The Mound of Sound

The idea of sending thousands of additional US soldiers to Baghdad to secure the city from Iraq’s maurading militias would be a good idea if only American forces weren’t working with those same thugs in one guise or another every day.

The government, the army, the police and the 145,000 gunmen with the Facilities Protection Services are heavily infiltrated by the militias and their sectarian leaders. With friends like these…

Consider this eye-opening account of what American forces are up against from today’s The New York Times:

“The car parked outside was almost certainly a tool of the Sunni insurgency. It was pocked with bullet holes and bore fake license plates. The trunk had cases of unused sniper bullets and a notice to a Shiite family telling them to abandon their home.

“’Otherwise, your rotten heads will be cut off,’ the note read.

“The soldiers who came upon the car in a Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad were part of a joint American and Iraqi patrol, and the Americans were ready to take action. The Iraqi commander, however, taking orders by cellphone from the office of a top Sunni politician, said to back off: the car’s owner was known and protected at a high level.

“For Maj. William Voorhies, the American commander of the military training unit at the scene, the moment encapsulated his increasingly frustrating task — trying to build up Iraqi security forces who themselves are being used as proxies in a spreading sectarian war. This time, it was a Sunni politician — Vice Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaie — but the more powerful Shiites interfered even more often.

“’I have come to the conclusion that this is no longer America’s war in Iraq, but the Iraqi civil war where America is fighting,’ Major Voorhies said.

For the American commanders their role is limited. They stay out of the civil war and instead intervene, when and where they can, to prevent atrocities against civilians. Of course, all the King’s horses and all the King’s men still can’t help Iraqis being butchered at a rate of roughly a hundred each day. It is enough to know the numbers would be considerably higher without their presence.

How long can America babysit this civil war? What are the greater, regional risks of allowing the Shia/Sunni bloodbath to play itself out? It is claimed that Iran is already interfering on behalf of the majority Shiite population. How long before the Saudis intervene on behalf of their Sunni brethren and to staunch the current spread of Shia influence throughout the Arab Muslim world?

Can this civil war, if allowed to play itself out, end other than by ethnic cleansing in traditional mixed areas such as Baghdad followed by partition? If the Shiite and Sunni cannot co-exist in a unified Iraq, what hope is there of avoiding a breakaway of the Kurds in the north? If the Kurds take advantage of the chaos in the south to fulfil their historic dream of an independent Kurdistan, will Turkey and perhaps even Iran move against them?

Each question begets more questions of ever more complicated uncertainties and deepening instability. The worsening sectarian butchery in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities is the manifestation of destabilizing power vacuums that go back to the invasion when the Hussein administration was toppled and nothing was available to replace it.

There are so many issues interwoven in this civil war that it defies any clear much less good answer. One thing is obvious: Washington’s vision for a future Iraq is not going to be realized by having American forces sitting on the sidelines and protecting the bleachers.

The tanks were rollin’ and the guns were firin’ and we had the buggers this time for sure. Or at least that’s what Canada’s military leaders and embedded journalists were joyously proclaiming to all and sundry just about a week ago. We had the Taliban this time, the same insurgents that somehow slipped through our fingers during Operation Medusa when we had them surrounded last September. This time the crafty devils wouldn’t be so lucky. This time we really had them. This time it really was surrender or die, either way they were done for.

Here’s how Bruce Hutchison of CanWest, with a patriotic thump of his chest, brought us the story three days before Christmas:

“HOWZ-E MADAD, Afghanistan — There is no place to hide, and nowhere to run for hundreds of Taliban insurgents now squeezed into a box near here by NATO forces.

“They only have two options: Surrender, or attempt to fight their way out.”Such is the situation in and around Howz-e Madad, a farming village 40 kilometres west of Kandahar city.

“Once tight-lipped about their objectives, and their chances of success, Canadian officers leading their army’s effort in the campaign are practically boastful of its swiftness and its efficacy.

“This is the first time we’ve projected (this) much combat power forward,” said Canadian battle group commander Lt.-Col Omer Lavoie. “(NATO) and Afghan forces are surrounding them, 360 degrees.”

“The Taliban are hemmed inside 10-square-kilometres of mud fortresses and walled farm compounds, terrain that is well-suited to their guerrilla tactics but which also makes it difficult — if not impossible — to escape.”As Lavoie noted with satisfaction, British and American troops sit approximately 10 kilometers south of Howz-e Madad.

“More British soldiers line the west, sealing that corridor, and Canadian combat teams rolled on Wednesday through Howz-e Madad.”About 30 vehicles and hundreds of soldiers now hold the northern flank.

“To the east, running in a straight line to the Arghandab River, is impenetrable Route Summit, the 4.5 kilometre roadway established in September, during Operation Medusa.”

So, where are all the prisoners, where are all the bodies of the dead Taliban? What if I was to tell you that, when it comes to certain Canadian colonels and media correspondents “on the scene”, your guess is every bit as good as theirs? For, you see, a week ago they gleefully claimed to have 900 of these fanatics surrounded, boxed in. Now they can’t find them.

I began worrying that this whole thing had, once again, been ginned up when the day following the initial estimate of 900 insurgents, it was revised downward to 400. Remember a few months back when we were told our people had won a massive victory over the Taliban, killing 80 or more of them? You might even remember when, several weeks later, they corrected that figure to 8. Mathematical error is the excuse they used for that one.

But I digress. What is the latest on Operation Falcon’s Feathers or whatever they’re calling this one? Turns out we can’t find them. Now, according to the same Bruce Hutchison, the “surrender or die” guy, the fact that we can’t find anyone to shoot is proof that we’ve won:

“Central to the operation is the release of material and financial assistance to local Afghans, in an attempt to stop men of fighting age from serving as Taliban mercenaries and help instead with the reconstruction of this war-torn region.

“That’s the official “hearts and minds” strategy behind Operation Baaz Tsuka, as devised by the NATO and Afghan coalition.

“To date, it seems to be working. Now two-weeks-old, the campaign has seen few head-on battles waged against the Taliban, and none involving Canadian troops.

“Boxed into a swath of territory 10 kilometres west of Mas’um Ghar, in Panjwaii District, and surrounded by a massive gathering of coalition war machinery, 700 to 900 insurgents seem indisposed to do more than launch the odd — and, to date, harmless — rocket attack.

“Canadians have not fired a single shot at enemy positions in Panjwaii District during Operation Baaz Tsuka.

“But Canadian troops have advanced, taking more ground from the Taliban and suffering no casualties in the process.”

I guess so long as we can redefine the objective to match the result, we can declare great victory even when we come up empty handed. A two-week campaign that, despite massive superiority in men and firepower, hasn’t engaged a ragtag enemy and we call that victory?

Depending on who’s right, the conquest of Iraq has claimed the lives of a few score thousand of innocent civilians or several hundred thousand. Now, Saddam is in line to join them. Actually, his fate was sealed a couple of years before the first American tank rolled across the border into Iraq.

Once 9/11 gave George Bush the flimsy pretense he needed to deceive the American people into supporting his illegal war of aggression against Iraq, Saddam was far too grave a threat to be allowed to live, even under a life sentence. He simply had to go and so he shall. Imagine the embarrassment he would pose were he allowed to speak candidly about the course of his relationship with the West.

But let’s put this into perspective. Does the life of this unquestionable thug matter more than the life of one innocent child among the thousands of innocent children killed in this insane butchery? If you had the choice between sparing one six year old or pulling the handle to rid the world of this tyrant, what would it be? I know the answer to that question and you damn well do too. There’s your perspective, your starting point.

I’ll not argue clemency for Saddam. He doesn’t deserve it. The sad reality though is that Saddam deserves to die every bit as much as each of those thousands of innocents deserved to live. How is it we’re so much better with one issue than the other?

Canada may have a general election within the next six months. The Libs are holding onto their lead in the polls. Stephen Harper’s autocratic rule seems to have run its course but, even so, the outcome will be very close.

The Libs haven’t been very effective with their campaigning lately. They just don’t seem to get how to reach middle-Canada, that great majority within which the Liberal Party thrives.

Little Stevie has been very cautious not to show his true colours to the Canadian people but he’s left enough of a trail that he can be vulnerable on it. Let’s help the Liberal Party. Why not come up with campaign slogan ideas – free of charge – that the party can use in the next general election?

Starting today, I’ll be posting ideas that come to me. Why not join in and post your own?

Defeat David Emerson

or:

How ’bout Fortier?

Let’s have an elected cabinet

before we worry about

an elected senate!

US Marine Corps Commandant, General James T. Conway, says what his force really needs in Iraq is more time instead of more soldiers. Conway, speaking to 2,500 troops gathered at Camp Fallujah said he’s worried that US forces in Iraq are running out of time – with the American people.

“I fear there are two timelines out there. One is how long it’s going to take us to do the job. One is how long the country is going to allow us to do the job. And they’re not syncing up.”

Poll after poll and the November elections have shown a sizeable majority of Americans have had enough of the Iraq war. Who can blame them? One general after another has promised them victory in a performance worthy of encyclopedia salesmen. Only one general, only one, Shinseki has told the American government and people the truth and put his job on the line to do that. The rest have been a succession of sycophantic flunkies long on promises but very, very short on results.

Those of us who remember the Vietnam fiasco have seen this game played out before. It’s not so much the “blame game” that the inmates of the Bush asylum like to chant about when they fall into their catatonic stupor. It’s actually a game of “dodge the blame” where, one by one, the culprits try to make the blame they’ve earned stick to others. Now it’s the American people who are going to get it.

The American people have supported the Iraq war. Let’s be honest, the American people have faithfully supported a number of Iraq wars. They supported the war to topple Saddam. They supported the war to neutralize Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. They supported the war to sever Saddam’s ties with Islamic terrorists. They supported the war to liberate the Iraqi people. They supported the war to secure Persian Gulf oil from Saddam’s domination. They supported Rumsfeld’s war against the “dead enders” and Cheney’s war against the terrorists. They supported the war to ensure Iraqis were able to vote for a government of their choosing.

The American people supported the wars they were asked to support even though those wars were often based on a tissue of deliberate lies and distortions. However, having obtained their consent – BY FRAUD – the White House and Pentagon leaders want to construe that as some sort of indefinite blank cheque to keep this shell game going until they can step aside and let someone else preside over the very failure they’ve already achieved.

If the American people aren’t willing to be conned any more, blame them for America’s defeat in Iraq. How perverse is that?

If the American people had been told the truth at the outset, they would deserve some blame for rejecting this war now. That, however, is not what happened. No, it’s important that, this time, the blame remains with those who deserve it – a thoroughly dishonest and criminally negligent administration and a sycophantic general staff who put their careers above their duty to their soldiers and sat mute to allow this disaster to happen.

It’s a foregone conclusion that Saddam Hussein will be executed very soon. His appeal from his death sentence conviction dismissed, Iraqi law seems to say he must be hanged within 30-days.

This is a curious law that seems to place execution ahead of considerations of justice. For example, what if the condemned’s presence is necessary for the resolution of another court case? What if the government services have some further need of the person? The Iraq law doesn’t appear to leave any judicial discretion in the matter. Your appeal is dismissed, you swing.

Of course when Saddam is dropped, his death will probably be the first of many triggered by his executioner. There is no shortage of Iraqis spoiling for a fight, including many Sunni. They’re already at each other’s throats and Saddam’s death will afford just the sort of provocation needed for a wave of killings.

Then there’s Saddam’s old gang, the Baath Party. Since Saddam was toppled, the Baath Party has been outlawed and many of its leaders fled into exile. Now, on a web site believed to be run out of Yemen, Baathists are threatening to retaliate against US interests worldwide if Saddam is killed.

Appeals have gone out to the leaders of other Arab states to intervene on behalf of clemency for Saddam but it’s not very likely that he’ll be alive long enough for that to make any difference to the outcome.

This letter from Emily Miller appeared in today’s Washington Post. She writes of her brother who is on active duty in Iraq but it could as easily be written about any of our own soldiers in Kandahar:

“My brother told me that he takes his oath to defend the Constitution seriously and that he will fight and die if necessary to honor his commitment. When I asked him if he would be offended if I participated in activities opposing the war, he replied that it was not only my right but my obligation, and the obligation of all civilians opposing this war, to try to change bad policy. “Give us good wars to fight,” he said.

“For the record, he believes that the war on terrorism is necessary to deal with real threats facing the United States. He is not convinced of what Iraq has to do with the matter, which puts him fairly well in the mainstream of American opinion.

“So it is terribly upsetting to me to hear that some people despair that there is “no point” to their soldier’s death or wounding in the Iraq war. America does not have to be right in order for our soldiers’ service to have meaning.

“What I find offensive is the idea that we have to “follow through” in order to give their deaths meaning post hoc. It is dreadfully apparent from the Iraq Study Group report that Iraq isn’t going to have a democracy in any meaningful time frame. Even if this administration does everything perfectly, the best-case scenario is that we might maintain the barest outlines of order.

“Victory being out of the question at this point, the only democracy my brother is fighting for in Iraq is our democracy. The only constitution he is in Iraq fighting to defend is our Constitution. If my brother dies, it will not be for a mistake but rather because of his deeply held belief that the time it takes us as a people to figure out through democratic processes that we are wrong is more important than his own life.

“This places upon us an obligation. My brother and other service members living and dead have given us the sacred responsibility to use the democratic means we have at hand to bring judgment to bear on whether any given war is worth our soldiers’ lives.

“It’s not too late for us to honor the almost 3,000 U.S. service members who have died defending the principles of our democracy. It is morally imperative for us to honor our living service members and to do what is demanded of us by our democracy and by common decency. We have taken a small step by changing some of our leadership in Washington, but now it is upon us to follow through at home and demand accountability from our leaders.

“What are you, fellow citizens, willing to do to defend our Constitution? Will you dignify the sacrifices of our soldiers? Will you honor my brother’s faith in our system? Will you let my brother or others die to eke out a slightly smaller disaster in Iraq? These are the questions we face in the wake of the Baker-Hamilton report.

“My brother is betting his life that you are not going to ask this of him. He has placed his trust in the idea that we will not ask him to die for anything less than the necessary defense of our democracy. Reasonable people may at one time have disagreed about the necessity of the Iraq war, but now that it has become abundantly clear from every quarter that we cannot win, will you be responsible for asking my brother to stay?

“My family begs of you: Do not ask this of him. Do not ask this of us. My brother is doing his constitutional duty. Now it is time for us to do ours.”

Afghanistan will always be tightly linked to the attacks of 11 September, 2001 on the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon. Sure the attackers themselves weren’t Afghans but mainly Saudis however al-Qaeda operated out of Afghanistan with the acquiesence of the Taliban. For that the fundamentalist regime was driven from power.

The Taliban may be gone but Afghanistan is now responsible for a growing number of American deaths each year. The cause is the growing importation of top-grade, Afghan heroin into the United States.

Most heroin sold in the US is low-grade product brought in from Mexico. While the Taliban were in power and suppressing their country’s opium trade, Afghanistani heroin accounted for 7% of the American supply. By 2004 that had doubled and a Drug Enforcement Agency report obtained by the LA Times suggests the amount coming in from Afghanistan to be significantly higher today.

LA County law enforcement officials believe the influx of high-grade Afghan heroin is responsible for the 75% increase in heroin overdose deaths in the past three years. Afghanistan now provides 90% of the world’s supply of illicit opium.

The New Year approaches and it will bring a new day to Washington, one not to the liking of the frat boy president. Time and events have caught up to George W. Bush.

It’s interesting to imagine what George Bush will come up with for his New Year’s resolution. Of course to play that game you would have to put yourself in his position with all the events past and the looming prospects factored in. You have to dig yourself a hole, chin deep, and jump in and that’s just your starting point. My guess is that you would wish the hole wouldn’t get any deeper, that you could find a way to stop yourself from the constant digging. For George Bush, that might be pretty tough to pull off.

It’s only natural for those who find themselves beset, surrounded, besieged to go on the defensive, hunker down and dig in. That appears to be pretty much what president Bush has decided to do now that he’s facing the prospect of a Democratic congress where even a lot of Republicans are sharpening their skinning knives. Come January, George Bush is not going to have a lot of friends in Washington and those who do remain won’t wield nearly as much clout to sustain him as they did before.

Looking back, the highlight of George W. Bush’s presidency was not even of his own doing but that of a bunch of fundamentalist Islamic nutbars. Osama bin Laden catapulted George Bush to unprecedented popularity and influence. Guided by a vice president who believes the American presidency ought to resemble nothing so much as a monarchy, Bush sailed through five years ruling over a complacent congress almost by fiat. When presented with laws he didn’t like, legislation that might restrain him, he simply scribbled “signing statements” on the bottom, exempting himself from their effect. His seizure of power was breathtaking although not many Americans noticed.

Five years that will be forever etched in American and world history. That marks the span of time in which a president fell victim to his own hubris and malignant advisors and toppled from unparalleled popularity and power into the very abyss of presidential derision. Five years in which he abused the support and sympathy of the world’s leaders and peoples and turned his nation into a pariah in their eyes. Five years in which he exploited the weakness and fear of his people, often instilled in them by his own cabal, to strip them of their democratic and constitutional rights, to place himself above international and domestic law, and even to launch an illegal war, a war of aggression and of whim from which he cannot now retreat no matter the worsening failures that he cannot avoid. Five years in which he has destabilized not only the Middle East but also, to a lesser extent, Africa and Asia. Five years in which he has transformed his nation and the world into a darker, vastly more dangerous and volatile place. The man’s very legacy is ruin.

Looking back on this, what must this frat boy see? I suspect he sees very little of what he has done. Accepting responsibility was never in his makeup. If it had been, he wouldn’t have acted as rashly as he has so persistently since being given the presidency by a complaint court. He avoids reality by retreating into a bubble where all are excluded save those who say what he wants to hear.

George Bush has retreated to his bunker deep within which he can screw shut his eyes and chant his mantra of “victory in Iraq, victory in Iraq” as though the saying of it will make it happen.

What remains to be seen is how powerfully the Democratic congress will assault the bunker to winkle Bush to the surface. There is much they can do if they have the will which, sadly, is not assured. There are some who may be able to lob grenades into the bunker in the form of spending curbs, taxation impasses and enquiries that strip away the deceit, excesses and abuses that genuinely characterized the last five years of imperial rule. Theirs is a target whose lifeblood, his public support, has already largely drained away, leaving him weakened and vulnerable. What remains to be seen is whether the Democrats will have the courage to do the dirty work necessary to restore integrity to their nation’s highest office and that, unfortunately, is a very open question.

Pakistan says it’s going to build fences and establish minefields along parts of its border with Afghanistan. The Karzai government wasted no time dismissing the effort as an empty gesture.

Given accounts from US and NATO forces as well as Western and Asian reporters that Taliban insurgents already simply walk freely through border checkpoints this measure does indeed seem little more than window dressing.

Meanwhile, in Baghdad, Iraqi officials have confirmed that Saddam Hussein and two co-defendants have had their death penalty conviction appeals dismissed. Iraqi law requires the condemned to be executed within 30-days. This may be the end of the road for Sad Man. Oh dear.