Baghdad in color versus Baghdad in rhetoric

In last night's presidential debate Senator John McCain continued to hit on the theme that the so-called "Surge" in Iraq has been a remarkable success. The reason for the recent fall in violence is an open question, but some of it is surely due to the "Surge", that is more boots on the ground, but there are other reasons for the decline in violence, namely, the bribes we've been paying to the Sunni insurgents, and the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad. Also, there is the more important question of how much progress has been made in reconciling Iraq's warring factions. Moreover, if we are "winning," in Iraq, as Senator McCain, never fails to remind us, then when can we expect the Iraqi government to be able to govern on its own? Sadly, Senator McCain didn't have answer.

What kind of success is the "Surge?" Was it a brilliant tactic that won the war for us, and turned Iraq away from the brink of a full-scale civil war and onto the path of liberal democracy and economic prosperity?

Here is a telling video shot by an Iraqi journalist who witnessed the "success" of the Surge first hand. He now calls Baghdad a "city of walls." As you watch the video ask yourself if you think that Baghdad looks like a city that is prosperous and open, that has a well-developed civic ethic, that is strong and united, and that possesses all the spontaneous delights of a happy community?

The "success" of the Surge in color:

The 'Surge' comes under fire

It is now becoming part of the accepted wisdom that the 'Surge' has been successful in bringing down the level of violence in Iraq. While it is fortunate that violence in Iraq has declined, it's not clear that the Surge is wholly responsible for this. In a previous post I cited the work of conservative columnist Paul Sperry who suggested the Surge not only involved increasing the number of troops in Iraq, especially in Baghdad, but also involved handing out cash bribes to Sunnis to cease resisting the U.S. occupation.

Confirmation for this continues to roll in, but I find it amazing that the media -- especially the so-called liberal media -- seems reluctant to report these findings. I encourage everyone to read Steve Simon's essay in Foreign Affairs The Price of the Surge, because he provides a more even-handed analysis of the Surge. Violence has gone down, yes, but at what cost? And are we any closer to establishing a political reconciliation among Iraq's various ethnic enclaves?

However, he does discuss the cash 'bribes' we've been providing to the Sunnis and why this has been a significant factor in alleviating the violence in Iraq. He writes :

"The deals were mediated by tribal leaders and consisted of payments of $360 per month per combatant in exchange for allegiance and cooperation. Initially referred to by the United States as 'concerned local citizens,' the former insurgents are now known as the Sons of Iraq. The total number across Iraq is estimated at over 90,000.

The Sunni sheiks, meanwhile, are getting rich from the surge. The United States has budgeted $150 million to pay Sunni tribal groups this year, and the sheiks take as much as 20 percent of every payment to a former insurgent -- which means that commanding 200 fighters can be worth well over a hundred thousand dollars a year for a tribal chief."

It's important to note that these are former Sunni insurgents, that is "terrorists," who have been responsible for killing Americans. But because the United States could not find a way to militarily bring down the violence and the war was becoming increasingly unpopular at home it seems a silent deal was struck between the commanders on the ground and the Sunnis. So far the 'bribes' seem to be working, but is this really much of a success?

The author also notes that the ethnic cleansing that went on in 2006 and early 2007 segregated the Shiites and Sunnis so that now they live in their own communities. A recent study done by professors at the University of California at Los Angeles confirms this.

Night light in neighborhoods populated primarily by embattled Sunni residents declined dramatically just before the February 2007 surge and never returned, suggesting that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit, the team reports in a new study based on publicly available satellite imagery.

It seems premature to declare the Surge a success because clearly other factors are at play. Finally, though, we should remember that the ultimate purpose of the Surge was not just to decrease the level of violence in Iraq, but to provide the embattled Iraqi government time to reconcile with dissident factions. While no one knows the future of Iraq, we do know that we had no cause to invade and occupy Iraq and all the "successes" in Iraq are ultimately for naught.

A Light Shines in the Darkness and the Darkness Comprehends it not: Ron Paul Exits the Stage

Last week Ron Paul officially ended his campaign for the presidency, and so once again "politics as usual," carries the day. The Ron Paul campaign was the most electrifying in years successfully tapping into America's growing disenchantment with the Bush Administration. The record of the last eight years has been a cruel one: record high gas prices, preventable terror attacks, anemic job growth, and a baseless and costly war. Ron Paul was the only candidate who spoke to all these concerns, and his record of consistency and principle was able to spark a revolution throughout the country. He was not an establishment candidate, but one grown out of America's populist soil: anti-war protesters, civil libertarians, gun-rights' activists, tax opponents, vegan radicals, and all those who feel alienated and distrustful of the two parties.

While his candidacy was always a long-shot he was still able to raise tens of millions of dollars, outperform Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo in the Republican primaries, and call attention to important matters that otherwise would have been neglected. Just how boring -- or more boring -- would the Republican debates have been without Ron Paul railing against the Iraq war, the follies of nation-building, and the deceitful conmen known as Neocons? Without him stirring controversy, the debates would have been pitiful, bland, and monochrome.

Despite the success of the Ron Paul campaign it all comes to naught unless it influences the direction of public policy. Will the Ron Paul revolution continue under some other banner, or will his troopers just resign themselves to defeat, with some returning home and others returning to the ineffectual Libertarian party?

Even with the strong anti-war sentiment in the country, the Republican Party and the larger conservative movement have built a little cocoon around George Bush and moral sanctity of the Iraq war. Neither Bush's leadership nor the wisdom of going to war is open to question. Many in the Democratic Party are against the war and probably support an immediate withdrawal, but the leadership has capitulated to almost all of Bush's demands, and their attitude seems to be that "yes, Iraq was a mistake, but we just can't pick up and leave." Of course, this idea ensures that our occupation of Iraq will be indefinite.

Regardless, the American people had a choice to set a better course for themselves and their country, and either because of indifference, habit, defeatism, ignorance, apathy or whatever, they chose politics as usual.

So get used to the new 100 year war.

A day that should live in infamy: March 19th 2003

Today is the fifth anniversary of a great national tragedy, the war in Iraq. However, President Bush still doesn't see it that way and today he delivered a speech strewn with the same old bromides he's been using for years.

On this day in 2003, the United States began Operation Iraqi Freedom. As the campaign unfolded, tens and thousands of our troops poured across the Iraqi border to liberate the Iraqi people and remove a regime that threatened free nations.

It is ridiculous to suggest that our invasion of Iraq was an humanitarian act of goodwill meant to "liberate" the Iraqi people. The war in Iraq has killed ten of thousands of Iraqi civilians, fueled a sectarian conflict and so destabilized the country that John McCain recently said we may have to occupy Iraq for one hundred years. What kind of liberation is this?

When President Bush says that Iraq threatened "free nations," it is just a bald faced lie. After the conclusion of the first Gulf War comprehensive sanctions were imposed on Iraq, causing its weapon's programs and economy to drift into disrepair. Iraq had no intention of threatening anyone. Iraq's neighbor to the north, Turkey, was also against the war. President Bush also kindly forgot to mention that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found.

Aided by the most effective and precise air campaign in history, coalition forces raced across 350 miles of enemy territory -- destroying Republican Guard Divisions, pushing through the Karbala Gap, capturing Saddam International Airport, and liberating Baghdad in less than one month.

President Bush speaks as if the operation to "liberate" Iraq was an unrivaled display of military genius. The reality is that Iraq was such a broken and poor country that it was easy for us to race across the southern border and occupy Baghdad. Thomas Friedman, a columnist for the New York Times and a supporter of the war in Iraq, said, after a brief visit to the country in 2003, "we defeated the Flintstones." He noted that outside of the major cities, Iraq wasn't even in our millennium.

What our troops found in Iraq following Saddam's removal was horrifying. They uncovered children's prisons, and torture chambers, and rape rooms where Iraqi women were violated in front of their families. They found videos showing regime thugs mutilating Iraqis deemed disloyal to Saddam. And across the Iraqi countryside they uncovered mass graves of thousands executed by the regime.

It's undeniable that Saddam Hussein ran Iraq like a prison state, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that President Bush -- or Cheney or Rumsfled -- were acting out of compassion when they decided to invade Iraq. If their concern was Iraq's humanitarian plight, why didn't they speak out against the U.N. sanctions that were killing innocent Iraqis, mostly children? Why didn't Donald Rumsfeld speak out against Iraq's use of chemical weapons when he was sent as a personal envoy of Ronald Reagan in 1983 to forge closer ties between our two countries? Saddam has been running a prison state for over twenty years, sanctions have been killing Iraqis for over ten, and President Bush wants us to believe that suddenly everyone in his Administration grew a heart? President Bush pretends to express sympathy for Iraq because it gives him the excuse he needs to implement his real objective: military and financial dominance of Iraq.

The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated -- but it is a fight we must win. So our troops have engaged these enemies with courage and determination. And as they've battled the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they have helped the Iraqi people reclaim their nation, and helped a young democracy rise from the rubble of Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

The Bush Administration originally claimed the war in Iraq would cost $60 billion, but now it's run up into the hundreds of billions with no end in sight. Also, how will we know when we "win" in Iraq? Bush never says.

Bush also never bothers to list the horrible costs of the war. He can say that Saddam's torture chambers are now empty, but what about the fact that our invasion of Iraq triggered the world's third largest refugee crisis? Or the fact that tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers have been wounded? There have been no real benefits to the war in Iraq, just the old saw that we must stay in Iraq and hope things will get better.

Hopefully one day Americans will remember March 19th 2003 in the same way they remember the September 11 terror attacks or Pearl Harbor. It should be remembered as a national tragedy, a day in which a band of war criminals lied this nation into a pointless, costly, and treacherous war.

President Bush's cocktail of fear

The Pentagon released a report this week stating that there were no direct ties between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda. While this information isn’t entirely new, it does officially seal the case against the Bush Administration and further exposes the treachery that led us to war. In his famous Mission Accomplished speech President Bush reminded Americans on why we had to invade Iraq:

We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

This argument -- that Iraq had WMD and “connections” to al-Qaeda -- was one Americans heard over and over in 2002, and because it met no opposition -- not from Democrats or the media -- it blazed the road to war. However, both these arguments were entirely fictional. Iraq was never an ally of al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime was not developing, stockpiling, or amassing weapons of mass destruction. This was all part of the Bush Administration’s cocktail of fear -- claim Iraq is developing poison gases, chemical weapons, and nuclear weapons; that they are plotting with al-Qaeda; that time was against us; that a “mushroom cloud” may blossom over a U.S city -- and the American people drank it right up.

So while it surely served the Administration's purpose to portray Iraq as a nation arming for war and threatening the peace of the entire world, the reality was far different. At the conclusion of the first Gulf War the United Nations imposed comprehensive sanctions on Iraq that stifled its economy and impoverished its people. For instance, by 1999 the U.N. estimated that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians had died due to the sanctions, perhaps a half million were children. Iraqis lacked basic sanitation and access to medical care. UNICEF reported that 4500 children under the age of five were dying each month from hunger and disease. The sanctions ultimately were responsible for creating a famine in Iraq that probably killed millions. Such facts belie any suggestion that Iraq was a threat to the United States. How can a nation that cannot even feed its own people threaten the world's remaining super-power?

Economist Joseph Stiglitz has a new book about Iraq called the Three Trillion Dollar War. Of course, it would probably be more accurate to call it the Three Trillion Dollar Scam. The belief that a poor, starving and impoverished nation could threaten this country, or the belief that occupying Iraq would be in our national interests has to be one of the most costliest scams in history. So far, no one has been held accountable for this scam, which also shows that it is one of the greatest crimes in history.

What's so great about the Surge?

Last year President Bush implemented a new strategy in Iraq -- the "surge" -- aimed at increasing security in Baghdad, and putting another 4,000 troops in the Anbar province to fight the Sunni insurgents. At first, the results didn't look too promising. When General Patraeus released his interim report on the "surge" in July 2007 coalition fatalities were at an all time high. Still, General Patraues claimed the "surge" had been moderately successful.

Since then there has been a remarkable decline in U.S fatalities, and now they are at an all time low. While the immediate reaction is to attribute this decline to the "surge" there may be other factors at work.

Conservative columnist Paul Sperry argues that the reduction in violence isn't so much due to the troops as it is the cash "bribes" we are offering to the tribal sheiks in the Anbar province. He writes:

The only, 'success' in Anbar is really just a return on U.S. financial inducements to tribal sheiks. Instead of dropping bombs in Iraq, we're now dropping bundles of cash in the laps of insurgents who without the crude bribes would no doubt return to ambushing our troops.

There is also corroborating evidence from the TimesOnline:

The Sunday Times has witnessed at first hand the enormous sums of cash changing hands. One sheikh in a town south of Baghdad was given $38,000 (£19,000) and promised a further $189,000 over three months to drive Al-Qaeda fighters from a nearby camp.

.

If these cash "bribes" are responsible for the reduction in violence then we can say that in all respects the "surge" has been a failure. Perhaps the White and military were growing weary of all the negative press coming out of Iraq and wanted to turn back the tide. The Sunni insurgency was just too difficult for us to handle, so instead we tried a new approach: bribery.

This makes me wonder that if the part about the Sunnis turning against al-Qaeda is just a cover story. Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq is hotly debated and, I suspect, wildly inflated. In fact, I doubt al-Qaeda has any real presence in Iraq at all. Perhaps we refer to foreign "terrorists" in Iraq as al-Qaeda because most of the foreign fighters come from Saudi Arabia and Bush doesn't want to alienate one of our "allies."

However, I think the military just decided to hand out cash bribes to the Sunnis and invented the part about them turning against al-Qaeda. The military cannot just claim we are paying off the insurgents to keep the violence down, so they concocted a story to make the "bribes" appear legitimate.

This is all speculation at this point, and I invite any criticism, but we cannot trust the White House and military to tell us the truth about Iraq.

The Robb Silberman Report: Just the Facts

The Robb Silberman Report was released on March 31, 2005, but its conclusions never did seem to penetrate the debate about our intelligence on Iraq and the WMD controversy. We often still hear many say that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, or had dual-use programs, or was trying to acquire uranium from Niger, or surreptiously hid its weapons in Syria. The Robb Silberman report repudiates all of these claims.

On Nuclear Weapons:

"Based on its post-war investigations, the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991."

"The Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had not tried to reconstitute a capability to produce nuclear weapons after 1991. 77 It concluded that Iraq's efforts to develop gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment ended in 1991, as did Iraq's work on other uranium enrichment programs, which Iraq had explored prior to the Gulf War. 78 The ISG also found no evidence that Iraq had taken steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development."

"The Iraq Survey Group also found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991. 113 With respect to the reports that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ISG interviews with Ja'far Diya Ja'far, the head of Iraq's pre-1991 enrichment programs, indicated that Iraq had only two contacts with the Nigerien government after 1998--neither of which was related to uranium. 114 One such contact was a visit to Niger by the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican Wissam Zahawie, the purpose of which Ja'far said was to invite the Nigerien President to visit Iraq (a story told publicly by Zahawie). 115 The second contact was a visit to Iraq by a Nigerien minister to discuss Nigerien purchases of oil from Iraq--with no mention of "any kind of payment, quid pro quo, or offer to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum." 116 The use of the last method of payment is supported by a crude oil contract, dated June 26, 2001, recovered by the ISG."

These conclusions are not ambiguous -- Iraq had no nuclear weapon program and did not try to acquire uranium from Niger. To this day, however, Bush apologists still claim that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa.

On Biological Weapons:


"Contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments, the ISG's post-war investigations concluded that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed its biological weapons stocks and probably destroyed its remaining holdings of bulk BW agent in 1991 and 1992. 221 Moreover, the ISG concluded that Iraq had conducted no research on BW agents since that time, although Iraq had retained some dual-use equipment and intellectual capital. 222 The ISG found no evidence of a mobile BW program."

"The Iraq Survey Group found that the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments about Iraq's BW program were almost entirely wrong. The ISG concluded that "Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent" shortly after the Gulf War."

"Nevertheless, the ISG "found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."

On Chemical Weapons:

"After the war, the ISG concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad had resumed production of CW thereafter."


"The ISG concluded--contrary to the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments--that Iraq had actually unilaterally destroyed its undeclared CW stockpile in 1991 and that there were no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of CW thereafter. 482 Iraq had not regained its pre-1991 CW technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to the war."

"Regarding Iraq's dual-use chemical infrastructure and personnel, the Iraq Survey Group found no direct link to a CW program. Instead, investigators found that, though Iraq's chemical industry began expanding after 1996, in part due to the influx of funds and resources from the Oil-for-Food program, the country's CW capabilities remained less than those which existed prior to the Gulf War."

"In sum, the Iraq Survey Group found no direct link between Iraq's dual-use infrastructure and its CW program."

"Still, given that, of the dozens of CW munitions that the ISG discovered, all had been manufactured before 1991, the Intelligence Community's 2002 assessments that Iraq had restarted its CW program turned out to have been seriously off the mark."

On Delivery Systems:

"Following its exhaustive investigation in Iraq, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had indeed been developing small UAVs, but found no evidence that the UAVs had been designed to deliver biological agent. 555 Instead, the ISG concluded that Iraq had been developing and had flight tested a small, autonomous UAV intended for use as a reconnaissance platform, 556 and had developed a prototype for another small UAV for use in electronic warfare missions."

"The Iraq Survey Group concluded that, although Iraq had pursued UAVs as BW delivery systems in the past, Iraq's pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom program to develop small, autonomous-flight UAVs had actually been intended to fulfill reconnaissance and airborne electronic warfare missions. The ISG found no evidence suggesting that Iraq had, at the time of the war, any intent to use UAVs as BW or CW delivery systems."

Conclusions:


"Having gained access to Iraq and its leaders, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the unlikely course of voluntary abandonment by Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction was, in fact, the reality."

"According to the ISG, Saddam's regime, under severe pressure from United Nations sanctions, reacted by unilaterally destroying its WMD stockpiles and halting work on its WMD programs."

Unfortunately, not a single person was ever held responsible for this massive "intelligence" failure nor does there seem to be any outrage that the entire justification for war was a hoax.