Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Challenge that wasn't and the Veto that was meaningless
TV news broadcasts and newspapers are really playing up the big confrontation between the 'Democrat party' in Congress and TeamBush. Everyone likes a nice sound-bite friendly horse race, and this is predictably the prism through which this bit o' politicking is being viewed. But that's really not the case.
Before detailing why, the general positive take-away: It would look like the Congress 'won' the battle despite being unable to override the veto at this time, as they've gotten many House and Senate GOPers talking about specific benchmarks that they plan on holding the (Iraqi) govt to as a contingency for further funding. This next special emergency war funding bill may only authorize funding through this September, when both D and R Congressman will require Gen Petraeus, an independent counsel, etc to report on the success of 'The Surge.'
So that's the official story; here's the real one: The whole thing is a crock.
I've seen several good examples detailing this but I'll link to Jeremy Scahill's piece for Tomdispatch, since he puts the lie to rest so eloquently. {An aside: do read the Scahill article for its' main emphasis, the 126,000 plus private mercenary Army that operates out of the purview of Congress or the DoD}
"According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:
1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.
2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").
3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."
An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.
Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable). "
So much for the effort to 'bring our boys home' anytime soon. But just as bad and unrealistic are the chirpings from what's left of Bush's supporters (Kay Bailey Hutchison and the blabosphere of right-wing talk radio). If you're like me and find your radio during baseball season frequently tuned to a warbly AM station that plays the boys of summer at 7:05, and right wing crap the rest of the time, then in the last month you've found yourself listening more than once to Rush, Sean, and the rest of the rabble. I try to turn it off, but I'm drawn in like a deer in headlights, a moth to a flame, a 13-year old boy to a stripper. . . but I digress. Ahem.
The biggest word you hear on such shows these days in 'surrender.' They talk of surrender dates, 'Surrender' Harry Reid (who got lambasted for actually accidently telling the truth--that the war was lost, at least as a further military venture). Well folks, the sad fact is US troops aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon. Victory (another RW-radio favorite, as in "The Democrats are snatching victory from defeat") will not come in terms that they want it, and they can't bear to realize that. Well, guess what, Reid was right. General Petreaus' plan (aka 'The Surge') is good counter insurgency 101 policy, but its pretty much bound to fail, mainly because its a tactic and not a strategy. There is no strategy. I bow to an expert, Thomas Ricks, who spoke yesterday on the Anniversary of the Mission Accomplished speech on PRIs outstanding radio show The World.
TV news broadcasts and newspapers are really playing up the big confrontation between the 'Democrat party' in Congress and TeamBush. Everyone likes a nice sound-bite friendly horse race, and this is predictably the prism through which this bit o' politicking is being viewed. But that's really not the case.
Before detailing why, the general positive take-away: It would look like the Congress 'won' the battle despite being unable to override the veto at this time, as they've gotten many House and Senate GOPers talking about specific benchmarks that they plan on holding the (Iraqi) govt to as a contingency for further funding. This next special emergency war funding bill may only authorize funding through this September, when both D and R Congressman will require Gen Petraeus, an independent counsel, etc to report on the success of 'The Surge.'
So that's the official story; here's the real one: The whole thing is a crock.
I've seen several good examples detailing this but I'll link to Jeremy Scahill's piece for Tomdispatch, since he puts the lie to rest so eloquently. {An aside: do read the Scahill article for its' main emphasis, the 126,000 plus private mercenary Army that operates out of the purview of Congress or the DoD}
"According to H.R. 1591, the Secretary of Defense is allowed to keep U.S. forces in Iraq for the following purposes:
1. "Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the United States Armed Forces": This doesn't sound like much, but don't be fooled. As a start, of course, there would have to be forces guarding the new American embassy in Baghdad (known to Iraqis as "George W's Palace"). When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the known universe with untold thousands of employees; then there would need to be forces to protect the heavily fortified citadel of the Green Zone (aka "the International Zone") which protects the embassy and other key U.S. facilities. Add to these troops to guard the network of gigantic, multibillion dollar U.S. bases in Iraq like Balad Air Base (with air traffic volume that rivals Chicago's O'Hare) and whatever smaller outposts might be maintained. We're talking about a sizable force here.
2. "Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces": By later this year, U.S. advisors and trainers for the Iraqi military, part of a program the Pentagon is now ramping up, should reach the 10,000-20,000 range (many of whom -- see above -- would undoubtedly need "guarding").
3. "Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach": This is a loophole of loopholes that could add up to almost anything as, in a pinch, all sorts of Sunni oppositional forces could be labeled "al-Qaeda."
An Institute for Policy Studies analysis suggests that the "protection forces" and advisors alone could add up to 40,000-60,000 troops. None of this, of course, includes U.S. Navy or Air Force units stationed outside Iraq but engaged in actions in, or support for actions in, that country.
Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals (to be vetoed this week by the President) is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. "combat brigades," adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return. None of this would deal with the heavily armed and fortified U.S. permanent bases in Iraq or the air war that would almost certainly escalate if only part of the American expeditionary forces were withdrawn (and the rest potentially left more vulnerable). "
So much for the effort to 'bring our boys home' anytime soon. But just as bad and unrealistic are the chirpings from what's left of Bush's supporters (Kay Bailey Hutchison and the blabosphere of right-wing talk radio). If you're like me and find your radio during baseball season frequently tuned to a warbly AM station that plays the boys of summer at 7:05, and right wing crap the rest of the time, then in the last month you've found yourself listening more than once to Rush, Sean, and the rest of the rabble. I try to turn it off, but I'm drawn in like a deer in headlights, a moth to a flame, a 13-year old boy to a stripper. . . but I digress. Ahem.
The biggest word you hear on such shows these days in 'surrender.' They talk of surrender dates, 'Surrender' Harry Reid (who got lambasted for actually accidently telling the truth--that the war was lost, at least as a further military venture). Well folks, the sad fact is US troops aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon. Victory (another RW-radio favorite, as in "The Democrats are snatching victory from defeat") will not come in terms that they want it, and they can't bear to realize that. Well, guess what, Reid was right. General Petreaus' plan (aka 'The Surge') is good counter insurgency 101 policy, but its pretty much bound to fail, mainly because its a tactic and not a strategy. There is no strategy. I bow to an expert, Thomas Ricks, who spoke yesterday on the Anniversary of the Mission Accomplished speech on PRIs outstanding radio show The World.
