"War is a game of the powerful, or of whole collectivities devoted to self-assertion. It is “the great public vice that consists in playing with the lives of men.” War plays with life and death, and does so magnificently. Everybody becomes involved." --Merton
What is it about the Maliki regime in Iraq which has enamored so many republicans to the point that they've become satisfied with the numbers of Americans killed in defense of the increasingly autocratic authority? What is it about Bush's Iraq junta which causes the GOP to go all warm and fuzzy and to deny that the soldiers killed every day in defending the ground that surrounds the seat of the recalcitrant Iraqi government aren't dying in vain?
We don't really need to ask republicans whether they think Bush's sacrifice of our nation's defenders to bolster the Iraqi regime is worth the loss of American lives. It would be amazing to find the president's party in the dark about the over 3700 U.S. troops who have been killed in action in Iraq, and the tens of thousands more who have been maimed and disabled in the effort to defend the republican's ambitions there.
Although the lives (and deaths) of our soldiers in Iraq are rarely mentioned by the president and his republican enablers, there is certainly someone keeping count at the White House, the Pentagon, or in the republican chambers up on Capitol Hill as they maneuver their politics to 'stay the course' and repeatedly resist mandating any redeployment out of there.
In yesterday's Petraeus hearing in the Senate, at least one republican senator -- along with the (increasingly political) commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq -- indicated that they had some idea of the magnitude of the losses. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), in questioning General Petraeus during the Senate committee hearing on his Iraq 'report', seemed to understand the gravity of the losses as he queried the general about the "(at least) 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines (who) are likely to be killed every month from now to July."
Graham to Petraeus: "So you're saying to the Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now to July (more like 70 to 90), that we're going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have 100,000 people there, you believe it's worth it in terms of our national security interests to pay that price."
“My question for you: Is it worth it to us?” Graham asked.
Graham wasn't asking the general about the anticipated sacrifices of American troops as any sort of rebuke. The senator was only interested in hearing the general echo his own indifference to, and apparent approval of, those deaths which both agreed were the anticipated price for their recommendation to continue "forward" with their cynical "surge" and occupation of Iraq.
Petraeus admitted to Graham that his recommendation to maintain, indefinitely, as many troops in Iraq as were there immediately following the elections last November which replaced Bush's republican majority in Congress with Democrats pledged to end the occupation, would result in at least 700 dead American soldiers. The predictions of the numbers of Americans killed is not an abstract expectation. ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV, took a poll in Iraq in March -- the third such survey -- which recorded that "the number of Iraqis who call it 'acceptable' to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, had tripled to 51 percent, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs."
“The national interests that we have in Iraq are substantial,” Petraeus answered Graham. “An Iraq that is stable and secure, that is not an al-Qaida sanctuary, is not in the grip of Iranian-supported Shia militia, that is not a bigger humanitarian disaster, that is connected to the global economy, all of these are very important national interests.”
“Would that be a yes?” Graham asked.
“Yes, sir. Sorry,” answered Petraeus.“So you’re saying to the Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now to July, that we’re going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it’s all said and done, we’ll still have 100,000 people there, you believe it’s worth it in terms of our national security interests to pay that price?”
“Sir, I wouldn’t be here, and I wouldn’t have made the recommendations that I have made if I did not believe that,” Petraeus responded.
Kudos to the pair for being so forthright about the consequences of their recommendations and intentions for the occupation. There has been virtually none of that sort of frankness about the effects of continuing the escalated occupation from the White House. All of their portraits of their occupation and it's expected aftermath have been painted with rosy scenarios of success and victory. There will be no talk of casualties or costs coming from Bush as the lame-duck dictator satiates his megalomania Thursday night with another prime-time announcement of his intention to ignore the demonstrated will of the American people and press forward with his militarism.
Graham and Petraeus are wrong; more than just wrong in their prescription for 'success' in Iraq, or in their interpretation of what actions are in our 'national interest'. It's well reported how much the administration believed, and tried to convince Americans, that their invasion and overthrow would be short, inexpensive, and well-received by the Iraqis. It's no secret that, the mere fact of the need for a "surge" of force after six years of fighting in Iraq is a measure of abject failure for any of the administration rationales for invading and occupying.
Moreover, Petraeus seemed to undercut his commander-in-chief's argument about the threat from the 'Iraqi al-Qaeda' when he couldn't bring himself to answer whether he thought the Iraqi combatants would, as Bush has warned, "follow our troops home" if we withdrew.
But, there was a glaring omission from their colloquy. Neither man bothered to recognize -- in their testimony or in their recommendations -- how Americans might feel about sacrificing those American lives they so blithely offer up in defense of the foreign government of Iraq. Last September 11, a Zogby International poll showed that 58 per cent of respondents believed the war in Iraq had not been worth the loss of American lives.
Results published on the eve of this year's 9-11 anniversary from a New York Times/CBS News poll, echoed last year's, finding that 62 percent said the "war was a mistake," and 59 percent said that it was "not worth the loss of American lives and other costs."
Of course, both Petraeus and Graham would be more than happy to educate those reluctant Americans on the efficacy of sacrificing Americans for the Iraqi regime. They could begin by elaborating on the answer the general gave when he responded that there was no al-Qaeda organization in Iraq before we invaded. The same NYT/CBS poll also showed that “33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats," still believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.”
Both Graham and the general, however, were content in raising yet another specter of a threat. In a FOX appearance after the hearing, Graham explained why he supports the anticipated sacrifice of more than
80 Americans in allowing the continuance of Bush's escalated occupation.
"Here's what I asked the general:" Graham told FOX news, "Is it worth it to stay there knowing you're going to spend $9 billion a month for at least another seven or eight months? You're going to lose 70, 80 U.S. troops a month. You're going to be having 100,000 people in place probably a year from now. Is it worth it? And he said yes," Graham answered himself.
"The cost of winning, my friend, is great." Graham said. "The cost of losing..."
Host: ...what winning is…
Graham: Can I tell you what it is?
Host: Please do.
Graham: Winning is a stable, functioning, representative government that can contain Iran, will reject Iranian domination...Reject Iranian domination? That's the new justification for continuing the sacrifice of our nation's defenders to the enemies of the foreign Iraqi regime (another, in a long line of shifting justifications)? Does Sen. Graham really mean that he expects our soldiers to fight and die at a rate of 80 a month to "reject Iranian domination" of the Maliki regime? The same Iraqi regime which is literally hand-in-hand with the Iranian government? Did Graham really mean that we've removed the wedge against Iranian expansion into Iraq that Rumsfeld once nurtured -- literally hand-in-hand with Saddam -- and allowed Iran to nuzzle-up to the regime we helped install behind the sacrifices of our soldiers -- just to push Iran out again, behind the same sacrifice of troops?
Petraeus weighed in with his own wag of their Iranian pet, saying that, their influence “certainly has contributed to a sophistication of attacks.’’ As to the weapons used by the combatants in Iraq, “there’s no question where they are coming from,’’ Petraeus accused.
Petraeus knows well where, at least, the initial bulk of weapons used by the insurgency and militias came from. He knows that his occupying forces "lost track" of about 190,000 weapons issued to the Iraqis that he and others were in charge of training for the new Iraqi army and police forces. Petraeus, in August, blamed the missing weapons on bookkeeping. But, the general has had direct experience with U.S. weapons he's distributed becoming 'lost' to Iraqi combatants. In Mosul, where was Petraeus in charge in 2003-2004, $41m worth of weapons were 'lost' as the town he left behind was recaptured months afterward. The bulk of those 'lost' weapons, and the others, are surely in the hands of those in Iraq who would actively resist our forces' strident advance into their territory.
Is really an accident that our military has managed to arm both sides of the Iraqi civil war? Bush was bragging just the other day about our forces nuzzling up to Sunnis willing to join in attacks on those combatants who identify themselves with the 9-11 fugitives Bush has let roam free for six years and arming them. Those forces are still pledged to violent resistance against the U.S.-enabled Maliki regime. Those weapons will, undoubtedly, add to those deaths that supporters of Bush's 'stay the course' strategy are indifferent to.
The U.S. forces that Petraeus now command, remain the most dangerous, destructive and pernicious influence in Iraq. It is the result and effect of the chaos and unrest his occupation has fostered in Iraq which our forces are now defending against. The prescription from the general, and from republican supporters/enablers like Lindsay Graham, is to continue forward with an escalation of that dangerous, destructive and pernicious influence.
The direct consequence of that continuance for the U.S. will be the predicted (and predictable) loss of about 1000 more American soldiers before they completely remove the 30,000 troops they added in their surge; in addition to the almost 3800 already killed as a result of continuing the occupation of Iraq.
Bush and his republicans in Congress say their ambitions in Iraq are worth it.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
