Mission accomplished (take two)!

I have never read of a man who applied such flawed logic, so long, and on numerous occasions, as the American president.

Reuters story from earlier this week:

President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he had no regrets about the unpopular war in Iraq despite the "high cost in lives and treasure" and declared that the United States was on track for victory.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion with a touch of the swagger he showed early in the war, Bush said in a speech at the Pentagon, "The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable."

With less than 11 months left in office and his approval ratings near the lows of his presidency, Bush is trying to shore up support for the Iraq campaign, which has damaged U.S. credibility abroad and is sure to define his legacy.

All we've got to do is stay the course folks, we're almost there!

First step towards Iraqi political reconciliation?

BBC News:

The Iraqi parliament has passed legislation allowing former officials from Saddam Hussein's Baath party to return to public life.
The US had been urging Iraq's Shia-led government to approve the move in a bid to reach out to minority Sunni Arabs.

It will allow thousands of former party members to apply for reinstatement in the civil service and military.

The new law was passed as US President George W Bush, who is in the Gulf, said hope was returning to Iraq.

Now they have to find a way to get all the experts and bureaucrats who either fled or are in hiding to come back and help repair Iraq. De-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi military were two major mistakes made early on by the US government. The Baath party may have been heinous, and it may have provided for the rise of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, but the loss of officials from the previous government not only created a power vacuum but left the US with few experienced politicians to work with.

Turkish incursion in Iraq

Threats abound as Turkey continues its assault against the Kurdish rebel group, the PKK, based in the relatively stable Kurdish area of Iraq.

Turkey can use different tools for fighting the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, including diplomacy, economic and military means as a last resort, [Turkish Foreign Minister] Babacan told reporters. ``All options are on the table.''
...
Babacan called for ``friends' support'' against the PKK, a separatist group, designated terrorists by the U.S. and the European Union, fighting Turkey from bases in northern Iraq.

The US cautioned the Turks not to meddle in Iraq's affairs; but Turkey stated it was only defending itself after recent — and long-running — terrorist attacks by the PKK. Iran has used this incident to play the 'good guy' card, championing diplomacy and its neighbor's right to security, while making America look all the more foolish for telling Turkey it cannot fight its own 'war on terror'. Opinions remained mixed. Turkey says that fighting is the only option left — which tells us a lot about the (failure of) diplomacy in matters relating to Iraq, and not just with America's foes (Turkey is an ally).

The 'surge' effect (part 3)

This is the final installment (for now) in the The 'surge' effect blog post series. This post focuses on the political effects of the term "surge". See also Part 1, which focuses on the origin of the "surge", and Part 2, which looks at the word's connotations.

In part, the press is to blame for the entrance of "surge" and "war on terror" into the mainstream. As the previously-mentioned CJR article says,

It’s the prerogative of any president and his spinners to play this kind of word game. But the press has a responsibility not to be taken in by it, to be able to separate out an explication of a thing from the sheen the administration places on it. The consequences are extreme. Look at the “war on terror.” The press, for the most part, absorbed this descriptive term and used it uncritically for the last five years. But, as Jacob Levenson wondered in the pages of CJR two years ago, “It’s reasonable to ask, for instance, that if the war on terror had been called the war on Islamic extremism, would the American public have supported the invasion of a country, like Iraq, with a secular government? Similarly, had it been called the war for global democracy, would the Patriot Act have become law? What if it hadn’t been called a war at all? Journalists, in other words, must resist employing political jargon — it tends to shortcut analysis in favor of mobilization.”
...
[The] “surge” has become, in the last few weeks, part of the public discourse on Iraq (i.e., as one anonymous Republican strategist told the New York Times, “They’re going to cast it as a choice between withdrawal and surge”). The word has the benefit of seeming active, strong, and quick - a surge is a lightening strike, over and done, the opposite of, say, a quagmire. The other advantage is the other words that “surge” replaces, like “escalation,” with its Vietnam-era connotation."

Since that article's publication in November, "surge" has appeared less and less within quotes as it enters the mainstream, like "war on terror" did years ago — and it has made a difference in the Iraq debate in the United States.

In January 2007, progressive blog Think Progress compiled a list of news articles, mapping out the use of "surge" in the mainstream media. What began in November 2006 as a description for a "temporary" elevation in American forces in Iraq eventually defined a long-term Iraq war strategy. As the article noted, the media "has continued to use the term "surge" even though its definition has fundamentally changed." But does the spin of "troop increase" to "surge" really make a difference in the eyes of the public? A CBS News poll dated around the time that the "surge" buzz peaked showed that 45 percent of Americans were in favor of the "surge" (aka troop increase), and 48 percent opposed. The same survey said that a mere 18 percent of the public were in favor of increasing the number of US troops in Iraq. From those numbers we can infer that just a simple change in wording can result in a difference of 27 percentage points, thus the prevalent use of the term "surge" does work in the White House's favor.

In the closing of his essay "Politics and the English Language", George Orwell writes, “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” The Bush administration is using that political rhetoric to justify many of its policy decisions, especially when war is involved. Even though the "surge" isn't actually a surge, it will be continued to be used by the news media, political pundits, and some policy-makers, all to the benefit of the White House. Like "war on terror", "surge" is political language at its finest — for those who benefit from its use, that is. However, the labeling of the long-term battle against terrorism as a "war", associating that "war" with the one in Iraq, and the long-term troop escalation and operation in Iraq as a "surge" could all come back to bite the White House. The public might expect the "war" to end like any other and will be skeptical of open-ended plans (i.e., the fear instilled by declaring a war against terror will evaporate and impatience will replace it), and will want the "surge" to show fairly quick results. It is a surge, after all.

The 'surge' effect (part 2)

The tale of how the "surge" became the surge is similar to how the "war on terror" became the war on terror: the political language seeped into the mainstream as commonly accepted expressions. Once the media started using them, those political phrases dominated in the public arena. (Albeit, the 'war on terror' became much more commonly seen outside of quotes than 'surge', and its connotations and political effects have been stronger.) The term "surge" is more than just a neutral catch-phrase used by the White House and the media, though opposed by the Pentagon — probably on technical grounds. Rather, it is a variation of the Bush administration's newspeak and Iraq war spin.

Presently, the "surge" has gotten to a point where it isn't even within quotation marks in a news article, similar to what happened with the also politically-spun "war on terror". Unlike that "war", the surge has a less evident political bias in favor of the Bush administration. But still, says Gal Beckerman in a very informative Columbia Journalism Review article, words like 'surge' are worthy of labels of Orwellian proportions:

The Bush administration has aggressively refined the art of distilling any new initiative presented to the public into a single word or phrase that at once defines the idea while obscuring its various downsides. Orwell coined the everlasting expression for this: newspeak. The phrase “war on terror” is perhaps the administration’s crowning achievement in this realm.

With the post-9/11 "war on terror", the Bush administration created a public mentality of wartime and exploited those fears for its own political gain. The "war on terror" gained widespread usage and allowed the spin-doctors in the White House a great advantage: tilt the debate their way by using phrases like the one implying a global fight against an omnipresent terrorist enemy. In a war there are two sides, and if people didn't support Bush, so the logic went, then they must support the terrorists. The same thing applies to the "new way forward" and the "surge". If one doesn't support the plan, isn't one against progress? The "war on terror", of course, isn't a real war. But presenting it as one allowed the Bush White House more political power and popularity.

How is using the term "surge" any different from "troop increase" or even "escalation"? Surge implies a short-term effort that produces an effect, not connoting the dryness of 'troop increase'. A surge not only suggests an increase numerically. Surge sounds positive, and its definition implies upward movement, a rush of progress. A linguistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, George Lakoff, argued against the Bush administration's "framing" of the Iraq war debate for its own benefit: "The word "surge" indicates a short-term increase in force that has an effect and naturally goes back to its previous level. . . . To use the word "surge" is to subscribe to Bush's misleading frame." Furthermore, using "surge" in place of "troop increase" doesn't directly remind people of the fact that more men and women in uniform will have to be sent to a place where reports of deaths flow into the news stream daily. "Surge" also sounds a bit like "insurgent", linguist Deborah Tannen notes. The need to take one's mind off of the fact more soldiers will be sent to Iraq and remembering that the fight is against the insurgents and terrorists is a reminder the White House never ceases to vocalize, making "surge" the ideal word for its Iraq plan.

On the other hand, "surge" could actually imply a hike in the number of troops sent to Iraq, something Americans are hesitant about. A surge of progress, or a surge of American lives to be lost? The word at least carries a subliminal effect, which explains why few have questioned its use to represent such a unpopular policy. Some in the public may not even realize the political connotations "surge" and other political catch-phrases carry. "New way forward", on the other hand, is obvious in its connotation. "Stay the course" is a warning to those in the anti-war fringe to stick to the plan, or things will get much worse in Mesopotamia, not to mention the terrorists will win. Those "defeatists" who want the terrorists to win are accused by the White House and GOP of advocating "cut and run". By and large, the White House uses the propaganda-esque "new way forward", the media uses the spin-worthy "surge", and the Democrats use either "surge" or the slightly negative-sounding "escalation" to describe the increase of 21,500 US troops in Iraq.

See also: Part 1.

Blackwater kicked out of Iraq

The security contractor was ordered by the Interior Ministry of Iraq to leave the war-torn nation following reports that it used excessive force in a battle in Baghdad that took the lives of at least eight civilians. However, the private defense firm's close ties to the United States government and various legal complexities may prove to be obstacles for those who want Blackwater gone.

TPMmuckraker:

A Post reporter on the scene in Mansour witnessed Blackwater's Little Bird helicopters "firing into the streets."
...
Unlike other private U.S. security firms in Iraq, as of May, Blackwater hadn't registered with the Iraqi government to operate in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority -- the now-defunct occupational government -- issued a decree in 2004 (pdf) immunizing security contractors from Iraqi prosecution and placing their operations under the jurisdiction of U.S. authorities.

Blackwater — which basically operates a large, private militia payed for by the US — has a history of poor conduct. And since it cannot be held to Iraqi law, its workers have gotten away with a lot. In addition, the secretive and controversial firm has been accused of vastly overcharging the US for its services. Like other corporate giants with suspected ties to the Bush administration, Blackwater has been hired through many no-bid contracts.

Bush's appeasement plan for limited withdrawal

As expected, President Bush announced Thursday night that 5,700 US troops will be pulled out of Iraq by Christmas time, following the advice of his military commanders.

President Bush appealed to the nation in a prime time address on Iraq Thursday night -- his latest effort to buy time for his Iraq War strategy and shore up support among Republicans who have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of political progress and stability in Iraq.

The president framed the Iraq conflict as he has in the past, as a key component of a broader war against al Qaeda and Islamic extremists.

So basically Bush's eighth address to the nation on the Iraq war was nearly 17 minutes of recycled rhetoric...

These are superficial changes to appease the increasingly discontent public of America and Iraq. Bush wants to show that he's in charge and he is listening to military advisors as well as popular opinion. This partial-withdrawal plan is, however, deceptive.

Bush's plan is to withdraw five brigades by mid-July -- approximately 23,000 troops, leaving about 137,000 U.S. troops in place by next summer.

While Bush portrayed the redeployment as a troop withdrawal, there will actually be 7,000 more troops in Iraq next summer than there were before Bush deployed additional forces to Iraq in January as part of a troop surge plan to quell sectarian violence.

With spin mode activated, Bush said that as more 'progress' is made, more troops can leave Iraq. This is a way for him to stick to his existing, if questionable, line that progress is being made and also looking like he is bowing to the wishes to experts and the general public alike. He is trying to court the more — for lack of a better word — moderate (naive), on-the-fence anti-war forces in the US with a move like this. Perhaps he can even get the moderate forces that aren't totally against the war to be angry at the stronger anti-war forces' demands for more withdrawal. Some appeasers will argue that Bush has pledged some measure of troop pullout, and we should take what we get. It depends, in part, on how his own Republican Party reacts to this news: will they paint it as a real step forward, or not a step at all?


We will have to see if this "return on success" plan is actually successful, at home and in Iraq. If all goes wrong, we do know who the administration will blame for future failure in Iraq: the 'defeatists' at home, the al-Qaeda terrorists (which actually comprise a very small amount of the extremists in Iraq), and Iran, the king of diabolical meddlers.

See also...

See here for more on this week's Petraeus-Crocker report on 'surge';

See here for some Iraq security statistics.

Bush's support could mean death for Iraqi leaders

Among the reasons people don't want to align themselves with Bush: death

BBC News reports:

A key Sunni ally of the US and Iraqi governments has been killed in a bomb attack in the Iraqi city of Ramadi.
Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, 37, led what was known as the "Anbar Awakening", an alliance of Sunni Arab tribes that rose up against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

US President George Bush met and endorsed the sheikh last week in Iraq.

The White House, which has held up the movement in Anbar province as an example for the rest of Iraq, condemned his assassination as "an outrage".

Abu Risha's assassination will be a severe blow to the "Awakening" in Anbar, says the BBC's Hugh Sykes in Baghdad.

This could be a blow to the progress in Anbar, as well as the stability the Bush administration has said the 'surge' has brought to Iraq. Was Abu Risha killed because of his opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq, or because he carried George Bush's seal of approval? Is the White House's model province about to see more disarray?

By dividing groups by sectarian lines, perhaps the US is partially at fault for provoking more of a nationalist rise. Then again, the killing of leaders who have ties to the United States is not a good thing at all. If the fear the perpetrators of such killings hope to bring works, ties to moderate forces and outside parties will be severed and extremist support will be on the rise.

Let's hope political leaders aren't shaken enough by killings like that of Abu Risha to abandon their causes and the people trying to help, or more imbalance in favor of the extreme will come. Unity and cooperation among forces, not division between sects and isolation from the moderates, need to be stressed for the rebuilding of Iraq. Handshakes shouldn't be a reason for murder.

Warning signs: Iran and Iraq invasion parallels

FP Passport has a great post about the similarity between American rhetoric preceding the invasion of Iraq, and the current stance increasingly being taken by Bush administration heavyweights.

For at least a year and a half, a dangerous conventional wisdom has been percolating within the foreign-policy community and it is this: America ain't gonna attack Iran. Whether ignoring familiar warning signs or waving them away, most mainstream analysts are towing this line, too. ... Too bogged down in Iraq. Just talking tough to Tehran. The generals won't let it happen. These are all convenient forms of denial, and the foreign-policy establishment and media appear to have bought into them big time.

Nukes plus state support of terrorism, where have we heard that argument for invasion before?

No nuke strikes
Even if we're all a bit naive about the chances of it happening, a heavy military attack on Iran would ultimately be neither politically nor strategically feasible for the United States. I wouldn't be suprised if some clandestine work was already under way, though. As common sense has reasoned and studies have backed up, attacking Iran because of its nuclear desires could easily be counter-productive. That would be all the support President Ahmadinejad, whose popularity is falling more every week, would need to continue his weapons program and it would 'support' his claims of American evil. In addition, the blowback from such an attack would be immense, and not just from Islamic terrorists.

Ruined chances, four years back
Washington had a chance to settle at least part of the Iran-US dispute back in 2003, a year after the country's nuclear programs were unearthed. Iran put forward a proposal that included making its nuclear program more open and no longer backing extremist groups like Hezbollah; in return the US would have to help fight some anti-Iran terrorist groups.

Newsnight found this out this a little while ago:

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.

In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.

Back to today
Meanwhile, the situation with Iran's nuclear program seems to be getting worse. How far can diplomacy goes until everyone gets frustrated? Germany and the EU are increasingly stubborn about sanctions — a tactic which I myself question — and the hawks and neocons on Capitol Hill, Republican and Democrat alike, are painting Iran as the Reich of the Mideast, with Ahmadinejad as Hitler (fitting, considering the intense anti-semitism); Barack Obama even proposed possible strikes on the country! Iran-bashing has also grown popular with those seeking someone to blame for the failure in Iraq (i.e. the White House); the blame should be targeted more thwards Washington then Tehran.

Keep in mind, however, that Ahmadinejad is not the top man in Iran's minutely-democratic theocracy — Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say. Radical as he may be, I doubt he'd lead his country into complete war. Plus, he hates nukes.

As if things were not complicated enough, there's also the matter of oil...

technorati tags: iran

'We will be treated as occupiers'

If only America's leaders could have foreseen the contempt — at home, abroad, and even in the country they 'liberated' — their long-term presence in Iraq would bring.

BBC News:

The US should reduce its troop presence in Iraq so as not to appear an "occupying force", a key 20-member US security commission has recommended.

The panel of retired police and military officers told the Senate that Iraqi forces should be replacing US troops by early next year.

But the report also warned Iraqi troops would not be ready to take over fully within the next 18 months.

It also said the Iraqi police force was ineffective and should be scrapped.

The report is the latest in a series to be considered by the US Congress as it debates the Iraq war.

This is another September report on United States progress in Iraq. A GAO study also came out recently; the mother of all reports will be presented to Congress by the lead US commander in Iraq Gen. George Petraeus and US ambassador to the nation Ryan Crocker on Monday.

The White House is hoping that the "surge", the subject of the Petraeus report, will work or is working, if not in reality than in the minds of the public (i.e. even if it doesn't actually help the conditions on the ground in Iraq, people would think so thanks to the ample spin echoing from the press briefing room).

American policy in Iraq has been making many headlines lately; I expect more and more pressure will be mounted on the Bush administration from politicians, including from the Republican Party, as well as the American public, nations abroad, and the Iraqis. Will President Bush be forced to the international diplomatic table? Will he have much leverage left or many people willing to cooperate with him by then?

Update
According to a wide-scale BBC World Service survey, most of the world's people want the United States out of Iraq soon.

The 'surge' effect (part 1)

The 'surge' effect: how one word shaped the politically-charged national debate on Iraq in the United States.

How did "surge" become the de facto term for "troop increase"? Why is that semantic change politically significant? To answer those and other related questions, one must explore the origins and effects of the "surge" — a part of the "new way forward" for "success" in Iraq and the "war on terror". The use of the term "surge" in place of "troop increase" is a way for the George W. Bush administration and its political allies to give a more positive spin on what is really an increase in American troops deployed to a dreary arena of war — Iraq. The common use of "surge", and its entrance into the mainstream media (and even this blog), displays parallels to what happened with the phrase "war on terror" in the months after 9/11.

Finding the exact origin of "surge" is tougher than it sounds. It seems that the word first had prominent usage in mid-December 2006. In early January 2007, the phrase gained even more popularity. Speculation about President Bush announcing a plan for an increase of American troops in Iraq reached its peak around January 9th, and a day later the president finally announced his plan for a "new way forward" that had been months in the making. However, he did not once use the word "surge" in his Address to the Nation that day. The "surge option" as we know it was first discussed in a New York Times article by David Cloud on November 21st, two days after an article reported Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) hope for a "short-term surge" (he had been pushing for a similar strategy since August). Articles prior to that, notably Thomas Ricks' November 20th scoop, often spoke of a "short-term" troop increase to be recommended to the White House by military experts.

The godfather of the so-called surge option is neoconservative Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank close to the White House. When interviewed on On the Media about the allegation that the White House is taking advantage of the contradictory "surge", he said that his plan entitles a sustained surge of sorts, a long-term effort — not the kind of action people take the word to mean; he blames the media for being misleading and using the term "loosely". Was the "surge" an invention of the media, not a political tool of the White House? The answer is unclear, but what is known is that the Bush administration definitely took advantage of the word and its connotations.

F is for failure (in Iraq)

The long-awaited first in a series of (predictable) September benchmarks paints a disappointing but not surprising picture of Bush-supported Iraqi government.

Washington Post:

The Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of the 18 political, economic and security benchmarks it set for itself, and violence remains high despite the U.S. troop surge, the Government Accountability Office reported today.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Comptroller General David M. Walker, who heads the GAO, painted a mostly grim portrait of the Iraqi government's progress ahead of a crucial report due to be presented next week by the top U.S. military commander and the U.S. ambassador in Iraq.

"The government is dysfunctional," Walker told the panel in response to a question. He noted that 15 of the 37 ministers in the cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have withdrawn their support for him and that there are "significant" problems with the capabilities of remaining ministries.

Formally presenting a GAO report that Congress requested on the benchmarks, Walker said the Iraqi government has met three of the 18, partially met four and failed to meet 11. The benchmarks, based on commitments the Maliki government made in June 2006, were inserted in U.S. legislation authorizing emergency war funding. Under the legislation, the administration must report on progress in achieving them.

As could only be expected of the Bush administration, the White House has criticized the GAO report.

General Petraeus, the leading commander in Iraq, is due to release an even more awaited report later this month — 10 September — outlining the military situation in Iraq following the thus-failed 'surge'. (If need some ways to not think about the Petraeus report, see The Daily Dish.) No matter what the report says, the reaction to it is pretty predictable: 'Why are we fighting this war?', 'How can there be progress when there's failure?' — rhetorical questions abound. I doubt the Senate will ask too many meaningful questions; the Republicans will, for the most part, try to make the war sound a bit cheerier than the Democrats and the Democrats will fill their quota of empty emotional blather.

How do you solve a problem like Iraq? Withdrawal and the country descends into total proxy wars and anarchic chaos; stay and the extremists have a rallying cry against the 'Western occupiers'. Withdrawal equals more terrorism; staying equals more terrorism. Hmm, I'll leave the decision to the highly-competent policymakers on Capitol Hill (*cough*). Or there could be an international force and a massive rebuilding and political reconciliation program that include all major international actors and Iraq's neighbors...

Well, you know some superficial, perceived, or rhetorical policy shift is being planned in the West Wing when President George W. Bush makes his third ever visit to Iraq.

The Abu Ghraib scandal continues

The continued scapegoating in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse case.

The acquittal of a US army colonel on charges relating to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib means no officers have been found criminally guilty.

The episode stained the reputation of the US military and may well have acted as a recruiting agent for insurgents.

Virtually all senior members of the US military have gotten off scot-free. From what I know of the case, Maj-Gen Miller should be punished for his major role in the human rights abuses (i.e. torture) at various United States military-led prisons, including in Guantanamo and the now-closed Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Bush's Iraq-Vietnam comparison could easily backfire (like the war itself)

So Bush compares Iraq to Vietnam (sort of)... isn't that what many in the anti-war camp have been doing all along? And when you're trying to push victory in a war, I don't think Vietnam, largely seen as a military and political failure for the United States, is the best thing to cite.

President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.

"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.

The price of America's occupation was also payed by the lives of many, in both Vietnam and Iraq. (And what about the Cambodians bombed needlessly and the other casualties of the horrendous, often covert, US policy of the Cold War?)

Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.

Patience, or the unneeded costs — in a humanitarian as well as a monetary sense — and blowback wars like Iraq and, notably, the old Soviet war in Afghanistan result in, not to mention loss of political face at home and abroad for those on the losing end(s) of such wars.

President Bush had already made a connection between the US-led occupation of Iraq and the Cold War-era Vietnam conflict in October of last year.

A sketchy connection of past conflict to present conflict
Semi-neocon Christopher Hitchens disputes the Iraq-Vietnam link, offering plenty of contrasts between the Iraq and Vietnam wars, which I myself have my reservations about. In a way, one can compare the Cold War against 'communism' to the global 'war on terror'; Vietnam and Iraq were major fronts of those 'wars', respectively. They both have ideologically-driven parties involved — one might say Saudi Arabia and Iran are Iraq's China, etc., during the Vietnam war. However, the parties involved in the current Iraq conflict are even more of a blur, and at this point America is fighting insurgents while trying to get Iraq to be able to walk with its own too.

Another shared trait of both wars is the unorthodox guerrilla warfare used by the insurgents/communists. Then again, things are much more wishy-washy in Iraq and there is no one enemy. Also Iraq fell with Saddam; America never fully conquered Vietnam (the north ended up taking the south).

Bush's logic that the 'terrorists' will take over Iraq just as the communists did in Vietnam has plenty of holes. For example, just the fact that there is no one group of insurgents hurts his argument. In addition, his new comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, mostly in a domestic political sense, makes it all too easy for those on the other side of the spectrum to argue that Iraq is a failed war, like Vietnam, and even the president who has constantly pursued the war can make that connection.

Not apples to apples
Iraq is complex. With so many outcomes, and so many parties involved or allegedly involved, the policy debate will no doubt rage on in Washington and Baghdad. Iraq can be compared to Vietnam. But it's not a comparison where all the common traits — or at least enough to make a good case — match up.

There are plenty of other comparisons and non-comparisons of the Iraq war to Vietnam, but saying Iraq 'is' Vietnam or saying the reverse (i.e. 'it isn't at all') gets a but too absolute. Things are not that clear cut. Jumping to polar extremes is one of the things that got the United States into this Mideast quagmire in the first place. Hopefully others won't make similar errors in their logic.

UNI: UN in Iraq

While Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) remains a strong negative — albeit over-hyped — actor in the country, maybe the UN will be a positive one.

A united force in Mesopotamia?
About time the Security Council took action to widen the United Nation's reach in Iraq...

With a show of 15 hands, resolution 1770 was adopted unanimously at the UN Security Council, paving the way for a wider, political role for the UN in Iraq and a bigger presence inside the war-torn country.

The number of staff will only increase from 65 to 95 - a small but very symbolic step for the world body, which withdrew most of its 600 staff from Baghdad four years ago, in the wake of a massive attack on its headquarters.

Under the new resolution, sponsored by the US and the UK, the UN will now be authorised to help the Iraqi government to promote national reconciliation and regional dialogue on issues such as border security, energy and refugees.

It will also help settle disputes over internal boundaries - all tasks in which the US is seen to have failed so far in Iraq.

The Iraqis have welcomed the resolution, but said they realise the onus was on them as well.

This is relatively good news for Iraq. Borders, energy, and refugees are some of the biggest issues facing Iraq. They're also complex and often multinational issues that need to be dealt with on an international level, not by an incompetent occupier seen as imperialistic and out to steal Iraq's oil wealth (I think that notion was disproven long ago). Iraq's borders is a matter of security; foreign extremists and terrorists are seeping in through the borders daily to worsen the situation in Iraq. Energy is a political and economic issue. Iraq has many refugees; more and more flee the country every day and they are becoming a major focus for humanitarian groups.

Terrorists crossing Iraq's borders into the country, a lack of economic progress and energy insecurity, and the instability in Iraq and bordering nations caused by refugees (which also breeds extremism) all combine to make a very volatile and dangerous Iraq. All three fuel Iraq's civil war and each has its own area: security, economy/politics, and humanitarian. There is no magic fix, but the UN will certainly be able to work those issues out better than America. In addition, nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran launching proxy wars in Iraq and supporting terrorist movements may be dealt with better by the international diplomatic community — in conjunction with involved parties — than by the US.

Some questions about this symbolic move:

Will it increase international support and legitimacy for the US-led occupation?

Will the US really do its job in protecting the UN staff; will fighters target it or let it be to help their own political image?

Is it really as important symbolically as it seems?

Will it pave the way for more diplomatic progress on war-torn Iraq?

Will there be more expansion?

Are peacekeeping operations coming soon? Whose backing would they have? Is there enough support, money, and troops for an effective peacekeeping force? (The best case for the above question would be if peoples who Iraqis feel little animosity towards took a large role in the operations. Muslim-majority states like Indonesia were apparantly open to the option a while back, but since the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially Baghdad, has worsened, and America remains defiant of its occupation, that option is shrinking.)

The differences between Brown and Bush

Brown might be pro-US, but he is no Blair.

The world media still seems to be buzzing about the meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President George Bush. While they seemed to agree on many points, their disagreements — no matter how subtle; often on big issues — are coming to light. Bush views Iraq as the central front in the United States-led 'war on terror', whereas Brown sees Afghanistan as where the real battle against terror is and should be.

Iraq is no doubt full of terrorism, but only because of sectarian violence and foreign occupation. There are many factions, and so many battles. Terror networks via militia exist in both Afghanistan and Iraq and reach even to the national level (e.g. allegations of Saudi Arabia and Iran fueling some groups). But Afghanistan is the original site of the GWOT and the occupation there has the backing of the UN and NATO. Iraq, on the other hand, is much less straightforward and, contrasting with the reality of the occupation in Afghanistan, one can make the case that foreign soldiers being there does little in the fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is becoming a hotbed because of the war (blowback) — both the civil one and the one started in 2003 by the US and its allies; Afghanistan would be a terrorist haven regardless. Some view this blunt difference in priorities as Brown's way of appeasing Britain and wider Europe, vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.

Also on Iraq, Brown said that the United Kingdom will stick to plan and withdrawal troops regardless of whether the United States stays. However it does plan to stay there until the job is done. While the leaders are stressing unity, the fact that Britain intends to go its separate way from the US in Iraq is major. The British PM also opposes the language of a 'war' on terror and thinks a military fight against terrorism is not enough. I agree.

Another good move (away from Bush) Brown made was on terrorism. He rightly described terrorism as a "crime", compared to Bush's view that it is an act of pure evil and we must stop it even if we destroy the constitutional foundation of America in the progress and kill many. Brown is not the politicizer of terrorism his Atlantic counterpart is famous for being; I believed he handled the attempted attacks in Britain earlier this summer well, from both a political and a policy viewpoint. He also is right to be worried and want to take action on climate change; Bush couldn't care less.

In politics message, and thus language, is everything. Bush and Blair managed to illustrate their contrasting views pretty well without looking like they oppose each other absolutely.

[Bush and Brown's] words subtly illustrated, not policy differences, but their own policy priorities and approaches.

President Bush's language was, as always, full of phrases like "the war against extremists and radicals" in Iraq and around the world.

Prime Minister Brown deliberately described terrorism as a "crime", in an effort perhaps to demystify it and make it easier for everyone around the world, Muslims included, to oppose it.

And he tried to paint a more complex picture of Iraq by differentiating the factions - the Sunni/Shia split, the "involvement of Iran", the "large number of al-Qaeda terrorists".

However, as Mr Bush said, both agreed that this was "akin to the Cold War".
...
He called Afghanistan the "front line against terrorism," an honour normally assigned by Mr Bush to Iraq.

The British prime minister also referred a couple of times to the issue of "climate change". Mr Bush did not.

The point about Iraq and Afghanistan is that these are policies that Mr Brown inherited. This relationship has not yet been tested in the development of new ones.

The most difficult one could be Iran. Further sanctions are expected to be discussed at the UN in September but if there is no progress in getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, there could be pressure within the Bush administration for military action to be taken before the president leaves office in January 2009.

That would indeed be a test to see if the US and UK stayed together.

Brown also seems to be much more serious on humanitarian issues like Darfur than Bush, who limits his action on such issues to mere rhetoric (unless such issues might relate to his fight against terror, like in Somalia, then he'll even agree to indirectly work with/help the dreaded North Korea). Brown takes a special interest in world poverty and the plight of many in Africa; Bush cares only if terrorists may be involved, and even then the focus is not on the possible source of terrorism support: poverty, plight, and insecurity. Africa has plenty of that, and the Islamist extremists are taking advantage of that.

With all this talk of unity and strong ties, the leaders of America and the UK seem to have plenty of issues on which they disagree.

Bush is bad at excuses...

Deja vu, anyone?

President Bush is still in denial about the reality, in scientific as well as political realms. In this case, the denial is of the validity of his decision to stay in Iraq, and the conditions there. Al Qaeda as always proves a perfect scapegoat for when things go wrong (although they are no doubt inflaming the insurgency, alarmism and exploitation of people's fears of terrorism is not the way to go to rebut anti-Iraq war critics).

President Bush sought Tuesday to rebut critics who argue against a link between al-Qaida in Iraq and the larger terror network led by Osama bin Laden, issuing fresh warnings of possible attacks at home.

By emphasizing al-Qaida's growing presence and influence in Iraq, Bush again tried to reframe the war in the public's mind as a matter of protecting the United States.

Essentially he's saying what he has been saying all along: 'If you don't follow me and stick by my administration, the boogyman will come and get you and your children. Who, why, and how this terrorist will do that is secret, so I cannot tell you the specifics. Trust me, even when all rational thought and evidence is piled up against me... or else you're helping the terrorists win.'

See this post for more on Bush's flawed excuse for occupying Iraq. In my mind the only valid excuse left is 'to repair the mess we've created by invading and instituting poor policies' — not 'to finish what we started and take out the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 by combating them'. Wrong country; wrong mentality. The terrorists are there because of the insurgency, the insurgency exists because of a mixture of the inevitability of occupation and bad policies, as well as good ol' sectarian tensions.

Another high-ranking United States government official, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, is in a different kind of denial. He denies that he pressured previous AG John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized at the time, to engage in illegal wiretapping of American civilians in 2004. Isn't it amazing how Gonzales is still in office, months after he was supposed to be gone?

The White House's 'state of denial' is alive and well — which is not a good thing.

Iraq recap

Recap: Surging Iraq debate and a rebellious US Congress
The past couple days, my creative — or, gasp, political — juices have not been flowing as strongly. But the debate over Iraq clamors on, from Baghdad to Washington. A number of stories have featured Iraq as their primary topic, including:

A New York Times article on Bush's restatement of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. A sad defense for keeping troops there, which is the biggest Iraq-related issue facing America.

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

Alarmism is Bush's primary tool to use against a rebellious Congress. The current administration seems to see Congress as a mere, bendable, and nonexclusive constitutional technicality; a branch of government that shouldn't have the power to match the executive and one that surely should not have a say in the war — unless its in favor of Bush's policies, of course. (Maybe the 'unitary executive' people also view the Constitution itself as a technicality... "just a piece of paper")

The president acknowledged that public opinion might be against him — he said that “sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don’t enable you to be loved” — but suggested that Congress was overstepping its constitutional role by trying to force a change of policy on him.

“I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” Mr. Bush said. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.”

So essentially Bush thinks of Congress what old-fashioned, sexist husbands think of their supposed-to-be-submissive wives.

Are the 18 benchmarks set by the Bush administration to review the progress in Iraq also shambolic? Yes, says Fred Kaplan of Slate. The progress report has finally been released; but everyone is talking about September as the real deadline for progress, and to see whether President Bush's troop 'surge' plan has succeeded as he insists it will. See here for a full scorecard based on the interim report.

What do the experts think of the options the US has in Iraq? An expert at CFR explains in this interview the 'middle-ground' options, i.e. the ones besides pulling out immediately and continuing with the 'surge' status quo.

Stephen Biddle, CFR’s top military analyst on Iraq, says none of the various “middle-ground” proposals on Iraq are feasible. He says the only analytically sound alternatives are to either pull out now, or to stick with a revamped “surge.” The U.S. policy of seeking cease-fire deals in places like Anbar is working, Biddle says, but adds that it only has a “ten-to-one” chance of succeeding.

The New York Times issued a damning-as-usual editorial against Bush's latest Iraq decision.

Here's an article by the Washington Post's Peter Baker on the red-hot debate still heating up in Washington on Iraq. More of that infamous gridlock on the way?

Wil Robinson over at International Political Will points out the lack of humanitarianism resonating from the political Iraq debate... from both sides of the aisle.

On the topic of Bush, and still sticking to Iraq, The Economist published a leader on the president's partial pardon of Scooter Libby (see post), among his other presidential mistakes.

The past week has been a terrible one for America's embattled president. First, on June 28th, his own Republicans scuppered his cherished—and, in the view of this newspaper, enlightened and brave—plan to reform the country's broken immigration system, decisively blocking it in the Senate. Then a group of prominent Republican senators joined forces with the Democrats to speak out against his policy of reinforcing Iraq. And on July 2nd George Bush brought fresh waves of vitriol down onto his own head, by annulling the 30-month prison sentence given in June to a top White House aide, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for perjury and obstruction of justice.
...
Mr Bush's action serves to remind people of three of his weaknesses. One of them is his tendency towards cronyism, which led him to appoint a wholly unqualified friend to run the government's disaster-relief agency. The consequences were disastrously manifest during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Other examples include his failed attempt to appoint his own lawyer, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court. A second flaw is the hold that Mr Cheney appears to have over the man who is nominally his boss. The past few days have seen a series of articles in the Washington Post detailing the extent to which Mr Cheney has talked Mr Bush into bypassing all normal channels of debate to take questionable decisions.

A third effect of the decision, and perhaps the most serious, is that it reinforces the perception that Mr Bush sees himself and his cronies as above the law. Sometimes he has made this explicit, attaching “signing statements” to hundreds of bills sent to him by Congress asserting his right to interpret those bills as he deems fit. Sometimes he has done so covertly, wire-tapping Americans with no authorisation or permitting the use of torture with consequences felt at Abu Ghraib and in secret CIA prisons in black holes like Uzbekistan.

Perhaps, in the end, Mr Bush's decision came down to a simple calculation that he has little left to lose. He is not seeking re-election, his approval ratings can barely go any lower, and any hopes for legacy-polishing bipartisan co-operation with Congress seem to have evaporated. So why should Mr Bush not please his few remaining friends and placate his vice-president by springing the loyal Mr Libby? It makes a kind of sense, but a deeply troubling one. What else, one wonders, might so isolated a president do before he goes?

And finally the major political story on Iraq — besides the White House's spin-job on time being needed for progress there. America's House of Representatives voted in favor of withdrawal from Iraq. The bill will likely either be defeated in the Senate — which has a slimmer Democratic majority but, unlike last time, has more anti-Iraq-war-leaning Republicans — or will face an impending presidential veto, like what happened in early May.

The United States House of Representatives has voted in favour of pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by April next year.

The new legislation calls for the Pentagon to begin withdrawing combat troops within four months.

The vote comes despite President George W Bush's threat to veto any timetable.

Both the House and the Senate must pass separate legislation and then reconcile their two versions for a measure to be passed to the president.

Correspondents say the House of Representatives, controlled by the Democrats, is hoping to pressure the Senate to approve a similar timeline.

It is the third time this year the House has voted in favour of legislation to end US military involvement in Iraq.

One previous legislative push was vetoed by Mr Bush, while a second failed when the Senate voted twice against imposing a withdrawal timetable.

The final throes of the insurgency: two situations

Firstly, a short-term operation that looks to have an end and objective: the fight against Islamic militants who have taken hold of Islamabad's Red Mosque in Pakistan.

Pakistan's army says an operation to flush out militants from a mosque in Islamabad is in its final stages - 24 hours after troops stormed the complex

Of course the impact the Red Mosque fiasco will have on Musharraf's already, ahem, tarnished presidency will be interesting. The end of the siege, however, is in sight.


Secondly, Bush is asking for more time for the US military operation in Iraq as more and more Americans convert to 'defeatism' every day. Of course the 'surge' will finally start working and under Bush's wise leadership America will win the winnable "war on terror". No true benchmarks or oversight is needed — setting an "artificial" deadline would show that America has lost. It just needs more time, hmm...

Republicans are getting very antsy. However the chance of both parties working together — which seems like a foreign idea in the polarized political climate of today's Washington — is small (at best). Iraq has become the issue, and neither party has much of a solution, yet alone unity on it.

President George W. Bush on Tuesday brushed aside the criticism of fellow Republicans over Iraq and demanded the U.S. Congress allow his troop buildup more time to work.

Bush ruled out an immediate change in strategy, even though prominent Republican lawmakers like Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar have broken ranks and called for him to shift course on Iraq.

Defiant in the face of a frustrated American public and Congress, Bush said the 28,000 additional troops he ordered into Iraq have not been in place long enough to gauge results because the final wave arrived only last month.

The president defended his policy ahead of the release as early as on Thursday of an interim report expected to show mixed progress by the Iraqi government in meeting U.S. security and political benchmarks. The report, which is due by Sunday, is bound to fuel further debate about the war.
...
A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed on Tuesday that more than seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S troops from Iraq by April. Sixty-two percent said sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, the first time that number topped 60 percent in that poll.

The surge had time to work. Hell, even I gave it a chance. But Baghdad's security situation is as dire as ever. The "green zone" — normally a US-occupied oasis of security in a sea of violence — is becoming more red by the day. However we have overlooked some of Iraq's successes. Not all of Iraq is as bad as the wider central and southern regions and that is good — American, British, and other troops have done a fine job there and it's been overlooked. But the wider picture reveals an Iraq in turmoil at a nationally and often at a local level. Conclusion: A politically/strategically bottomless, downward-spiraling war with mixed (negative) support at home and abroad.

Oh yeah, and

Meanwhile, the White House threatened to veto the defense policy bill senators were debating, if it is amended to set a withdrawal date. The administration also threatened a veto of the bill for a provision it already contains, giving new rights to detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Delayed reaction

According to the New York Times, the White House may be mulling over the options for the (illegal) detention center at Guantanamo Bay after years of pressure from the UN, a plethora other bodies like human rights groups, and individual nations. It was disputed over such a meeting on the fate of Gitmo ever took place, and whether it was canceled by Bush or another administration figure.

Now the NYT is reporting that the Bush administration is rethinking its stubborn troop strategy in Iraq after unprecedented dissent from within its own Republican Party, which has led to one recent case of a congressperson switching to the opposition Democratic Party. President George Bush has denied that even any preliminary planning for a gradual troop withdrawal from the turmoil stricken Mesopotamian nation is taking place in the White House.

The Iraqis and their government seem to not think US forces leaving is a good idea yet. I do agree, but real benchmarks — not the imaginary, temporizing ones that the Bush administration has conjured up — need to be put in place and the military should focus on the 'hearts and minds' effort, which includes reconstruction and social aid, more heavily than the fighting. Winning hearts and minds will make the hard military effort easier and allow a feasible withdrawal plan, like the Polk-McGovern one or the Iraq Study Group's outline, to be carried out. It doesn't look like America will win, per se in a traditional sense (note this is not a traditional struggle), but at least it will come out more ahead than it will if it continues to loose the support of the Iraqis and the international community while depleting its hard power.

At the same time Bush should get off his high horse of poor Iraq policy the Democrats should stop and think about their reactionary, populist plan for withdrawal, or should I say plans: there is still no unity on Iraq except that what is happening now is not acceptable. If the people and their lawmakers really feel that way, then work out a plan, but not some political snowball to hit the other party with. The White House is far ahead of the Democratic-majority Congress. And the polls indicate that every time the Dems get into a nasty political scuffle with the White House, like with Gonzales or the current transparency and subpoena fight, and makes a big deal about the big bad White House their approval numbers tank. Congress is in more trouble than the White House, even if the latter has worse policies and is worse overall. Congress has more hearts and minds to win at home than it thinks — in that sense the Bush administration is fine. It may have low approval but its legislative counterpart is barely hanging on.

Why don't the Democrats cut the political knifing and move on to passing some good, solid legislation? Contrary to what its political advisers have been advising, taking real action usually looks better in the eyes of the public than inflaming an inter-governmental battle. The Dems seem to be carrying out their own battle plans, not the ones they were elected on. By the time the Democrats have their delayed reaction to what the voters want and what is right, it may be too late. Bush's delayed and still sub-sub-par reactions to climate change, Iraq, and Gitmo are bad enough — it's time for the Democrats to step up, even if that doesn't change their lamentable poll numbers.