until this mess is resolved, until sanity returns to the White House. Then, and only then, offer yourself up for your country. After all — it still needs you. It just shouldn’t waste you.

What War?

They keep referring to this mess in Iraq as a “war” — and they know who they are. So I ask, “What war?”

Who are we fighting? The terrorists? I don’t think so. We’re really not fighting anyone. See, in a war there are usually two sides, one side against the other. Take WWII, for example. It was us (the Allies) against them (the Axis). In Iraq, there seem to be sides, but WE’RE not against either one of them. It’s as if the British had sent large amounts of troops over to the United States during our Civil War and milled about with guns a lot, not taking sides, but… what? Trying to force the North and the South to stop fighting? To stop killing one another?

Like we would have listened?

We had no business going to Iraq, and we have no business staying. Sure, it might get worse if we leave, but it might get worse if we stay. In fact, it probably will. If the aim of terrorists is to suck us deeper and deeper into this Civil War, they are succeeding if we even remain, let alone send more troops. If their aim is to weaken us, to deplete our military and human resources and treasury, they are succeeding.

And if they view George Bush as their most effective ally, they are correct.

Crying Wolf

Does the administration actually expect anyone to believe the so-called intelligence that says Iran is supplying weapons to the Shiites in Iraq? Let’s not forget that the intelligence supporting the invasion of Iraq was either flawed, fabricated, or tailored to suit the president. Bush and his circle of neocon hawks had their heart set on invading Iraq. Who knows if they actually believed that Iraq could be transformed into a model democracy almost overnight. What’s clear is that the entire fiasco has made the Middle East more unstable than it’s ever been. In all likelihood, George Bush could not have done Iran a bigger favor than topple Saddam Hussein.

But is the Iranian government actually supplying the weapons claimed by the so-called intelligence? Apparently the intelligence materialized out of thin air, because so far no one in the administration is willing to attach their name to it.

Perhaps the Iranian government is involved. If it is, the administration has no one to blame but itself for the public and official distrust. We’ve already wasted thousands of lives and almost a half trillion dollars because of phony intelligence, and no one with half a brain wants to do it again.

Mistake After Mistake Results in… A Mess

A little over five years ago, the Bush administration made its first serious mistake. It ignored intelligence that warned of a possible major terrorist attack involving aircraft in the United States. And on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked several planes and crashed into New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon. A fourth attempt was thwarted only because brave passengers gave their lives.

The natural reaction was vengeance, and the administration obliged by invading Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, destroy Al Qaeda, and hunt down Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda still exists, bin Laden is still at large, and while the Taliban has been driven from power, it is still very much a force to be reckoned with. If there was justification at all in invading Afghanistan, the effort seems to have been wasted as the fledgling “democracy” is increasingly plagued by insurgent violence.

In 2003, after a vigorous public-relations campaign, the administration invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, Bush told America, and he was tied to the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks of 9/11. The war would be quick and casualties would be limited, and the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, ready to embrace the democracy we promised. Wrong on every count. The mistaken pre-war warnings were blamed on flawed intelligence, but what’s more likely is that they were based on fabrications, patched together for an impossible secret goal — a stable oil supply. But what’s evolved is a calamity beyond anyone’s worst fears.

Saddam was no doubt a cruel and vicious dictator, but he was also a stabilizing force in the Middle East. Iraq provided a necessary counterweight to Iran, which since the ouster of Saddam has become emboldened to exert its influence in the region. And what we have now is the result of all the administration’s mistakes — utter chaos not only in Iraq but in Lebanon, and spreading.

All these mistakes have been to perpetuate the biggest mistake of all — a foreign policy centered on securing the sources of oil, and the profits to be reaped from oil. We see pictures of the war. Try to picture a Middle East whose oil we didn’t need. Would all this be happening? I think not.