Tonight I want to begin my discussion of the Iraq “occupation” as of the sixth year of occupation and post-surge. Despite the fact it has been withdrawn from the headlines, in my view it is still the behemoth of a problem which it has been since the day it was begun. Before I get started, please check out my previous two posts regarding the Obama administration’s continuance of the illegal warrantless wiretapping of the previous President, and if you’re as outraged as me over this, please send the address to my site to others who might join in the “battle” to get this outrageous government intrusion into our lives STOPPED! Back to tonight’s topic: Post-surge Iraq. I will start by recommending Thomas Ricks’ book “The Gamble” which came out a month or two ago. This book gives the inside story of the “surge” and how it was initiated and the book ends with a discussion that you could title: so what.

There are many reasons why people are referring to the surge as being a success – especially Republicans, and more specifically members of the Bush administration who are doing everything in their power to influence the writers of history to give them a little slack after the pounding they’ve been taking since it became common knowledge that the Iraq invasion was an exercize in incompetence. There are two books that I’ve read detailing the “surge.” The first was called “The War Within” by Bob Woodward and it detailed the process Bush and company went through in devising the surge. The second book, “The Gamble” gives the perspective of the military leaders involved in implementing the “new” strategy. After reading both books and making inferences from the other available information on the occupation I believe that most of the claims of success regarding the surge are disengenuous at best and dishonest (surprise, surprise!) at worst.

First of all, my take is that the idea of the surge came about out of pure desperation after some military people – especially a retired Army General named Jack Keane – finally convinced George Bush that we were “losing” and we were going to “lose” if we didn’t change our strategy. The first thing that had to happen was for Donald Rumsfeld to be fired as the Secretary of Defense. The more I read about the Iraq invasion and occupation, the more I feel that Rumsfeld should get some kind of accountability for all the death and suffering he is directly responsible for. I believe that Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were largely responsible for much of the thinking that proved to be absurd – and the fact that they both profited handsomely from this adventure – well, in my view, it will be a travesty of justice if they are not investigated for this – and held legally accountable where appropriate. Both of these men – it seems obvious to me – were right at the head of the class when it comes to who was authorizing the torture that so has destroyed the image of America around the world and so recklessly ruined the lives of many innocent Muslims who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Both of these men were clearly willing to sacrifice the principals that this nation was founded on for their own political whims – not to mention that both gained over $100 million dollars according to a book I read because of the increase in their stock holdings from companies they previously headed and gave lucrative no-bid contracts to during this fiasco.

I believe George Bush realized after the repudiation by the voters in 2006 how poorly he had been served by Vice President Cheney and therefore by Rumsfeld who was essentially put in place by Cheney as the Sec. of Defense. Probably the best decision Bush made, in my opinion, during his Presidency was choosing Robert Gates to replace Rumsfeld. About the time this was happening Keane and a small group of Army officers were lobbying for a complete change in “strategy” in Iraq and the result – much to the dismay of millions of Americans – was the surge. At the time it seemed like such an arrogant move by Bush – to increase the level of troops in the face of an election which clearly was determined by the American people wanting the troops to come home. In addition to the increase in troops General David Patraeus was put in charge of the overal military operation in Iraq. He had just completed a study on counterinsurgency which led to a totally different approach to how our troops would operate in the “field.”

Now, I’m going to explain why I believe the surge didn’t work. But, I have to point out right from the start of my explanation that I also believe if the United States had taken this approach from the beginning, there is a much better chance that they could have been successful. Of course, one of the things that I haven’t even heard discussed at all is what success would mean. For the first four years of the occupation the Bush administration threw the word “Victory” around as if that was enough for the American people to grasp. Even though they, themselves, couldn’t explain what “Victory” was. The implication, if you listened to the pro-neocon pundits, was that victory would be a stable, democratic Iraq which was independent of its neighbors (and the inference I got – giving us their oil! – of course that was never publicly admitted). The reality of the situation is that even the Iraqi’s say (several references to this in Ricks’ book) that democracy in Iraq is virtually impossible and our toppling of Saddam Hussein has enabled Iran to become a major “player” in the region – ultimately, Iran and Iraq are going to be “joined at the hip” and whether or not that leads to stability in the region remains to be seen (for those who think it’s a mistake for President Obama to be negotiating with Iran I believe they should take a realistic look at the impending Iran/Iraq alliance and how important that will be to our own interests in the region). During the surge the Generals redefined “success” as reducing the level of violence and providing real security for the Iraqi citizens who were living in a virtual Hell.

You can’t read Rick’s book (at least this is my take) without having high regard for the people in our military. While the debate rages on at home, these people have been doing a fantastic job, especially post-Rumsfeld. Personally, I blame the problems of the first four years almost entirely on the Bush administration and their incredible incompetence in directing the effort. And, I don’t think they suddenly became “competent” after Patraeus took over, I believe General Patraeus and General Odierno (the two “main men”) started to make decisions first and report to the Pentagon and the White House later. Also, I believe that Gates brought an entirely different attitude to the Department of Defense – I believe he will go down in history as a great Defense Secretary. The problem for all of these men is that George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, and others put them in a NO WIN situation. What they accomplished during the surge was to reduce the level of violence and change the attitude of the Iraqi people toward our troops. The Abu Ghraib scandal and much of what happened in the first four years of the invasion and occupation will probably never be overcome – but I was inspired as I read what they accomplished during the two years of this troop increase. And, I have to add that as one who has given money to Move-on.org – I really wish they would print an add apologizing for their “General Betray-us” add put out right before Patraeus testified before Congress in September of 2006. Patraeus kind of asked for that when he agreed to take the political lead on this, but the guy is so dedicated and honorable that I believe he deserves a public apology.

That being said, in my view, the “surge” has only put off the inevitable. Remember, the stated objective of the surge was to give a “breather” (my word) to the violence allowing the Iraqi government to negotiate with the insurgents in an attempt to solve the lingering political problems which still exist today (and might actually be worse because of the actions taken during the surge). Also, the Bush administration was still attempting to get the Iraqi’s to give us first “dibs” on their oil – remember, the architects of the original invasion were all “oil men” – and as far as I’m concerned it takes a person who is just willing to ignore the obvious to fail to understand the “real” motivation of Bush/Cheney et al. The success of the surge has been quantified by the reduction of American and Iraqi casualties. This is true, but remember, had the surge not been implemented, and had Congress withdrawn funds for the occupation (as I believe they should have) we would not have lost the 1000+ troops who have died since then and the 20,000+ who have been injured (and, of course, that figure doesn’t include all the PTSD cases and other traumatic mental disorders that may never be fully known). Additionally, this country would have saved almost half a trillion dollars which would be very handy right now (although they might just give that money to the Wall Street bankers ughhh). Based on the media coverage of the occupation you would think that it is over and we did “win.”

If you believe that, I hate to be the one to spoil your celebration (although, I am thankful that I haven’t seen any celebrating yet). Let me point out the falacy in thinking that we have achieved “victory” in Iraq. First of all, there has been no “coming together” of the different factions which threatens to tear Iraq apart at the seems. The Sunni’s and the Shia’s still hate each other, don’t trust each other, and want revenge against each other. The only thing that has changed there is that Patraeus and Odierno put our troops in between the two factions – actually moved them into the neighborhoods with the idea that we should be protecting the population (obviously what we should have been doing from day one). Prior to Patraeus stepping in as “number one” the Americans were stationed on their bases and they would clear insurgents out of neighbor hoods and then return to their bases – thus, allowing the insurgents back into the places they had just been forced out of. With the new strategy, the troops went in, cleared out what they called the “bad guys” and then stayed there. Actually living amongst the Iraqi population. This led to a change in how the Iraqi’s viewed our troops and it allowed them to hold the gains that they fought to achieve. Also, the “mission” changed from killing Iraqi’s to protecting them – as you can imagine, this was a welcome change from the perspective of the Iraqi population who were tired of Americans raiding their homes and neighborhoods, and then retreating to their bases in the desert. Prior to the surge there was little or no cooperation from the “good guys” because anyone seen to be helping Americans was likely to end up dead. This change in approach was one of the factors leading to a reduction in violence.

Probalby more important were two other factors, both of which have had a lot less publicity, but both being factors why I believe the surge benefits are only temporary. The so-called “Awakening” was (and is) a strategy where the Americans are paying Sunni Sheiks and former insurgents (many who were killing American troops) to take the fight to AQI (Al Qaeda in Iraq). As of the time I’m writing this, there are 103,000 former Sunni insurgents on the American payroll, costing us between $20 and $30 million per month. These guys are the ones who have brought AQI seemingly under control. They know who Al Qaeda is, where they are, and they don’t like foreigners in their country killing Iraqi’s – I guess the difference they see between them and us is that we can afford to pay each on of the “Sons of Iraq” – which is what they call themselves – $300 per month to not kill Americans anymore and to take the fight to AQI. There is not much discussion about this, but I believe it probably has more of an affect on the reduction in violence than the “surge.” The problem with this strategy – for the long haul – is that we have heavily armed these former insurgents and they still hate the Shia and the Shia still hate them – whether there can be reconciliation between the two groups is a BIG question – and according to Ricks’ book, HIGHLY DOUBTFUL.

The other factor leading to the reduction in violence was the “cease fire” ordered by Moqtada al Sadr – the Shia cleric who is now in Iran studying (or whatever they do) to become a “Grand Ayotollah.” From what I’ve read this is supposed to happen in about another year or two and I fully expect Sadr to return to Iraq and to make a push for power somewhat allong the lines of what Ayotollah Khomeini did in Iran 30 years ago. I believe the result of this will be an Iraq/Iran unification under the same type of Shia religious law that today exists in Iran. The end result will be Bush’s power play designed to get the oil of Iraq will enable one part of his “Axis of evil” to become a major power on the world scene. And, of course, how that turns out will depend on others besides Bush – he’s just managed to pass this HUGE problem on to his successor, President Obama and whoever might follow him. I believe this is a likely major problem facing the US for the forseeable future. The point here is that the “Awakening” and Sadr’s cease fire were probably more responsible for the reduction in violence than the surge. OK, if you’re wondering why I believe the gains of the surge are temporary, I’ll try to explain.

The Sunni’s in the “Awakening” have been armed by us to the point where they can cause a lot of damage if they decide to return to their insurgent ways. And, once we reduce our forces, if they don’t get what they consider to be fair representation in the Iraqi government, I believe the violence will be ramped up. Keep in mind, there are still over 2 million Iraqi’s displaced by this occupation and insurgency (many of them Sunni and former Saddam loyalists), and when these people start returning there is likely to be a lot of tension. Why, you might ask? Well, consider this – say there was a problem in our country where you felt for the safety of your family you needed to go to Canada for a year or two. For arguments sake let’s pretend it was a Christian vs non-Christian conflict. You come back home after peace is restored and the other side is occupying your house and tells you it’s no longer your house and says “Beat it!” I believe there are enough people who would be really angry if that happened that an increase in instability could be the result – in fact, in my mind it is likely.

And Moqtada al Sadr. If you’re not familiar with this guy there’s a book out with his name as the title, I can’t remember the author and I gave it to friends to read, and this book gives you a good idea of how the Iraqi’s “interact.” These guys are, for the most part, not very nice. And the idea of Democracy and cooperating amongst themselves and compromising with their opponents isn’t something they do well. If Sadr disagrees with you he is more likely to have you killed than to try to work it out. I believe the reason he had his militia “Stand down” was purely strategic on his part. He expects the Americans to be out of Iraq by the time he returns with the status which will allow him to take the role as the spiritual leader of the country – and when you read the book I mentioned earlier, he has a lot of revenge on his mind relating to the Sunni minority which ruled Iraq for many years under Saddam. His father and grandfather were murdered by the Hussein regime and I believe he is planning to exact revenge once he has power. For those who don’t think he is going to have power all I can say is that he’s got a following in the millions and he is very smart – he’s not planning to topple the Americans, but he fully expects them to be gone in two years or so (I believe this is why the American Generals want to remain with a large force in Iraq indefinitely).

Which brings me to my final, and painful, point of the evenings rant. General Patraeus, General Odierno, and others involved in the surge have gained a lot of credibility for their successes of the previous two years (and deservedly so, as far as I’m concerned). However, understandably they see things in the political realm from a purely militaristic point of view. The idea of giving up the gains they’ve made in Iraq, I’m sure, makes them feel like a lot of men and women would have died in vain. I believe they fully understand what will happen when the United States withdraws from the country (and I might add – for the sake of brevity [I realize this post has been anything but brief] – I haven’t even mentioned the Kurds tonight – who are sitting on the largest part of the Iraqi oil reserves and have a whole different batch of problems to pose for the situation) – the Iraqi’s are likely to fall back into a state of violence that very easily could turn into an all-out civil war and could totally destablize the middle east region more than it already is. It could cause Israel to do something totally stupid as far as our interests are concerned and it could totally disrupt the “precious” oil supply which motivated this invasion in the first place. The only thing that’s holding Iraq together (kind of like a bandaid) right now is that our troops are lodged between the Sunni and Shia. When this changes, all hell might break loose.

The aforementioned Generals are hoping that the politicians can find a way to solve the political problems before the American people demand our troops come home once and for all – in fact, according to Ricks, these Generals believe our significant presence is needed in Iraq for the next 10 maybe 20 years to have any kind of a realistic chance to allow for a political solution that is binding and lasting. This won’t go over well with all the people who are expecting President Obama to get our troops out of Iraq within the 16 months he promised during the campaign. He’s already “reneged” on that promise and changed it to “19 months” with the caveat that there is somehow 50,000 troops who can stay because they are “non-combat.” I’m wondering if that means that they are just going to stand by if the violence increases. And if Moqtada al Sadr becomes sufficiently upset at the idea of a long term American presence – will we just leave these “non-combat” forces in place if they’re being attacked on a regular basis? And knowing that Osama bin Laden’s dream is the United States mired in Iraq indefinitely (actually his dream was us mired in Afganistan, but George Bush essentially “put icing on the cake” by including Iraq in the countries we are “mired” of “bogged down” in) does anyone really think he’s not going to do everything he can to keep the insurgency going in order to keep us there? And, will we continue to withdraw as the violence returns?

Unfortunately, I believe Ricks is “right on” as he’s been with most of the reporting I’ve seen from him. He’s predicting the United States will have a significant presence in Iraq in 2015. Him, and the Generals he interviewed, think the only way for any chance of a stable Iraq is the continued occupation by the United States. These Generals will prove to be very persuasive and it will be interesting to see how President Obama presents this to his “followers.” As I mentioned last in last night’s post, I’ve already asked for my money back. Obama is continuing (much to my dismay, disbelief, discouragement, and outrage) the illegal wiretapping policies of the Bush administration. He’s sending more troops into Afganistan – remember, this is the country which virtually bankrupted the Soviet Union (hint, hint) – and he has already extended the date for American troops to be out of Iraq by about 18 months. I’m afraid he will not have the courage to stand up to these Generals and the Iraq occupation will be an issue in the 2012 Presidential election – I REALLY HOPE I’M WRONG! – Ultimately, the Iraqi’s will have to solve their own problems and I truly hope that we will start looking after our own problems and realize what this HUGE MISTAKE by George W Bush is (and has been) costing us in lives and resources. If Barrack Obama follows the advice of the Generals this will become his occupation – he is already close to having to take partial ownership of the fiasco. I believe the time to let the Iraqi’s solve their problems on their own is SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!