HOW WE'RE FIGHTING IRAQ'S CIVIL WAR; WHY MORE TROOPS WON'T HELP NOW

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 of 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 soldiers, it was just another morning in Baghdad, where Americans are trying to protect people on both sides while being attacked by people on both sides, trying not to take a side themselves.

…"Sometimes I feel like I work for the Iraqi government," Voorhies said.
--"Sectarian Ties Weaken Duty's Call for Iraqi Forces," Marc Santora, New York Times, December 28, 2006



The Great Decider should have gotten a clue, a couple of months ago, when a joint American-Iraqi task force captured two high-ranking Death Squad perpetrators in Sadr City, who had been personally responsible for possibly hundreds of torture-murders of innocent Sunnis who lived in adjoining neighborhoods of Baghdad.

This was a big capture and made all the news announcements.

Two days later, the prime minister of Iraq let the men go.

This should have been a red-letter CLUE that no matter how many American troops we send in to "secure" Baghdad--and hence, Iraq--the war is completely out of our hands now. It is a civil war, and right now, the Shiites have the power and they are perpetrating ethnic cleansing on the Sunnis, who are retaliating with massive car bombs in Shiite areas.

The second clue to the Great Decider should have come when, after three months of keeping army brigades past their home-deployment dates and funneling desperately needed Marines out of the Anbar into Baghdad to buck up Green Zone security, the killings were not only WORSE, but ground commanders made a point of saying that the insurgents and militias had adjusted their tactics to what the Americans were doing and thus, getting away with murder.

The third clue to the Great Decider should have come when the Shi'ite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who is known to be beholden to and loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, whose militias control most of the death squads and a third of government ministries, submitted his own plan to newly-minted secretary of defense, Robert Gates, in which more American troops would be welcomed, all right, but only if they remained on the outskirts of Baghdad, where it would be their job to root out and kill Sunni insurgents, while Iraqi "security forces" would be free to roam unmolested around inner Baghdad, rooting out and killing more Sunnis.

Which means, of course, that we would be siding with the Shiites against the Sunnis in their civil war.

Make no mistake about it. All this time that White House press releases state that the president and his closest advisors are seriously considering a new strategy for Iraq, what it really means is that they are, once again, digging up justifications and rationalizations for a disastrous course they have already made up their minds to follow.

This is about presidential ego and the administration's obsession with proving themselves to be right, at any cost, not just to the American and Iraqi people, but to the soldiers and Marines who are being forced to stay in that hellhole past their time to go home because that's how you "surge" troops.

As we speak, the fifth and seventh Marine Corps regiments have already been notified that there is a very good chance that, should the "surge" option be used by the Great Decider, they will not be going home in February when their deployment time has ended, and the army's Third Brigade, Third Infantry, scheduled to deploy this spring, will likely be sent much sooner than originally planned.

There is no such thing as a "surge" of new troops.

I don't know about the army troops, but the combat unit Marines I have been familiar with in my family, do not get to stay in the kinds of facilities you see on TV, with separate trailers and air conditioning and big mess halls and PX's and daily e-mail and access to videophones to call home.

They sleep in abandoned houses, go weeks without a shower, live on MRE's for months, and have no access to e-mail. They don't wait in line to call home at nice bases. They pass around a satellite phone from a rooftop vantage point where they're watching for snipers, or around a campfire out in the desert.

What I'm trying to say is that for the Marines at least, these deployments are extremely difficult with much privation, and every single day, they are exposed to the highest levels of violence and bloodshed and combat conditions possible.

So extending the deployments of the Marines for longer than they are supposed to stay, means keeping them in terrible danger and forcing them to live in primitive conditions that is nothing like what you see on the evening news. For the Marines in Ramadi, they can't even walk on patrol, they have to run, because the snipers are so bad. When they try to duck into a relatively safe building where they've set up an F.O.B., or Forward Operating Base, they have to throw down smoke bombs to cover themselves before they can even cross the street.

This is what your SURGE is. It's keeping our brave men and women in the worse possible conditions, and dooming many to mangling and death, for a policy decision that is absolutely USELESS.


The Sunni forces are being bolstered by support from insurgent strongholds in the West. The Shiite militias are using neighborhoods in the north, specifically Shuala and Sadr City, as bases of operation. There is also increasing evidence that militia members from southern cities like Basra are coming to Baghdad to join the fight…

Shiites, led by militia forces and often aided by the local police, are clearly ascendant, says Lt. Col. Steven Miska, the deputy commander for the Dagger Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division, who oversees combat operations in a wide swath of western Baghdad. "These politicians are connected with either militias or Sunni insurgents…It seems very controlled and deliberate and concentrated on expanding an area they control."

…Col. Miska noted just how many forces, each answering to different bosses, currently occupied the battlefield.

"Who would design this mess?" he said. "It is like an orchestra where everybody is playing a different song."
--ibid


The Iraqi police and military answer to different ministries, who are often controlled by leaders of warring tribes or sects, and the bureaucracy is divided even further between regular police and national police, and a protection detail 140,000 strong assigned to protect mosques, but is much better known for being particularly savage and bloody in its ethnic cleansing.

The American forces are caught in the middle of this tangled mess, which is further complicated by the complicity and direct participation of government ministries.

It is not uncommon for American forces to find, and rescue, say, a hundred or so hapless Sunni's who've been slated for torture and murder by Shiite death squads, only to face those same men the next day when they fight insurgents.

Or, as I pointed out earlier, to arrest vicious ringleaders of violence and bloodshed, only to be ordered to set them free by the Iraqi government.

And let's be clear about one more thing. This "surge" is not going to last for a month or two. More and more, I'm hearing numbers like eighteen months to two years, which sounds suspiciously close to the elections of 2008.

Sending more troops into Baghdad may--POSSIBLY--cause a temporary dip in the sheer numbers of dead Iraqis, while, at the same time, killing and maiming more Americans, but no matter when we pull out, whether it's tomorrow or ten years from now, you can bet that chaos will ensue because you can't force democracy and freedom on people who don't want it for themselves.

Senator Joe Biden, Democrat from Delaware and now chairman of the powerful armed services committee, has made it clear that if the president insists on this troop surge as his big "new" strategy, that the senator will hold hearings in the Senate on that plan.

On the surface, that may sound lame. Hearings? Who cares? What difference could more blathering talking heads possibly make?

I'll tell you what difference it makes: PUBLICITY. You have a running string of military spokesmen and administration hacks sitting down in front of the TV cameras being grilled by skeptical senators and sweating under the lights, you have soundbites for the evening news, and you draw attention away from the bully pulpit of the White House and its iron will to stay the course right over the cliff.

You show the American people, up close and personal, what this White House won't admit even to itself: that enough American men and women have died for a people who never wanted us there in the first place, and who want only to be left alone so that they can destroy themselves.

Putting our troops into this boiling cauldron of a civil war does nothing but force them to choose sides each and every day and then pay for those choices the next day, when whichever side they had to choose the day before avenges itself on the Americans.


"I fully understand it's important to have both Republicans and Democrats understanding the importance of this mission," Mr. Bush said, speaking to reporters after a three-hour meeting. "It's important for the American people to understand success in Iraq is vital for our own security."
--"Bush Considers Up to 20,000 More Troops for Iraq," David S. Cloud and Jeff Zeleny, New York Times, December 29, 2006


Ahhh, yes, that old bugaboo. The idea that al-Qaeda will set up a stronghold in Iraq from which to launch terrorist attacks on the U.S. Funny story. They've already done that--over in a corner of Pakistan that is protected by the Pakistani government. All they have to do is cross over into Afghanistan and blow up as many people as they want, and fan out wherever they want--London, Madrid, wherever.

As far as al Qaeda terrorists setting up shop in Iraq, well, al Qaeda is Sunni. The Shiites of Iraq hate al Qaeda. Don't count on a Shiite government to tolerate a Pakistani-type arrangement with Sunni terrorists responsible for the destruction of the holiest Shiite religious site in Iraq, not to mention the deaths of countless Shiite people. The only reason they haven't destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq yet is the presence of the Americans, who protect innocent Sunni citizens when they go out looking for terrorists. The Iraqis would not be so merciful.

I'm just saying. Educate yourself into the realities of Iraqi culture and society before accepting any blanket statements out of this White House as they continue to pursue a failed course in a war they started and mismanaged from the beginning. Iraq did not have to be invaded, but since it was, it did not have to be lost. This administration has nobody to blame but themselves and their own disastrous policies.

Don't expect anything new from them any time soon.

BUSH'S WAR

"Roadside Bombs Kill Troops at Highest Rate of Iraq War"
--headline, Boston Globe, December 17, 2006

"Attacks in Iraq at Record High, Pentagon Says"
--headline, New York Times, December 19, 2006

"Pentagon Sites Success of Anti-American Forces in Iraq"
--headline, Washington Post, December 19, 2006

"On the War, Determined to Go His Own Way"
--headline, Washington Post, December 20, 2006

"White House, Joint Chiefs at Odds on Adding Troops"
--headline, Washington Post, December 19, 2006

"Bush No Longer Listening to Commanders on Troop Levels in Iraq"
--headline, Buzzflash.com, December 21, 2006

"Troop 'Surge' for Iraq Meets Growing Opposition in US"
--headline, Yahoo! News, December 25, 2006


According to a CNN poll conducted in mid-December, ONLY 11 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT A TROOP "SURGE" INTO IRAQ.

Even more telling, perhaps, than the flat-out opposition of the American people to an escalation of the war in Iraq is that the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as two generals on the ground in Iraq--not to mention, the Iraq Study Group--OPPOSE troop escalation.

As late as October of '06, right about the time that Bush stated, "absolutely, we're winning," the war he started in Iraq, he repeated what he has said over and over again, that he would depend upon the generals on the ground to tell him whether more troops were needed.

Then, right about the time that he admitted, murkily, that, "we're not winning, but we're not losing, either," Bush started to ignore not only what his Joint Chiefs of Staff--right down to the last man--were telling him, but what the generals on the ground were saying, as well.

Then there came the usual tell-tale White House PR push to "roll out" a new marketing product, in this case, Bush's new war plan to escalate the war by not only sending more troops to Baghdad--which he will get by keeping troops who are already there in-country after they are supposed to go home, as well as rushing the deployments of those scheduled to depart later--but by building up the armed forces, altogether.

Some have suggested that he has even used the "building up the army" plan as a BRIBE to get reluctant commanders to go along with his scheme to secure Baghdad by sending in more troops.

I don't know about that. I do know that the two main generals on the ground who have opposed this plan will be "retiring" in a couple of months, and that after a hasty, three-day visit by the new secretary of defense, they are now mumbling garbled sentax about how, okay, it might be all right to send more troops into Baghdad IF there is a good strategy for their use.

So of course, Bush, the master strategy-manipulator who has, so far, trotted out six different reasons for unseating Saddam, coming up with a new war-rationale every time the old one is proven to be a lie or at least a massive miscalculation, will only be too obliging to provide a new "strategy" to effect his latest plan which is, after all, more of the same. A do-over, basically.

It's like saying, Okay, you said we didn't have enough troops. So, fine, we'll send more troops!

Of course, it's too late, now. In the beginning, those who were in-country fighting the war in '03 say that, as soon as the looting began, if we'd had enough troops at the time, as generals had been requesting from the beginning, we could have curtailed it and brought order and made the Iraqi people feel secure.

But our recently-feted secretary of defense said only, "Stuff happens." And ordered our troops to stand by and watch, which was the first clear signal to the Iraqis that they were on their own, and thus, caused the birth of the death-squad militias to "protect" the people. Meanwhile, when American troop commanders on the ground warned Rumsfeld about a growing insurgency, he dismissed them as "dead-enders."

As far as sending more troops into Baghdad, we already sent more troops into Baghdad, several months ago, and the Pentagon's own report stated that the troop escalation was a huge flop and that, rather than cutting down the violence in the capitol, it merely caused it to go UP.

So Bush says he's "listening" now. But those who have met with him, who have tried to present the unvarnished truth--which he claims he wants to hear--have been met with respectful but stony silence and brief meetings of a half-hour or so. No questions or follow-up to their presentations.

But Bush can state--unequivocally--that he did, indeed, "listen" to them.

Yet those hawks--the same neocon geniuses who pushed us into this miserable war in the first place and who, to this day, refuse to admit that they were wrong, preferring instead to blame Bush for screwing up their glorious little war--those who have all sorts of great plans for fixing it--like, say, escalating the troops--get a long meeting of two hours or more, peppered with questions.

In other words, Bush already knows what he wants to do and is, yet again, pretending to consider all options while, really, cherry-picking those arguments that fit his predisposed ideas, so that he can present his plan with a great flourish to the American people complete with more flags than you can count.

Expect his big speech to be full of praise for the ideas of those who opposed him, and small concessions to them, as if he really did care what they had to say. But don't expect him to actually change his disastrous policy in a war that is, increasingly, his own personal war.


"There's something much worse than being accused of 'flip-flopping': refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop…

"Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial died after America's leaders knew that our strategy in that war was not working. Was then-secretary of defense Robert McNamara steadfast as he continued to send American troops to die for a war he knew privately could not be won? History does not remember his resolve--it remembers his refusal to confront reality."
--"When Resolve Turns to Recklessness," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Washington Post, December 24, 2006


Remember when Donald Rumsfeld made his victory lap around Iraq the week before he left office, telling the longsuffering troops that, "History will show that I am right"?

If we really wanted to be shown--and not told--Bush's attitude toward Bush's War, we need only turn our attention to the obscene and tasteless display of egotism and arrogance put on by the White House to honor outgoing secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who, it could be argued, single-handedly caused the destruction of a nation, unparalleled war-profiteering at the hands of administration cronies, and horrendous losses of precious American blood and treasure in a war one Republican senator called, "misunderstood, misread, misplanned, and mismanaged…with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam." (Sen. Chuck Hagel, Neb.)

Here's a glimpse of all the toy-soldier pomp and circumstance, in which Maureen Dowd described Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld--the true "architects" of the Iraq war:

"The Defiant Ones came striding from the Pentagon yesterday, the troika of wayward warriors marching abreast in their dark suits and power ties. W., Rummy and Dick Cheney were so full of quick-draw confidence that they might have been sauntering down the main drag of Deadwood."

She goes on to describe the ceremony accurately, for I saw it, over and over again, on the evening news B-Roll they are so enamored of:

Yesterday's tribute had full military honors, a color guard, a 19-gun salute, an Old Guard performance with marching musicians--including piccolo players--in Revolutionary War costumes, John Philip Sousa music and the chuckleheaded neocons and ex-Rummy deputies who helped screw up the occupation, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, cheering in the audience.

It was surreal: the septuagenarian who arrogantly dismissed initial advice to send more troops to secure Iraq, being praised as "the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had," by his pal, the vice president, even as a desperate White House drafted ways to reinvade Iraq by sending more troops in a grasping-at-straws effort to reverse the chaos caused by Rummy's mistakes.
--"Farewell, Dense Prince," Maureen Dowd, New York Times op-ed, December 19, 2006


This is as clear an indication of how Bush really feels about the way the war is going as fifty flag-draped speeches to the contrary. If Bush really felt that Rumsfeld had screwed up his war, he'd have not only fired him years ago, but he would have sent him packing in ignoble defeat.

You know, like what happened to Colin Powell, who was the only Cabinet member to oppose the war to Bush's face, back in 2002, the one who famously told the president the "Pottery Barn" policy, that, "You break it, you own it."

Never forget that this man was also, at one time, secretary of defense, one who actually WON a war in Iraq, one who had served his country in combat and with honor and distinction--a Republican, by the way--who did not get marching bands in Revolutionary War costumes when he was run out of office and replaced as secretary of state. And here is what Gen. Powell had to say about the latest "plan for victory" in Bush's War:


Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation," former secretary of state, Colin Powell, seemed to draw as much from his 35-year Army career, including four years as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as from his more recent and difficult tenure as Bush's chief diplomat.

The summer's surge of U.S. troops to try to stabilize Baghdad failed, he said, and any new attempt is unlikely to succeed. "If somebody proposes that additional troops be sent, if I was still chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff, my first question… is what mission is it these troops are supposed to accomplish?...Is it something that is really accomplishable?...Do we have enough troops to accomplish it?

…"Sooner or later you have to begin the baton pass, passing it off to the Iraqis for their security and to begin the drawdown of U.S forces. I think that's got to happen sometime before the middle of next year."

Before any decision to increase troops, he said, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else…THERE REALLY ARE NO ADDITIONAL TROOPS. ALL WE WOULD BE DOING IS KEEPING SOME OF THE TROOPS WHO WERE THERE, THERE LONGER AND ESCALATING OR ACCELERATING THE ARRIVAL OF OTHER TROOPS."

He added, "THAT'S HOW YOU SURGE. AND THAT SURGE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED." (emphasis mine)
--"Powell Says U.S. Losing in Iraq, Calls for Drawdown by Mid-2007," Karen deYoung, Washington Post, December 18, 2006



Recent polls show that, even as only a stunning eleven percent of the American people support Bush's War the way Bush wants to run it, fewer than half of all Republicans and only one-third of conservatives approve of his war strategy.

One of the staunchest hawks on Capitol Hill, a conservative Republican who supported Bush all the way, said in a speech in the Senate chambers, "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal." (Sen. Gordon Smith, Ore.)

The only supporters left of Bush's war, are, as Cokie Roberts referred to them in the Austin American-Statesman, "GOP hardliners--like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney, who don't have to stand for office, or send their own children to war--are still telling Bush to ignore the 'surrender monkeys,' as one headline put it."

Ms. Roberts puts Bush's War--and all its tragic implications--into half a dozen succinct sentences that require no explanation:


This is Bush's War. He broke Iraq and now he owns it.

The nation is facing an enormous tragedy. Bush can't or won't leave Iraq, but staying means Pflugerville, TX (and Cheektowaga, NY, and Westerville, OH, and Oxford, AL, and Redding, CA) will keep burying its children. Only a new president will be able to stop the dying.
--"America Wakes Up to Dying Dreams, Dead Soldiers," Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts, Newspaper Enterprise Assn., reprinted Austin American-Statesman, December 18, 2006


Now, as the mother of a two-time Marine combat vet of Iraq who may yet be shipped back, and the aunt of one Marine who's been there three times in combat deployments and could be sent back even though he is now out of the Marine Corps--but still has his reserve commitment--and the aunt of another due to deploy in May…I have to say, that when I consider the fact that we may have AT LEAST TWO MORE YEARS OF BLOODSHED IN BUSH'S WAR, it makes me despair to the heavens. (By 2009, we will have been at war in Iraq for SIX YEARS. As of this date, we have already been at war longer than it took to whip the Nazis and have lost more soldiers and Marines than all the deaths from the 9-11 attacks.)

But, even though this man is "commander-in-chief"--this is still, the last time I checked, a representative democracy. And we will have a whole new batch of representatives sitting in congress and the senate, come January 4. Those people--Republicans and Democrats--must answer to the 89 percent of constituents who do not want to see this war escalated.

And there is only so much a president can do, at war, in a constitutional government before he must seek the help and support of that representative congress.

It is our duty, as citizens of the United States of America, to make our voices heard--loud and clear--not just in voting booths, but on editorial pages and in e-mails and letters and petitions and blogs and phone calls to the halls of congress--it is our civic duty and personal responsibility to lift our voices into a howl and a cry of outrage that WILL BE HEARD.

Bush cannot fight his war alone.

Not without our support.

He has got to be held accountable for his disastrous decisions.

DO NOT FALL FOR the marketing ploy that will begin to saturate the newsprint and airwaves in the days leading up to and following his big address to the nation, when administration puppets will fan out, pushing Bush's policies and justifying his cock-eyed rationale.

Make it your business to educate yourself. And speak out. Speak out to your congressperson and your senator. Speak out in letters to the editor. Speak out to the White House.

Let it be known that you will not support for election or re-election anyone who accepts without question yet another disastrous, arrogant, and egotistical war-plan out of this White House.

WE HAVE THE POWER. WE ARE THE PEOPLE. IT IS UP TO US.

We shouldn't have to wait two more long bloody years, until there is another president, to see a real and serious course-reversal in Iraq.

This month is inching up toward the bloodiest month since the Battle of Fallujah. We are losing 100 men and women every month in this quagmire. Ten times as many are being grievously wounded. At that rate, our losses will run more than 5,000--with 50,000 wounded--by January of '09, when a new president is finally sworn in.

This is a hemorrhage of American blood. What can we do to stop it?

We can pay attention.

If, for example, Bush and his minions tout a "temporary surge"--HOLD HIM TO IT. Give it two to three months. Then start watching and reading news accounts carefully. See if, in fact, that "surge" becomes permanent.

Listen for administration puppets to keep saying that "the next six months will be crucial." We've been hearing that for three years.

Don't let them slip things past you. Be alert. Be involved. Be aware.

We can fight for our fighters. We can go to war here on the homeland on behalf of our warriors.

Like Rep. John Murtha said, they have done everything we have asked of them, and so much more. They deserve not to live with the constant dread of having to return to the same battlefield over and over again, with their odds of making it home in one piece shrinking every time.

(And I'm not even going to go into the psychologically crippling aspects of this, or of the destructiveness to young military families. Nor am I going to go into the terribly sad loss to the United States military of fine officers and enlisted men who--but for this godforsaken war--would have made a career out of the military but who now can't get out fast enough. Or of those who have served their full enlistments but, due to stop-loss dirty tricks, are being forced to remain in the service against their will and are then redeployed to Iraq.)

As we go into the fourth year of this insane war, many, many soldiers and Marines are returning for their FOURTH deployments.

This has to stop.

WE CAN MAKE THE TOY SOLDIERS--WHO LOVE TO MARCH TO REVOLUTONARY WAR PICCOLOS AND GIVE STIRRING SPEECHES CONGRATULATING THEMSELVES--LISTEN TO THE REAL SOLDIERS WHO HAVE BRAVED REAL BATTLE.

Like the generals and the joint chiefs and the Pentagon, we can demand common sense strategies and solutions from our civilian leadership.

Our warriors are sinking down into the quicksand, but it's not too late.

Line up, dig in, grab the end of this rope, here--and help to pull them out.

FORGOTTEN TROOPS WHO COULD USE CARE PACKAGES--AND THEY'RE NOT IN IRAQ

Every year at this time, thousands upon thousands of care packages are shipped to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that the men and women who receive those packages at this difficult time are deeply grateful for the care and concern sent to them by strangers at the holidays.

My sister-in-law, Kay Hale, is one hero who never fought in a war but has made life so much better for so many who do. Not only does she greet and send off troops with mini-care packages every single Sunday at DFW airport, and not only is she the mother of a Marine who deployed three times to the Anbar province in Iraq, but through the USO, she has personally overseen the shipping of thousands of care packages overseas.

This year, along with 150 that she personally helped to send to our troops overseas, she also helped ship dozens of decorated Christmas trees. On Christmas Day this year, she will not be home with her cherished granddaughter--she'll be at the USO in Dallas, Texas, spreading cheer to a bunch of homesick GI's.

Our fighting men and women are called heroes so often, but I don't think they could do what they do without those of us here at home who are watching their backs.

I know during my son's last deployment, their FOB didn't even have a mess hall or a PX. They lived off of MRE's for weeks. So every week we'd send him potted meat, packages of fruit, beef jerky, pouches of tuna and chicken, cans of ravioli, hard candies, been dip and chips--you name it; if it was edible and would withstand 125-degree heat, we sent it to him and his buddies.

My sister, Jeanne Re, is an Air Force veteran herself who has been an activist in veteran's causes for many years, and it was she who drew my attention to another group of troops who could sure use our help, not just here at the holidays, but year round.

I know I would not have thought of this on my own. It is my privilege to do my own little part, by drawing attention to it here on Blue Inkblots.

According to the website, www.Military.com, a report from Stars and Stripes mentions that donations are needed for wounded troops who are patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I will quote the piece in its entirety:


The hospitals's Family Assistance Center is seeking shoes, gloves, and winter jackets, postage stamps, prepaid phone cards, weightlifting gloves (for wheelchair patients), trousers with snaps or zips along the legs, razors, and prepaid gas or grocery cards. The Center requests that no cash or used items be donated. Donations can be sent to: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Medical Family Assistance Center; Bldg. 2, 3rd Floor, Room 3E01, 6900 Georgia Ave., N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20307-5001.

Looking for ways to support and honor U.S. military servicemembers and veterans who protect our security and freedom? Go to the Military.com Support Our Troops webpage to learn more.


I checked out that webpage. If you would like to learn more, you may contact:

Walter Reed Medical Family Assistance Center (MEDFAC) at:
(202) 782-2071 or toll free 1-866-546-1310


I would also like to point out that there are seriously wounded troops recovering all over the country. They start out at Walter Reed and then are sent to hospitals closer to home for more recovery. San Antonio, for example, has a world-renowned burn center where troops who have been "blown up"--as the guys call getting hit by an IED--recuperate.

So I would suggest that you can send your care packages to Walter Reed, but also, you might check out hospitals close to your area. See if any guys there could use phone cards and other items. Or maybe a visit and a smile.

Keep in mind that so many of our wounded troops are young men and women with young spouses who are trying to cope with, not just this horrific stress of the injury and having to visit their spouses hundreds of miles from their own homes, and the financial hardships that entails, but they usually have little children at home as well. So gift cards from places like Wal-Mart would be a tremendous help.

This kind of assistance requires taking a bit more trouble than just sending a check someplace, and Christmas is, indeed, just around the corner. But these brave and mostly-forgotten men and women are going to need those phone cards and Wal-Mart and gas gift cards for a very long time. Most UPS offices and private mail centers will wrap stuff and ship it for you.

Or, just stuff a handful of gift cards in an envelope.

Let's let them know that we are STILL grateful for their blood sacrifices, that we will NEVER forget them, and that we still have their backs.

God bless them all, and God bless those at home who remember.

WHY I'M SO ANGRY

It seems my last post has drawn some private comments from family members and friends who wonder why I am so angry about this war; why, in fact, I seem angrier than usual.

I explained that I had reached a tipping point--for lack of a better word--in my studies about the war.

First of all, I felt an intense frustration when it became apparent that no matter what the Iraq Study Group came up with, this president was not going to heed any of their suggestions and was, in fact, trying to come up with alternatives and ass-covering before they had even completed their report.

Then, when the report finally was released, well, the good news is that at least it finally opened up a real debate on the war, which should have been conducted back in 2002, but wasn't, because for anyone to have asked any of the questions which are now being asked every day, was to result in them consequently being attacked for such supposed crimes as hating the military, not supporting the troops, not being a patriot, and worse.

So, we're finally asking honest questions about the war. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the suggestions which are being taken the most seriously in the media are already moot.

Training Iraqi troops is, to quote Bob Herbert of the New York Times, "sheer fantasy." We've BEEN training the troops, and arming them, and supplying them, and supporting them, for THREE YEARS and nothing has come of it. They loot their own barracks, sell their own weapons on the street, stand by while atrocities are commited by their own people in front of their eyes, and even join in the ethnic genocide on occasion. If they are thrust into combat, they freeze and panic, endangering any Americans in the area.

Embedding more Americans to train more Iraqis is pointless.

The truth is that we can't get out and we can't stay, and every day that we debate back and forth, another blue sedan drives slowly up to another house, and two uniformed officers knock on another door. Last Wednesday, there were eleven such visits, in that one day alone, and since then, ten more.

Every day that we debate, another soldier or Marine gets his legs blown off or her hands blown off or his head turned to cantaloupe by a sniper. And we are averaging TEN TIMES the number of critically wounded to the number who perish.

From the very beginning, those of us who have made a business of studying not just politics, but military history, have known that this would happen, and we endured the most outrageous attacks on our character and persons for simply speaking the truth.

You see a train coming. A car straddles the track. You scream and yell at the driver and passengers to get off the track. Instead, they roll down the car windows and shout insults at you, mocking you, while the train barrells down on them.

Then your own son climbs into the car, just before the train hits.

That's how it felt to be me in 2002.

But once this country committed and sent our troops into harm's way, it should have thrown the full power of its resources into the fray, backing our troops in every sense of the word. Building barricades, so to speak, around that car sitting on the track.

It didn't. To quote our secretary of defense, "You go to war with the army you have," not, apparently, the army you desperately need to complete the mission.

Still, I have held back on advocating complete pull-out for the exact same reason I chose not to protest the Vietnam war when my brother, father, future husband and brother-in-law fought; even after bright handsome young soldiers who kissed me good-night on my front porch lost their lives over there--I did not protest the war because I did not want their sacrifices to have been in vain.

So I did not advocate pulling out of Iraq because I wanted so desperately for my son's sacrifices and those of his buddies to have COUNTED for something.

For three years I read everything I could get my hands on from every source imaginable, questioned every troop I knew personally about his impressions when he returned, listened respectfully to their horror stories, prayed for them nightly, and when they were deployed, did everything in my power to let them know that they were not forgotten, with care packages, letters, cards, and constant reminders that they were supported.

I always kept my thoughts about this war to myself with them, because I thought they deserved the respect they had earned with their service, and I would never have ever done anything to make them feel bad, since soldiers and Marines go where they are ordered and serve with honor, even if they harbor their own doubts. And believe me, they had doubts.

I tried and tried to find hope about this war somewhere. I searched for "good news" stories that the conservatives swore were out there; I did my best to ferret out information that would prove me wrong.

If only I could have been proven wrong, it would have been so much easier. If somehow I could have been convinced that that train was going to apply the brakes just in time.

But over the course of time, the onslaught of truth about what was really happening just swept over any good that had been accomplished, and it has been like watching that train plow through the car, killing some of the occupants, crippling some, and endangering my own loved ones.

I would pray and cry in despair about what it meant for men and women like my son who kept getting sent back and back and back again to this war, and every time they returned, it was worse, and every time they were deployed, they knew they were playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

And I looked around, and I saw how this country was not being asked to sacrifice for its own war. I saw how they hit the remote rather than watch more war news, how they had no idea where "Fallujah" was, how their lives were never affected by this ongoing relentless tragedy. How the young men would buy video games that made them feel as if they were RIGHT THERE, except, of course, that they weren't, and the danger was only a game.

I watched how good people, well-meaning people, thought that if they just hung that flag outside the front door, slapped yellow ribbon magnets on their cars, donated a little money for care packages at Christmastime, forwarded e-mail prayers and sentimental soldier-stories, why, they were SUPPORTING THE TROOPS.

Nice gestures. Really. But it would mean so much more if, for instance, they backed a national draft and infused the armed forces with thousands more troops who could take the pressure off the current all-volunteer force.

But that's not going to happen. Nobody wants to sacrifice THAT much.

So, I saw the same families shouldering this terrible burden time and time and time again, and young families being pulled apart, and children growing up without their mamas and daddies, and troops being asked to fight without proper equipment or back-up.

I saw what repeated deployments did to my loved ones who served, and served, and served again. I saw how angry they became each successive time. Other Marine parents and I had lengthy phone conversations and passed long e-mails, wondering how in the world are we going to be able to help our boys???

What could we SAY to them? What could we possibly SAY?

And I wrote condolence letters to the moms who would never have a chance to say another word to their boys, and did what I could to support those mothers whose sons were so gravely wounded that they would never, ever, be the same again.

And something happened to me inside. Call it a tipping point. Call it a breaking point.

Call it rage. Call it despair. Call it whatever you want.

But the truth of the matter is this:

The young men and women who put on their uniforms or cammies and go out to serve this nation are the bravest, the best, and the brightest this country has to offer.

They work harder than anybody else in this great nation, and they do it for little pay and no rewards other than the service itself.

Their patriotism and sense of duty is a sacred trust.

And you better think long and hard before you send them off to die.

If you do it for any reason other than the most noble, honorable, and utterly, absolutely neccessary...then you have betrayed that sacred trust.

These idealistic young men and women like my son who enlisted after 9-11 did so because they thought they would be fighting terrorists in Afghanistan.

Instead, they were sent into a swamp and left to rot.

Now, while the politicians scramble to find the best way to preserve their legacies, these men and women are dying. Every day.

They are dying.

They are dying.

I cry out for them, and for their families, because this war is PERSONAL, not just to me, but to all who gave this country that sacred trust.

How can you NOT feel rage?

How can you not want to DO something, at least to SAY SOMETHING, to speak truth to power, to shout out a protest loud and long in the hopes that somewhere, somehow, you will be heard.

If enough of us shout long enough and loud enough, then somebody, somewhere will finally move that car off the railroad tracks, and troops that might have gone home in a body bag will instead get to spend a Christmas at home with their families.

And then, it will all have been worth it.

HOW WE ARE ARMING THE ENEMY

Every type of gun that the Americans give comes to the market," said Brig. Hassan Nouri, chief of the political investigations bureau for the Sulaimaniya district. "They go from the U.S. Army to the Iraqi Army to the smugglers. I have captured many of these guns that the terrorists bought."

…"In the south, if the Americans give the Iraqis weapons, the next day you can buy them here," said one dealer, who sold groceries in the front of his kiosk and offered weapons in the back.

"The Iraqi Army, the Iraqi police--they all sell them right away…Almost all of the weapons come from the Iraqi police and army," he said. "They are our best suppliers."
--"Black-Market Weapons Prices Surge in Iraq Chaos," C.J. Chivers, New York Times, December 10, 2006.


THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENS:

We pour valuable energy and unlimited treasure and time into training the much-exalted Iraqi army and police forces so they can stand up and we can stand down. It is the centerpiece of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations (which are already DOA on the Beltway), and it is the major thrust of all the mumblings coming from the White House.

I've already written about how even the best-trained Iraqi army units--(those who haven't deserted or refused to fight)--freeze and run at the first sign of combat and beg the Americans to rescue them.

Now I'm going to demonstrate what happens to the arms provided to them by the Americans.

They sell them--some of them still in their boxes--to smugglers, who deal them openly and not-so-openly in every street-corner and back-alley bazaar in Iraq. Sunni insurgent groups, Shi'ite paramilitary units, and criminals who were released from prison by Saddam Hussein before the war make up most of the customers, but more and more terrified households are also stocking up.

This rising demand has pushed up the prices of these almost-new weapons, which means that an Iraqi army soldier can desert his unit--which almost half of them do--and then sell his weapons, thus bringing home pay equal to several months' salary.

These are not just nine-millimeter Glocks, which are flooding the Iraqi markets as fast as the Americans can provide them. They are also grenade launchers, assault rifles, and other high-powered weapons, most of them brand-new--and incredibly, even police cars with police labels and lights still on them.

The weapons were paid for with the $133 million from the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, according to the confidential report put out by the Pentagon.

Not everyone who sells his weapon has quit the police or deserted from the army. Many of them walk in and claim that their weapons were stolen. They are promptly issued new ones.

These guns have been proliferating in Iraq since the war began, simply because the U.S. army did not write down the serial numbers on weapons issued, thus making it impossible to trace the lost, stolen, or sold firearms and grenade launchers that have then been used against our own troops.

Bush can crow all he wants to about how the Iranians and Syrians are meddling in Iraq, but the truth is that they really don't have to. Terrorist activities and insurgent raids and militia massacres are already well-funded by smuggled oil which was not secured by the U.S. after the invasion, and armed by stockpiles of weapons that were also not secured--as per Rumsfeld's orders--and by OUR OWN WEAPONS WHICH WE HAVE PROVIDED THEM AND THEY HAVE SOLD IN THE BLACK MARKET, TO BE USED TO KILL AMERICANS.

We are talking thousands.

And it's taking its toll.


The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in the Anbar province.

…Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, more than 100 troops have died since Sept. 1.

…The report notes that illicit oil trading is providing millions of dollars to al-Qaeda while "official profits appear to feed Sh'ite cronyism in Baghdad."…The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shi'ites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there.

…Without a deployment of an additional U.S. military division--15,000 to 20,000 troops--plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing U.S. troops can do to influence the insurgency."
--"Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker," Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, November 28, 2006.


Here are the cold, hard facts, which are already outdated because so many Marines are dying in the Anbar:

As of the end of November, more than 1,055 Marines have been killed in the Anbar province, a whopping 37% of all U.S. casualties, even though the Marine Corps provides only a third of the troops currently stationed in Iraq.

In other words, the smallest segment of American armed forces serving in Iraq has provided more than a third of all U.S. deaths--and this does not count horrific non-fatal injuries from IED's. The Marines are THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED IN THE ANBAR than troops in Baghdad or anywhere else, and many of the weapons used against them were provided by the U.S. military.

And even the White House wants to give up the Anbar. SO DON'T LET THEM TALK ABOUT HONORING ANYBODY'S SACRIFICE. ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS THEIR OWN POLITICAL SACRIFICE.


The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shi'ites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government…U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shi'tite majority and leaving the U.S. vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Dept. proposal.
--"U.S. Considers Ending Outreach to Insurgents," Robin Wright, Washington Post, December 1, 2006.


Yeah, look to hear a lot from the White House in coming weeks about this 80-20, or "eighty-percent solution." So called because supposedly, 80% of the Iraqi population is Shi'ite and Kurd and only 20% are Sunni.

Of course, this does not take into account our own allies, like, oh, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which are Sunni.

I'm not going to get into all that. Suffice it to say that the Marines have fought valiantly, died and come home blown to pieces, in a failed policy that has accomplished NOTHING, according to the Marines' own assessment.

And I think it's a safe bet that many of the Sunnis they have battled have been fighting back with weapons provided by the good old U.S. military.

This is insane. I'm sick of White House doublespeak and bullshit. I'm sick of their lies and bait-and-switch sloganeering, their concerted media-drenching of talk-radio and FOX news and neocon publications, which then gets quoted in the mainstream media.

I'm sick of this administration using the soundbite and photo op to peddle their lies and manipulations about this war--which they have been doing since 2002--to the American people.

I'm sick of Marines dying in the Anbar for NOTHING.

I'm sick of the White House completely ignoring the Anbar, claiming that the whole war will be fought and won in Baghdad. They've even gone so far as to draw desperately needed Marines out of the Anbar and sent them into Baghdad, leaving those left behind even more vulnerable and exposed.

Bait and switch, baby.

How many Marines will die today because of THAT lie?

I'm sick of news like these black-market weapons flooding the market as fast as Americans can provide them NEVER MAKING IT TO THE EVENING NEWS BROADCASTS, while Bush does his soundbite photo-op dog-and-pony show for the cameras.

Rumsfeld has the unmitigated gall to visit the troops in Iraq ostensibly to "say good-bye" but really to preen for the cameras and get one last soundbite on the evening news, to wit, "HISTORY WILL PROVE THAT I AM RIGHT."

WE'VE LOST MORE THAN 45 TROOPS IN THE FIRST TEN DAYS OF THIS MONTH IN IRAQ ALREADY. I'M SURE THOSE STRUGGLING, HOMESICK TROOPS FOUND HIS WORDS COMFORTING AND REASSURING AND INSPIRING HERE AT CHRISTMASTIME as they went out to fight AGAINST WEAPONS WE PROVIDED TO THE ENEMY.

I'm sick of watching Bush's fandango when we all know that all he intends to do is wallow in self-pity and languish in Iraq while men and women die just so he can hand the whole thing over to the next president and then go around at high-dollar fund-raisers making millions for Republicans and throwing rocks at the new president for whatever decisions he or she makes to end this wasted war.

I'm sick of it all.

I'm sick of this war.

I'm done waiting to see if anything anywhere can make any of this worth the horrific blood-sacrifice made by our bravest and best.

Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind.

OUR MEN AND WOMEN ARE DYING ON THE CROSS OF ONE MAN'S TOWERING EGO AND ONE SLENDER SEGMENT OF IDEOLOGUES WHO NEVER FOUGHT AND NEVER SENT THEIR OWN CHILDREN OFF TO DIE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S CROSS.

They talk about "temporary surge" of troops. Trust me. It won't be temporary.

So far, 2,934 have been killed in the Iraq war.

BY THE END OF THIS MONTH, MARK MY WORDS, WE WILL CROSS THE TERRIBLE LINE OF MORE THAN 3,000 DEAD IN IRAQ, WITH NO END IN SIGHT.

By the time George W. Bush and his minions leave office in 2009, American deaths in Iraq could very well number more than 5,000.

We are currently losing 100 a month. (Amputations and brain injuries not included.)

Bush fiddles while Iraq burns. And here at home…WE SHOP.

It is time to stop this outrage. It is time to fight for our fighters and go to war for our warriors. Nothing "supports our troops" better than bringing them home and saving their lives.

DECLARE "VICTORY." TURN IRAQ OVER TO THE IRAQIS. LET THEM GET THEIR ARMS FROM SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN OUR OWN TROOPS.

THEN GET THE HELL OUT.

There is not much a Democratic congress and senate can do to stop the madness when a madman is commander-in-chief. But there is a great deal that the American people can do to rise up and shout down the walls of the White House.

I do not support cutting off funding to the troops. I understand the rationale behind it but it only hurts the ones trying to survive in an impossible place.

But we can apply pressure to our legislature on both sides of the aisle and we can make it clear that we aren't listening to Rush Limbaugh and FOX news and all the rest of the far-right manics like the New York Post, which featured James Baker and Lee Hamilton as "surrender monkeys."

We can refuse to listen when grenade-words are thrown like surrender, defeat, retreat, win-or-lose, and "victory."

We can let the surviving Republicans and hawk Democrats know that as long as they continue to support failed policies with this kind of talking-point nonsense, then their days are numbered in their present jobs.


The Bush administration has lost all of its credibility on the war. what is needed now are leaders with the courage to insist, perhaps at the risk of their reputations and careers, that it is wrong to continue sending fresh bodies after those already lost, to continue asking young, healthy Amnerican troops to head into the combat zone, perhaps for their third or fourth tour, to fight in a war the public no longer supports.

In a forward to "The Best and the Brightest," David Halberstam's chronicle of the Vietnam fiasco, Senator John McCain wrote:

"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay.

"No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, IT IS CRIMINAL TO EXPECT MEN IN THE FIELD TO CARRY IT ALONE." (emphasis mine)
--"The Time is Now," Bob Herbert, New York Times, December 11, 2006.

We can stop debating and dithering while our soldiers and Marines die.

WE CAN STAND UP TO THIS WHITE HOUSE UNTIL THEY STAND DOWN.

God bless our boys and girls in uniform who fight so far away from home this Christmas. They and their families--and those who will never be home for the holidays again--are in my heart every moment of every day.

It is our job, here at home, to stand up for them so that they can stand down. There is no better way to support the troops.

"GOD GET ME OUT OF THIS BECAUSE THESE GUYS ARE GOING TO GET ME KILLED"

…During Operation Lion Strike…the goal was to capture insurgents in the Fadhil district of central Baghdad. It was the first time the Iraqi army's 9th Division was to be in complete control of an operation in the two years it has been training under the Americans. Teams of U.S. advisers remained close, but planned to leave the fighting to the Iraqis.

"It started out that way. But about five minutes into it, we had to take over," Staff Sgt. Michael Baxter, 35, said…

…U.S. military leaders had called it an "outstanding" example of Iraqi forces taking charge…But interviews the following day with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers at Camp al-Rashid in Rustimayah, where they are based, painted a more complex picture…

…While some soldiers froze in indecision, others fired wildly (at friendly and insurgent targets alike) as they ran across streets…

"I'm just thinking to myself, oh God, get me out of this because these guys are going to get me killed if we stay here," said Staff Sgt. Baxter.
--"'About Five Minutes Into It, We Had to Take Over': U.S. Military Advisers Step In As Iraqi Army Mission Falters," Nancy Trejos, Washington Post, December 3, 2006


"Fear took over," among Iraqis, said Staff Sgt. Michael Baxter.

"They refused to move. We were yelling at them to move," he said. "I grabbed one guy and shoved him into a building…"

…"I had to throw bullet casings at them to get their attention," said Army 1st Sgt. Agustin Mendoza, another U.S. trainer who manned a Humvee gun-turret during battle…

No count was taken of the number of civilians killed in the densely populated neighborhood, but U.S. and Iraqi soldiers acknowledged significant "collateral damage…"

The offensive…initially was billed by U.S. officials in Baghdad as an Iraqi-led success and a case study in support of the Pentagon's increasing reliance on military advisers to shift security responsibilities to Iraqi soldiers.
--"An Ambush Erupted, Then, 'Fear Took Over': U.S. Officials Called the Offensive a Success, but Military Advisers Say Iraq's Elite troops Wilted," Solomon Moore, Chicago Tribune, December 5, 2006.


The risks to American troops of working as trainers away from the security of larger American units were underscored early last month, when a staff sergeant and two team leaders--a lieutenant colonel and his replacement--were killed in a single attack in Baghdad.

Another risk is that operations carried out with Iraqi security forces in the lead may be less effective and result in more casualties among Iraqi security forces and civilians than with the better-trained American troops.
--"U.S. Troops in Iraq shifting to Advisory Roles," Thom Shanker and Edward Wong, New York Times, December 5, 2006.


You know, there are only a few dogged reporters who are actually telling the unvarnished truth about what is going on in Iraq. And there is a good reason why.

It's called wishful thinking.

The White House is a master of it, and after six years of semantic obfuscation and euphemisms galore planted by the administration in press conferences and daily media "talking points," the truth is that so many in the mainstream media--particularly in the television news biz, just don't seem to realize that they have started speaking in Bush-talk dialects themselves.

A case in point is the nonsense about the glorious Iraqi army and about how all we have to do is train them better and then they can stand up and we can stand down.

Makes ya just wanna leap to your feet and place your hand over your heart, doesn't it?

Even Democrats think this sounds like common sense.

Not too many politicians, however, have gone out on maneuvers with this much-vaunted Iraqi army, nor have they taken the time to talk to troops on the ground, like my son, who would be only too happy to share with them the REALITY--(that's Bush's favorite new word--see how often he uses it so that he can fool people into believing he really IS thinking in terms of actual real true reality rather than simply parroting the word so it will sound good)--anyway--the REALITY of training these bozos.

Even those in congress, like my favorite, Duncan Hunter, are making grandiose claims about how if only more Iraqi army troops would move to Baghdad, why, by God, we'd clean that sucker up!


The U.S. military is ramping up its training program to add 30,000 more Iraqi troops by mid-2007…The new recruits will add to the small number of Iraqi forces willing to travel away from their home bases…

"In August, when we started Operation Together Forward to secure Baghdad, we called on a bunch of units to assist," said Army Col. Douglass Heckman, commander for the 9th Division Military Transition team. "This division was the only one that moved into operation. The others balked."
--"An Ambush Erupted, Then 'Fear Took Over'", Solomon Moore, Chicago Tribune, December 5, 2006.

Here's the REALITY, guys.

*only 65 % of the weapons and equipment allotted by the U.S. has made it to the Iraqi troops

*The Iraqi Defense Ministry refuses to provide necessary funding, preferring to depend upon the U.S. to do it

*Even with only a few hours advance warning to the Iraqis, as in this particular instance, they were still ambushed by RPGs, snipers, and AK-47 fire from every direction, which not only resulted in wide-scale panic among the Iraqi troops, but caught the Americans in a deadly crossfire that went on for 11 hours. We can--quite literally--TRUST NO ONE.

*At any one time, liberal leave policies and desertions keep barely half of any Iraqi brigade functioning; the rest are absent with and without leave

*90% of the Iraqi army refuses to deploy to areas in Iraq other than their home bases; and even then, Shi'ites refuse to fight Shi'ites and Sunnis refuse to fight Sunnis

*We are currently in the process of QUADRUPLING American troops as advisers in the Iraqi army to speed up training, in the theory that the more troops are trained, the quicker we can leave. But according to the New York Times, the 9th Division was the U.S.-led flagship, the Iraqi division considered "the best hope for U.S. troop withdrawal."


The best hope? Here is our best hope:

Confusion reigned as insurgents pummeled dismounted Iraqi troops and American advisers. American radio jammers blocked Iraqi soldiers' walkie-talkies, forcing them to use unreliable cell phone signals to stay in contact. Voice commands were lost amid the explosions and gunfire echoing off the looming walls. At one point, U.S. and Iraqi troops piled into a Humvee to escape the hail of insurgent bullets pinging off the armor cladding.


"I was pulling people in," Army Sgt. 1st Class Kent McQueen said. "We were all bunched in there together with the gunner. It was like a game of Twister."
--"An Ambush Erupted, Then 'Fear Took Over'", Solomon Moore, Chicago Tribune, December 5, 2006.


The thing is, the more American troops we embed with the Iraqis, the greater the danger to them, not of just being pinned down with their hapless trainees, as was the case here, but how long, then, before we see some American trainer-soldier kidnapped and beheaded on al-Jazeera?

Recently, we had a visit from my husband's brother, who just retired from the U.S. Army Special Forces, where he reached the rank of Brigadier General.

Counter-terrorism is what my brother-in-law has spent 27 years doing, with successes in such diverse places as Bosnia and Afghanistan. And he said that, in order for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, we would need to stay there--ideally, using counter-terrorism tactics--for two full generations.

Let me repeat that in case you are scan-reading. Wouldn't want you to miss this:

In order for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq, it needs to be practicing intensive counter-terrorism techniques for as much as TWO FULL GENERATIONS of time before we can claim anything like a "victory." This is because, thanks to colossal Rumsfeldian blunders and Bushian lies, there is no way the current American troops can possibly win over the Iraqi insurgents or have any real influence on Iraq's current divided government.

Of course, this is the suggestion of a counter-terrorism expert. And although the U.S. military is doing its damndest to revise its tactics into those of classic counter-terrorism methods, the truth is that a behemoth like the U.S. Army is not built for small teams of counter-terrorist groups to move into a desert village or teeming urban neighborhood and slowly win over the people there by gaining their trust.

It is built to crush.

(And the U.S. Marine Corps was not even created to mount a sustained ground war or anything like nation-building. It is a rapid-reactionary force, meant to go in hot, secure an area, and turn it over to the Army before moving on to the next hot spot. Like the army, it's better at crushing than at winning-over.)

So, after four years of attempting to CRUSH an insurgency, we're left with chaos.

Therefore, the only idea remaining to the pundits and politicians and policy-makers for them to be able to claim "victory" is to train train train those Iraqi troops to take over for themselves and restore some semblance of order to their crumbling country.

Boys and girls, let's get one thing perfectly straight.

There are no good solutions for "winning" in Iraq.

In fact, there are no solutions at all, and everybody--even the much-heralded Iraq Study Group--knows this.

What we have now is this: What is the best way to LOOK like we are accomplishing anything LIKE a definitive goal in Iraq, so that we can get the hell out of there before the next presidential elections?

Training Iraqis looks like the way to go.

LOOKS like it.

But the truth is that our longsuffering American troops can train their butts off, but if the Iraqis don't wanna be trained, they will "fight" like the Keystone Kops and beg the Americans to rescue them. And the worst thing of it all is that, in the process of rescuing them, we're getting MORE Americans killed.

I guess what the pundits and politicians and policy-makers have to do now is convince the American people that the Iraqis really are standing up and we really are standing down. Takes a few good slogans tossed around in on-camera interviews and "leaked" memos sounding all official-like to select reporters.

Of course, those reporters who are willing to speak truth to power can expose the lie pretty quick, to those who are paying attention, like moi.

On the other hand, maybe we should ALL play a game of Twister.

Let's just all pretend that the Iraqis have been trained, just like they said, and then God get us out of there before they get us killed.

THAT is the truth.