I really admire Thomas E Ricks.  He wrote the GREAT books “Fiasco” and “The Gamble” on the Bush/Cheney administration’s misadventure into Iraq.  This “war” has cost the United States upwards of a TRILLION dollars (that we don’t have), approaching 5000 of our troops dead – not to mention the TENS OF THOUSANDS injured overtly and the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS with PTSD which, just like in Viet Nam our government is trying to downplay to “save money,” and the something like a MILLION lost Iraqi lives with another two to four MILLION Iraqi’s displaced or injured or both.  Ricks’ book “Fiasco” was a “stinging” rebuke of the invasion as it sequentially documented the incompetence of the Bush administration both before and after the invasion.  “The Gamble” was an inside look at the “Surge” from the standpoint of the American military and it gave a strong “pat on the back” to David Patreaus and other military leaders who changed our strategy from one of attempting to DEMOCRATIZE Iraq to one of trying to protect the Iraqi population from the MASSIVE VIOLENCE which was unleashed by our incompetent invasion of their country.

Since I finished reading Rick’s “The Gamble” I’ve been predicting on this site that our troops are destined to be MIRED in Iraq for years to come – if the generals get their way – it could be a generation.  And, of course, Barack Obama is “bending” his promise to “us” voters as he’s already “adopted” Bush’s withdrawal plan that was negotiated while Obama was PROMISING those who voted for him that ALL THE TROOPS would be home in 16 months.  The present “plan” calls for about HALF of our troops to be home by the end of summer, with a “residual force” of “NON COMBAT” troops amounting to something like 50,000 to 75,000 troops remaining in Iraq until the end of 2011.  Today I read an Op Ed in the New York Times written by Ricks where he praises Obama for this “admirable flexibility” in essentially showing a willingness to BREAK HIS PROMISE of getting our troops out of Iraq in the above mentioned 16 months and, instead, showing NO LEADERSHIP (my characterization) by simply following the Bush withdrawal plan.  Despite my respect for Ricks, this is where I have to disagree.  In fact, Ricks takes it further and suggests that Obama should consider leaving the “residual force” in Iraq “for many years to come.”  If you’ve read “The Gamble” you could see this coming.

I’ll tell you why I TOTALLY DISAGREE!  First and foremost, the “Surge” – while it did reduce the level of violence – SOLVED NOTHING!  In fact, one of the aspects of the “Surge” that is not talked about too much is the FACT that the United States ARMED the “Sunni Awakening” and “hired” them to do the fighting of al Qaeda of Mesopotamia.  While this went a long way to stem the tide of the violence, it also put a LARGE CACHE` of arms in the hands of the Sunni leaders who STILL HATE THE SHIA.  Absolutely NOTHING long term was resolved with the “Surge.”  It’s what you call, putting off the inevitable – which is the Iraqi’s themselves having to figure out what kind of a nation they wish to have.  Ricks’ argument presupposes that the external forces outside of Iraq are going to simply go along with a large force of “NON COMBAT” American forces in their nation.  To me, that is absurd on it’s face – as absurd as calling our troops there “non-combat.”  I’m serious when I ask, does that mean they’re not going to defend themselves when attacked?  I honestly don’t understand how the United States could ask troops who are stationed in Iraq to be “non-combat.”

I’ll explain why when I point out another false “FACT” thrown around by the proponents of the “Surge” when they talk about how it stopped the violence.  Let me remind you of a guy named Moqtada al Sadr who is the spiritual leader of MILLIONS of the poorest Shia Iraqi’s, he HATES the idea of Americans on Iraqi soil – PERIOD – and, he HATES the Sunni Arabs, especially anyone associated with the Baathists of Saddam Hussein.  Well, at the time of the “Surge” al Sadr went into “exile” in Iran to finish whatever the Shia requirement would be for him to return as the “Grand Ayatollah.”  This return is due, based on my memory, soon – at least within the next year.  In fact, when he went to Iran I remember thinking he was timing his return for the point in time when the Americans were destined to leave.  Even though Ricks didn’t mention al Sadr in his Op Ed, I’m guessing that he’s totally aware of Sadr’s imminent return which is why he is lobbying for our troops to remain.  The REALITY of the “Surge,” as mentioned above, is that it did nothing more than put off the inevitable “CLASH” between the Sunni and Shia (and, that doesn’t even bring into the picture the [also inevitable] – seems to be lots of inevitables here -problems with the Kurds).  The Americans CAN’T solve these problems.  What Ricks (and others) are proposing is continuing to “put off the inevitable.”

Personally, I believe the situation in Iraq is going to escalate whether we leave the troops there or not – what Obama’s going to be faced with is whether or not to re-escalate our numbers of troops to attempt to do another full fledged “Surge” once things heat up again.  The end result, as far as I can tell, is what MY GENERATION seems to be doing with every decision that comes along (I’m in the “baby boom” generation of Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, and so many others in the failed Bush administration – as well as Ricks himself) and that is put off the inevitable (there’s that word again) for our children and grandchildren.  We’ve done this with the economy where, thanks to the “trickle down” tax cutting greed of the republican party that has controlled the White House for most of the past 30 years, we’ll be leaving our kids a national debt approaching 15 TRILLION dollars by the time Obama has finished his first term in office (the economic damage from the Bush presidency is such that I don’t think there’s much Obama can do to stem the tide of the HUGE DEFICITS for several years to come).  It appears, barring a miracle change of heart from the senate, that we’ll be leaving our children a FAILED health care system with 15 times as many people DYING each year as died in the 9/11 attacks – due to NO HEALTH INSURANCE.  And, it seems, we’re going to leave them an endless “nation-building” excercise in Afganistan to the tune of an annual drain on our treasury which would easily pay for the health insurance we can’t seem to afford back home.  We’re seemingly going to leave them a nation that disregards the constitution when it comes to the fourth amendment and our “right to privacy” with an NSA that routinely “data mines” the phone records and emails of its citizens without warrants or probable cause.  And, maybe worse than all of this, we’re seemingly willing to leave our children a nation which refuses to LEGALLY REFUTE the concept of TORTURE by demonstrating to the WORLD that it would not be tolerated in America NO MATTER WHO AUTHROIZED IT!  Instead, we’ll give our children a justice system that “looks forward and not back” when it comes to the crimes by our leaders.

So Ricks, and the generals who I know support his “thesis,” are proposing “more of the same” garbage that has deflated my feelings so about the “leaders” of the country I love.  An endless occupation of Iraq – we can turn the TRILLION dollars already spent (and 100% BORROWED) into several TRILLION in just a few years.  And, the tangential costs of extending the Iraq war – the depletion of our military, the depletion of our economy, the long term health problems of our veterans, and the disintegrating economy at home while we try to save this country of people who essentially HATE  us – because we’re “saving face” and our generals don’t want another “Viet Nam” – are going to GROW and nothing will not change the FACT there is going to be a slaughter when we leave (the question is just when) while these costs to us just continue MOUNTING until we get leadership with the courage to bring our troops home and let Bush’s legacy be Bush’s legacy.  What Ricks is proposing for President Obama is for him to make Iraq HIS LEGACY instead of Bush’s.  He’s calling it a “courageous” decision to commit our troops indefinitely there – I would call it STUPID!  I don’t want my children’s generation to have to face the consequences of our TOTAL withdrawal from Iraq, it’s time we faced the problems we’ve created and DEAL WITH THEM OURSELVES!

The entire Iraq invasion was BUILT ON LIES, it was planned by incompetents (Bush didn’t even know the difference between Sunni and Shia when proposing this invasion), it has TOTALLY destablilized the region (far more than it was), AND worst of all – and something that I can agree with Ricks on – it has ENABLED Iran.  Iran is ALREADY the big winner in all of this – that’s ironic considering the posturing of Bush/Cheney – but, that’s their main accomplishment – they ultimately ended up enabling the country which is ACTUALLY the most prominent supporter of “Jihadists” in the region.  Ultimately, I believe Iran and Iraq will end up either combining into one SUPER mid east power (with MOST of the OIL that Bush/Cheney were obviously after), or they will become STRONG SHIA ALLIES.  Anyone who believes the Shia majority in Iraq is – in any way – going to give power back to the Sunni’s after what Saddam Hussein did to them, is either not paying attention, or is disengenuous, or just plain not too bright.  The day of reckoning in Iraq for the Sunni and for the Americans who are still there, in my view, will be the day Moqtada al Sadr returns as the Grand Ayatollah.  Obama’s best bet would have been to get ALL of America’s troops out of Iraq just as he promised in 16 months, but leaving them there beyond the agreed upon date in 2011 would be additional folly.  As much as I respect Thomas Ricks, he’s wrong in suggesting the United States should keep troops in Iraq indefinitely!