The other day I was driving my car around doing errands when I happened on a radio talk show hosted by a man who calls himself Nor Man Gold Man (emphasis on the “Man” – I’m assuming his name is Norman Goldman).  I’ve heard him on several occassions of late – he’s been on the local “progressive” station since the demise of Air America radio.  Goldman is someone who is proud to claim he’s a LIBERAL – for that alone I give him credit – and, from what I’ve heard he unabashedly tells it as he sees it.  He’s not the “left wing” version of the people like Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and the rest on the “right” who are just regurgitating the latest republican talking points as front men for their corporate masters.  Goldman, to his credit (at least in my view), is fair in his criticism of both the “right” and the “left.”  I say that with the caveat that it is much easier to dismantle and criticize the arguments of the “leaders” on the “right.”  (not sure, Google Sharron Angle, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and others of the “new breed” of republican candidates)  However, as I have done here on this site, Goldman isn’t short on his criticism of the “left” – mainly in the form of the democratic party and their feeble response to the issues the voters put them in charge of “fixing” starting in 2006.  The republicans have become TOTALLY predictable; what is disappointing is the response by the democrats to their OBSTRUCTIONIST tactics – and, with that I feel a sense of “connection” with Goldman as I listen to his talk show.

That all being said, if you’ve spent much time around my site (or read many of my posts in the “archives”) you should have some idea of how frustrated I am that the United States of America is still MIRED in two UNWINNABLE occupations in the Middle East and Central Asia.  I was reading in the New York Times this morning an article which was referencing President Obama’s “timeline” for withdrawal from the Iraq “war” and – as always happens when I read stuff like this in a major publication – it just DEFLATES me.  I’ll connect my thoughts for the evening to Goldman in a moment, but first neither Iraq or Afganistan should be referred to by ANYONE as a WAR!  If either one was a war, our congress would have declared WAR!  These are both OCCUPATIONS of foreign countries where there is no clear ENEMY and no clear MISSION.  The American public has been voting since 2006 to end these occupations, and it’s like no one in Washington DC is listening – including Barack Obama.  The American taxpayers continue to pour upwards of $200 BILLION into these two FACE SAVING ventures – EACH YEAR – that are likely to save NOTHING in regards to America’s “Face.”  Both of these ventures are so “Viet Nam” it makes me sick to my stomach.  Everytime I write something like this, or even think about these two fiascos, I remember the saying; “Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.”  I honestly believed, at the end of the Viet Nam abomination, that we would never have leaders STUPID enough to get the US involved in something of this nature again.  Well, how wrong I was!

So, back to Nor Man Gold Man.  The other day he brought up a significant point that most people are totally unaware of – and that is the return of Moqtada al Sadr (Goldman pronounced his name wrong and got some of the details wrong, but to a large extent he “got” the significance of al Sadr) to Iraq.  If you’re not familiar with Moqtada al Sadr (pronounced Muk tada al sodder) he is a young Iraqi cleric who’s father was the leading Shiite cleric in the days of Saddam Hussein.  His father, and I believe his grandfather before him were murdered by Hussein, and al Sadr was, kind of by default, the leader of millions of the poorest Shiite Muslims in Iraq following the American invasion.  He formed the Mahdi Army (a Shia “militia”) during the height of the insurgency in Iraq and he is very anti-American.  I read a book about al Sadr and I will just summarize it by saying he’s not a very pleasant “fellow.”  The question here becomes, why is he significant today – as far as America is concerned?

Let’s start off with the FACT that al Sadr left Iraq at the time of the surge and went to Iran to study – planning to return as a “Grand Ayatollah” to become the religious leader of the Shiites in Iraq (I know if you’re reading this you make inferences – so, just make one here about the connection between Iraq and Iran)  The reports I read at the time he left was that al Sadr decided to “wait out” the Americans during the “surge” – he’s very smart and knew he couldn’t survive the “surge” in tact.  Despite being gone a couple of years he still has a lot of grudges with the Sunni Arabs.  In my view, the likelyhood of peace between the two sects – which has never been likely – is significantly reduced as al Sadr re-enters the “scene.”  Most Americans believe that the “surge” was some kind of miracle success from a military point of view – I take a different view.  First of all, we (America) have lost something exceeding 1500 of our best since the inception of the surge – not to mention the half  TRILLION dollars or so that has been spent (borrowed) by the American government since the “surge” began or all the American troops with debilitating injuries.  Yes, the violence eventually subsided, but most people don’t know that the Americans “bought off” many of the Sunni Sheiks (calling themselves the “Sunni Awakening”) and armed them to take the fight to al Qaeda in Iraq.  So, the resultant reduction in voiolence was more because of al Sadr’s temorary defection to Iran and the “Sunni Awakening.”  The problem with all of that:  The Shia still hate the Sunni, the Sunni still hate the Shia, and the Americans have armed the Sunnit minority in Iraq.  It’s much more complicated than this – but, I want to give an idea of why al Sadr’s return is significant.

NONE of the diplomatic “objectives” that were supposed to be resolved as the result of the surge have been achieved.  In fact, the Iraqi’s are still struggling to form a government after the last election which was something like four months ago.  There are still many MAJOR problems in Iraq which ONLY the Iraqi’s can solve.  Based on “projections” President Obama is scheduled to reduce the American troop levels in Iraq to 50,000 “non-combat” troops by the end of August.  While I’ll believe that when I see it, calling any American troops in Iraq “non-combat” is nothing more than the same “double-speak” we’ve been hearing from our “leaders” since the inception of this illegal invasion.  What’s discouraging to me is that this doublespeak is now coming from the president I voted for.  Here’s the problem for America’s “non-combat” troops who will remain (and, by the way, as I’ve said numerous times on this site – this “withdrawal” plan is nothing more than Obama following Bush’s “roadmap” to a tee.  Writing that almost makes me sick).  First, the democratic congress elected in 2006 didn’t have the “mettle” to stop the funding for the “war” then, and worse than that – for me – was President Obama reneging on his PLEDGE to bring the troops home in 16 months and instead simply buying in to the “Bush plan.” (which, by the way, is designed to have us stuck in Iraq indefinitely – some supporters of the plan use the analogy of Korea – for those of you not paying attention)  It appears to me that America’s generals have convinced President Obama that the surge worked and our troops are destined to be in Iraq indefinitely.

Well, upon closer inspection it’s easy to get a different perspective regarding the “surge.”  With the return of Moqtada al Sadr and the political impasse in Iraq, along with the continued presence of al Qaeda – the potential for an increase in the violence almost seems to me as a when and not an if.  Sadr is not going to be happy with 50,000 American troops on Iraqi soil – whether we call them “non-combat” or not – and, he controls millions of Iraqi’s who are more than willing to become “martyrs.”  Additionally, Sadr has no plans – from what I can find out – to “share” power with the Sunni’s.  In fact, from what I’ve read I tend to think he’s got a lot of “pay back” on his mind.  These people over there have a real “thing” with revenge – in a way that’s kind of hard for us Americans to understand.  And then there’s al Qaeda.  Yes, they’re still in the picture.

Without going into great detail here, suffice it to say that one of the main objectives of Osama bin Laden from 9/11 was to get the United States engaged in an intractable war in Afganistan which would lead ultimately to our bankruptcy – just as they had done with the Soviets in the eighties.  To his great surprise, bin Laden was nearly defeated – in fact, the only thing that saved him was the preplanned desire of the so-called “neo-cons” to invade Iraq on their first opportunity – which happened to be the attacks of 9/11.  Yes, the CIA and the Afgan Northern Alliance had bin Laden and his “troops” surrounded at Tora Bora just a few short months after the US invaded Afganistan and all that was needed to “finish the deal” was for Tommy Franks to bring in American troops and wipe out al Qaeda once and for all.  Well, that would have removed the reason for invading Iraq so Franks was ordered not to enter Afganistan (It’d be nice to know by who) and, with a little additional cooperation by the U.S. and help from Pakistan’s ISI al Qaeda was allowed to escape to the Northern Provinces of Pakistan.  Bin Laden was given a “bonus” by the Bush administration – he could keep the United States bogged down in TWO countries – to bin Laden, Iraq is the gift that keeps on giving.  And, do you really think that bin Laden is going to “look the other way” as America leaves 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq.  If you really believe that, well, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to ……. you know the rest.

The end result here – and, after all this, I believe the point Nor Man Gold Man was trying to make on his radio program – is that the violence is not over in Iraq.  My question is, are all these non-combat troops just going to “hang out” if the violence increases?  Do you really think bin Laden wants the US to pull out of Iraq?  What will happen if al Qaeda increases their attacks?  What happens if al Sadr starts carrying out more of the revenge attacks against the Sunni’s?  Do you really think another year with 50,000 American troops stationed in Iraq is going to solve the diplomatic problems they haven’t been able to solve in the last 7 years?  How much more money can America BORROW to continue these two occupations before bin Laden’s dream comes true?  (one thing that’s really interesting to me is the FACT that most of my “right wing” acquaintences who suddenly HATE the deficit ALL want to continue BOTH occupations! – but, like their brethren in congress, they’re opposed to extending unemployment benefits)  In my mind, as Americans we think we are so smart – but these wayward people who seem so “backward” to those of us who’ve been brainwashed for the past 30+ years are outsmarting our leaders at every turn.  They understand America’s weaknesses and they are constantly playing them against us – and, we just seem to continue on as if eventually everything will work out as we want.  Contrary to the idea of us “saving face” it appears to me that as each day passes America becomes closer and closer to a second rate nation.  President Bush put us on this disastrous course and for some reason President Obama and the democrats don’t have the guts to change it.  It’s almost as if they want to be able to blame the failures on Bush/Cheney without the risk involved in ending this crap once and for all.  And, it’s true the failure of Iraq is Bush/Cheney’s, but with every passing day President Obama takes more and more “ownership” in the fiasco.  By following Bush’s “withdrawal plan” Obama showed a terrible lack of leadership, and now he’s stuck in what I’m sure the generals will lobby as an indefinite presence in Iraq as the only way to protect our “investment” there.  I REALLY hope I’m wrong on this – but, if you haven’t read Thomas Ricks’ “The Gamble” I would highly recommend it.  He essentially predicts the American generals want to stay in Iraq for a “generation.”