LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Truthdig Trek with Chris Hedges
March 20, 2010
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read
Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101

Truthdig Bazaar
Fidel Castro Reader

Fidel Castro Reader

by Fidel Castro (Author), David Deutschmann (Editor)
$13.57

History’s Greatest Heist

History’s Greatest Heist

By Sean McMeekin
$27.36

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

No End in Sight

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   

Share
Posted on Jun 16, 2007
gates
AP Photo / Andrew Gray, pool

Defense Secretary Robert Gates arrives with military escorts in Baghdad on Saturday.

It’s now five months into the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, and although American Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed during his visit to Baghdad this weekend that it’s still too early to tell if the surge is working, one U.S. military higher-up, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, admitted that only 40 percent of Iraq’s capital city is consistently safe.


AP via Breitbart.com:

Odierno said there was a long way to go in retaking the city from Shiite Muslim militias, Sunni Arab insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists. He said only about “40 percent is really very safe on a routine basis”—with about 30 percent lacking control and a further 30 percent suffering “a high level of violence.”

The U.S. ground forces commander discussed the new offensive and the security situation in an interview with two reporters as he visited an American outpost near the main market in the capital’s southern Dora district, a major Sunni Arab stronghold.

“There’s about 30 percent of the city that needs work, like here in Dora and the surrounding areas,” Odierno said. “Those are the areas that we consider to be the hot spots, which usually have a Sunni-Shiite fault line, and also areas where al-Qaida has decided to make a stand.”

Read more


More links:

Follow this link to read Al Jazeera’s report about Gates’ critique of the Iraqi government’s lack of progress in quelling sectarian violence.

Click here for a report about Iraqis’ flagging faith in Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s leadership.

Read this Washington Post article about private contractors’ “parallel war” in Iraq.

More Below the Ad

Advertisement


Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By steve, June 18, 2007 at 10:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Looks like the surge and the whole war have been very successful for the administration and their corporate buddies…things are turning out just as planned…one really has to wonder about all the miscalculations and such…or if the whole plan was to destabilize the region from the beginning, create the conditions for a civil war and keep us there for years just like korea…

Report this

By loveinatub, June 18, 2007 at 2:19 pm #

<The crusade to liberate Iraq is a noble and virtuous endeavor, but Mr. Bush can not succeed if selfish Americans refuse to give him the power he needs to do his job.>

Invading Iraq was not “noble” nor “virtuous.” George W. Bush is a war criminal and should be prosecuted as such in an international court of law! Along with Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thanks to the folly and megalomania of these individuals Iraq is now knee-deep in civil war and is only exacerbated by the U.S. military presence. The U.S. military must EXIT out of Iraq NOW. The billions wasted on this horrific and egregious action is the price this country pays for the arrogance and contempt of history shown by the leaders we elect to public office. George W. Bush is a murderer and those Americans who voted for him are complicit in the destruction of Iraq.

Report this

By skyrider, June 18, 2007 at 10:57 am #

Nancy Pelosi supports Permanent US Bases in Iraq

ASK HER YOURSELF.  I have asked and received the answer from the Democratic Party Leaders that Permanent US Bases in Iraq are needed for the training and support of the Iraqi military. If the Democratic Party Leaders will not say they are against Permanent US Bases in Iraq, then they are for them!
There are at least four “super-bases” in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with “withdrawal” from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases have been constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and Democratic Party leaders say - and they always deny that the US seeks “permanent” bases in Iraq - facts on the ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream “permanency”. One of the enduring mysteries of this war is that reporting on US bases in Iraq has been almost non-existent these past years
The Permanent US bases fit snugly with other Pentagon plans. For instance, Iraq’s 400,000-man military has been replaced by a 100,000-man, lightly armed military without armor or an air force. (In an otherwise heavily armed region, this ensured that any Iraqi government would be almost totally reliant on the US military and that the US Air Force would, by default, be the Iraqi Air Force for years to come.)
As long as the Pentagon keeps building them, making their facilities ever more enduring and ever more valuable, there can be no genuine “withdrawal” from Iraq, nor even an intention of doing so. The Democratic Party Leaders do not discuss them (other than to deny their permanency from time to time). No presidential speeches deal with them. No plans for them are debated in Congress. The opposition Democrats generally ignore them and the press won’t even put the words “base”, “permanent” and “Iraq” in the same paragraph. It may be hard to do, given the skimpy coverage, but keep your eyes directed at our “super-bases”. Until the Democratic Party Leaders blink on them, there will be no withdrawal from Iraq.

Report this

By ardee, June 18, 2007 at 8:56 am #

“:Let’s note that Saddam Hussein harmed poor Iraqis by attacking the Kurds, and fighting a war against Iran. Then when he invaded Kuwait, he provoked Bush 1’s war. Then the sanctions imposed by us against Iraq caused untolled early deaths of children, old and ill Iraqis.”

Robert, in the interest of fairness we should also mention that the USA encouraged Hussein in his attacks on the Kurds as part of a war with Iran. We armed him , including giving him chemical weaponry.

His attack on the Kuwaitis was in response to their use of slant drilling techniques which were stealing oil belonging to Iraq. Not theat Im saying he should have attacked them but I wonder who taught them and encouraged them to do this?

Report this

By ardee, June 17, 2007 at 10:00 pm #

Leefeller

Remember Bushs’ excalamation that he “hit the trifecta”? Couple that with his biographers citing that, should Bush find himself at war as did his father, he wouldnt “waste the political capital” of a wartime President. (said while stillGovernor of Texas)

All the fearmongering since 9/11, the allowing of bin Laden to flee into Pakistan rather than giving the 10th Mountain Brigade free range to kill the fucker (they are, after all, purportedly the finest mountain fighters in the world), all point to the way Bush and company have played the American public like a violin to get everything they want including billions upon billions in profits..

vet240

One day is already here. We are paying in reduced services, a crumbling infrastructure, weakening of our educatory system with outdated books and overcrowded classrooms. We are paying in the defaulting of pension payouts due to offshoring and cynical capitalists being allowed to screw us all. We are paying now and will pay for generations to come.

I fail to see any in the current crop of those running for the highest office, at least those who actually have a chance to win, who are worth the price of the gas to go to the polls and vote for them.

Report this

By robert.cogan@gmail.com, June 17, 2007 at 9:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks for your comments! Roy, I liked your video and especially the points about compassion (for Iraqis) on your site. Jjohn and Carl: I acknowledge all the horrendous injustices of the Bush aggression against Iraq, pre-emptive war, etc. Let’s note that Saddam Hussein harmed poor Iraqis by attacking the Kurds, and fighting a war against Iran. Then when he invaded Kuwait, he provoked Bush 1’s war. Then the sanctions imposed by us against Iraq caused untolled early deaths of children, old and ill Iraqis. General sanctions never hurt dictators, they hurt the poor who are already oppressed. And then came Bush 2’s invasion and the nation destroying of Bremer’s CPA. By the way, Thomas Ricks portrays Odierno’s conduct of the 4th ID (before his current command) as “very combative” “He hammered everyone.” (Ricks, Fiasco, pg. 232).

I’m trying to find a way, given that I think interests in the US continuance in Iraq are too powerful for popular discontent to overcome, to lessen further devastation than the probable 655,000 Iraqi lives shortened by the war, (Lancet study)  the 2 million people made refugees and 1 million internally displaced persons. This, JJ, and others, is an indirect attempt to control OUR government, not the poor Iraqis.

Report this

By Hammo, June 17, 2007 at 6:56 pm #

The Bush-Cheney administration and their cronies will try to stretch out the occupation of Iraq as long as possible.

They may use reasonable arguments, deception or both.

The American people need to look deeply into this situation.

Food for thought in . . .

“‘Dumbing down’ of Americans may not be working: More intelligence emerges”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=29479

Report this

By Mudwollow, June 17, 2007 at 5:33 pm #

George Bush and the American military can not win this war alone. The crusade to liberate Iraq is a noble and virtuous endeavor, but Mr. Bush can not succeed if selfish Americans refuse to give him the power he needs to do his job. Fortunately there is something we can all do to show our support for Mr. Bush and for the Iraqi crusade. First, we can pull our sons and daughters out of their jobs and schools and send them off to fight in Iraq. Secondly we can begin selling off unnecessary possessions such as our automobiles and houses and sending the proceeds to the war effort. Finally, we can all begin doing our part to rid our country of all who oppose this war and this president. Only when our sons and daughters are dead, our net worth is zero and opposition to the president has been thoroughly crushed will this noble and moral war be won.

Report this

By vet240, June 17, 2007 at 5:31 pm #

This thing is progressing much like the Vietnam War progressed.

First the appeal for more troops to accomplish an undefined mission, followed by statements of progress. Then an admission that things aren’t working up to expectations with reasons (excuses) for the failure followed once again by requests for more troops and money.

In the mean time we are spending vast amounts of money borrowed from foreign Governments to finance the war on credit.

Stupid and self-serving points which many Americans are blindly following and supporting.

One day we all will have to pay the price for this horrendous folley.

Report this

By Roy Eidelson, June 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm #

The Bush administration succeeded in promoting the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting our core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, they will likely try to sell us a long-term continuing occupation of Iraq—or an attack on Iran—in much the same way. I examine these warmongering appeals and how to counter them in a new 10-minute video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It’s available for viewing on YouTube HERE.

Report this

By Mudwollow, June 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm #

“40% of Iraq’s capital city is consistently safe”

Now, say that a few more times but try to make it sound more convincing.

Try to emphasize the consitency part, without laughing.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, June 17, 2007 at 1:29 pm #

ardee,

Yes, catch words.  How about the “War On Terror” for a catch word? It makes sense for phase two in the mind of a simpeton.  The word terror may have been coined on purpose,  Bush in his vision sees himself as the head of the Jacobin Faction by following in the footsteps of Robespierre to protect his regime.  Hope he missed that part of history, since he believes history is supposed to repeat itself.

Report this

By ardee, June 17, 2007 at 11:57 am #

Nitpicking, a national sporting event…....

General Odiera notes that 60% of Baghdad is secure(?) and in the same breath notes operations into two neighborhoods where American soldiers have not entered in three years! HMM

I dug a bit deeper and found his reference to the “Islamist State of Iraq” as an AlQaeda front group. Below find the Wiki reference which notes, as the General might be expected to know, that it is not really such a thing at all. Beware those who use catch words and formulaic phrases designed to instill fear and loathing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq

The Islamic State of Iraq is an Islamist umbrella organization of Iraqi insurgent groups established in 2006 “to protect the Sunni Iraqi people and defend Islam, by the Pact of the Scented People”. It is composed of a variety of insurgency groups, including the Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Conquering Army (Jeish al-Fatiheen), Soldiers of the Prophet Muhammad (Jund al-Sahaba), Brigades of Al-Tawhid Wal Sunnah, and Sunni tribes. It aims to establish a caliphate in the Sunni Arab dominated regions of Iraq.

It claims a presence in the governorates of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din, Ninawa, and parts of Babel and Wasit, and is headed by the Emir of the Believers Abu Abdullah al-Rashid al-Baghdadi (“Abu Omar al-Baghdadi”). The Islamic State of Iraq and its allies possessed de facto control over the Anbar and Diyala governates forming or controlling the majority of its local governments by September, 2006. [1][2][3] [4] its self proclaimed capital is the insurgent held city of Baqubah

Im just saying here…..

Report this

By DennisD, June 17, 2007 at 10:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Just the typical government response. Asked how much money it will take to accomplish something, the answer is more, how many men and women will need to be sacrificed, the answer is more. The “plan” has actually succeeded, the rich have become much richer. Chaos in Iraq has provided the greatest opportunity to loot our treasury without a word of dissent from our crooked politicians. Beats the usual corporate welfare giveaways any day. That’s been the only plan from day one.

Report this

By Robert Cogan, June 17, 2007 at 9:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you, Cyrena (mother of Aristeaus, sunlight) for your comment. My belief is that the interests that talked Bush into this war, the oil companies and American Neocon supporters of hard line Israeli governments, are still far too monied and therefore powerful in American politics to be overcome by popular discontent with the war. I’ve been involved in progressive politics since 1956, organized bus after bus for demos against the Vietnam war and seen demonstrations lose all effectivenss before a shameless government. I’d just rather try to light a tiny candle than curse the endless darkness.

Report this

By Rising Phoenix, June 17, 2007 at 9:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The United States does not simply get it. This problem is much bigger than the American presence.

The United States simply does not get it. This is not about militias wanting to obstruct the “mission” or obstruct progress. The United States should call it exactly what is: these are four factions, the United States included, are seeking control of Iraq.

The United States (at least the war hawks and other neoconservatives) should finally realize that they cannot solve problems that are bigger than the involvement of the United States itself. The Korean War taught that. The Vietnam War taught that. Hell, even American efforts to forge peace between the Israelis and Palestinians that have fallen apart time and time again have failed.

The whole situation in the Middle East and Southwest Asia—from the rival factions doing battle in Gaza and the West Bank, to Syria forging it’s way into Lebanese politics, to Ahmadinejad’s rampant power plays against the West, to Iraq and Afghanistan itself—is completely about asserting each respective country’s influence in the region, whether it would be military or divine backing.

Report this

By Tom Doff, June 17, 2007 at 8:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Contrary to popular opinion, the ‘Surge’ is working perfectly.

The purpose of the ‘Surge’ was to distract the public from the basic consideration that the Iraq war was illegal, amoral, based on lies, and should be stopped immediately.

The ‘Surge’ has done that.

The purpose of the ‘Surge’ was to distract the public from the fact that the Iraq war was causing many more arabs to become members of freedom-fighting groups (which bushspeakers call ‘terrists’), because of having their friends, families and neighbors slaughtered indiscriminantly before their eyes.

The ‘Surge’ has done that.

The purpose of the ‘Surge’ was to get the wimp democratic congress to take their eyes off the ball and provide even more funds to continue the abominable aberration of the apocalyptic assassination of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, women and men in the name of ‘democracy’.

The ‘Surge’ has done that.

And, most important of all, the purpose of the ‘Surge’ was to allow the Bush Bunch and their neocon zionist masters to remain in office for the balance of their terms, in order to fleece the US treasury of as many dollars as possible for FOTA (Friends Of The Administration).

The ‘Surge’ is doing that.

So, in bushspeak, the ‘Surge’ is ‘Success’.

Report this

By cyrena, June 17, 2007 at 5:40 am #

With all due respect, this PLAN has the same hubris as the original Cheney Agenda. (he’s just not concerned about the death, blood and violence as you are). Still, it has all of these “plans” for what OUR military should do in Iraq, when in fact our military should not be there at all. Period. In other words, the presence of the U.S. military in a previously sovereign nation state, IS the irritant. This is the irritant that initiated the conflict, and the complete and total removal of this irritant is the ONLY “Plan” that will stop it.

That leaves the Iraqis free to go about their reconciliation, and to reconcile themselves back to each other as a nation. That have made it abundantly clear that they are not willing to be Imperialized by U.S. Hedgmony, and that they are also perfectly able to rebuild their oil infrastructure, since it is the bedrock of their future economic existence as an independent nation.

So the plan should be to give Iraq back to the people of Iraq, (and when they get rid of the US and the puppet regime that Maliki represents, they can accomplish that.

It would also be helpful if we did not consider how much “profit” will be made by the transnational corporations, off of the Iraqi oil. Maybe we should just consider BUYING the stuff from them, instead of STEALING it from them, so that it ends up costing us tons more in blood and treasure.

I say that only because they will keep resisting us, at every step of the way, as they have done for the past 4 years.

The “Plan” for Iraq must be determined by the PEOPLE of Iraq, and that doesn’t include a US presence.

Report this

By jjohnjj, June 17, 2007 at 4:55 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert, your plan is a worthy attempt to bridge the gap between extreme pro and anti war positions.

But it mistakenly assumes that the US has any legal or moral right to remain in Iraq to begin with. This war was started by lies and is sustained by lies. We cannot accept a “compromise” occupation without losing the last remaining shreds of America’s moral integrity.

Your supposition that vacating Iraq will lead to nuclear proliferation doesn’t wash. It is American aggression that causes nuclear proliferation, not terrorism. If Iran ever achieves deliverable warheads, their target will be American aircraft carriers, not Jeruselem.

Israel may be small in size, but when measured by firepower, it is the Goliath of the region. They have nuclear missles deployed on submarines, for God’s sake… Don’t worry too much about them.

Your plan bears too much of the “Crusader” mentality: “we must control them or they will control us”. We must find the courage to move beyond that kind of thinking.

The Iraqis are fighting for independence, not democracy, not freedom, not soveriegnty… independence.

That means America must leave - now, and then find a way to make amends to our victims.

Report this

By Carl, June 17, 2007 at 2:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Robert~

How about we just get out of Iraq yesterday since we dont belong there in the first place…We have already “fixed” enough in that country…
Let me hear you say the invasion was illegal and based on lies..No lions and no thorns..That my well meaning friend is stuff of fantasy. would you be willing to be be dead over this..dont play chess with other peoples lives.

Carl

Report this

By G.Anderson, June 16, 2007 at 11:32 pm #

Iraq is gone, and no amount of men or material will change anything at this point.

It’s now going to be up to the next adminstration, whomemver that is to do something, unless there is a military defeat before then.

The war was over from the very beginning, because Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and all the other Neocons thought they were God’s gift to the world, gifted with superior intelligence, insight, and were chosen by the Supreme being to implement God’s commands here on earth.

They took the finest military on Earth, and chew’d it right down to the bone. Delusions can be costly.

And it could well be, that we will be fighting in the middle East for generations, as well as Europe, because, of their stupity, hubris, and their contempt for “the eaters”, who left their blood and guts in the dirt of Iraq.

Report this

By robert.cogan@gmail.com, June 16, 2007 at 9:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

No end in sight, in Iraq, Eh?
Below are some innovations toward a plan (“the Androcles Plan”) to reduce casualties and expense in Iraq. They are such an evolutionary,  middle ground compromise among interests that if they are not picked up and advocated by Democratic candidates for President, even a pragmatic Republican could do so, and enhance his prospect of winning the presidency. 

Remember how Androcles ended the lion’s suffering and saved his own life by removing the thorn?  We should follow the moral of the story:  remove the irritants! Our troops could escort Iraqis to resettle in partition zones.  Iraq’s weak, central federal government could be moved to a an isolated, hardened US base in Shia territory. Other countries, including our own, have moved their capitals! Give the Green Zone to Sunnis moving from east to west Baghdad. Let the remaining Iraqis assume the risk of fighting or making peace. Repudiate Bush’s false pride: turn our embassy into a hospital, orphanage and war memorial for all. U.S. military advisers should only remain in cities on condition that local militias are integrated into the local Iraqi police.

Most of our forces can be gotten out of crossfire by redeployment to low population areas guarding Iraq’s oil infrastructure west of its Iranian border. Surveillance of a demilitarized zone could allow refugees to return but stop armed unit infiltration.

Redeployed U.S. troops could also act as containment forces. In the north, they could help stabilize Kurdistan as a province of Iraq, with pacifying ties to Kurds in Turkey and Iran. All Iraqis could be assured some oil money by distribution like Alaska’s Permanent Fund.  Let a unit of our military, maybe an enhanced SIGIR, equitably distribute oil revenues. Our military has a life and death interest in pacifying people living there. There’ll be enough profit in fixing Iraq’s oil industry and selling its oil.

Without stabilization of Iraq the blowback will be nuclear proliferation among more Muslim nations than Iran.  The nation most endangered by this will be tiny Israel.

This is a realistic actual PLAN for Iraq, hopefully less violent than surge and homefront stalemate. Can others help get the name “Androcles Plan” and these ideas before Democratic presidential candidates before some Republicans pick it up?

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.