Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Senate GOP Releases Obamacare Overhaul to Immediate Criticism From Both Sides of the Aisle

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
Radical Renewal

Radical Renewal

Norman Birnbaum

more items

Email this item Print this item

Marie Cocco: The Potemkin Village of Baghdad

Posted on Aug 17, 2006

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—With due respect to T.S. Eliot, August is a cruel, cruel month.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
In this August as the summer withers, optimism dies that in the eighth month of the third year since the American invasion of Iraq we will begin to see the hopeful “year of transition’’ that the U.S. Senate has called for overwhelmingly.

It was a lopsided yet forgettable vote. After all, the “year of transition in Iraq” has thus far been a year of transition to more violence and death, to fresh evidence of the fragility of the new Iraqi government, to grim accounts of the security crisis by U.S. generals. This year of transition has meant a transition to more—not fewer—American troops in Baghdad, with homeward-bound soldiers literally called back to the war zone while they were en route out of it. 

The Baghdad morgue and Iraq’s health ministry report a record number of killings last month, with 3,438 civilians having turned up dead—about double the toll in January, according to The New York Times. Before the newest count, the United Nations already had estimated that Iraqi civilian deaths were running at more than 100 a day. The U.N. said the count was necessarily low, due to the difficulties of record-keeping in a war zone and tallying deaths outside of Baghdad.

The speaker of the Iraqi parliament, Mahmoud al Mashhadani, a Sunni distrusted by rival Kurdish and Shiite politicians, is openly toying with relinquishing his post—a rumination that drew acrimony even from his fellow Sunnis. The Iraqi government, formation of which was heralded by President Bush last spring as a “milestone,’’ a “turning point’’ and a “watershed event,’’ is perilously ineffectual.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
“What has been clear is that the new government is very weak. It cannot really extend its writ anywhere,’’ says Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director of the nonpartisan International Crisis Group. “The government is not doing any governing. It’s not providing services to anyone. The place is really adrift.’‘

This was neither the hope nor the political calculation behind the Senate vote last November. Under pressure to respond to the Iraq crisis with something other than endorsement of the administration’s incompetence, Republican leaders offered their own, tepid version of a response to public dissatisfaction with the war. Their resolution called for 2006 to be “a year of transition” to “full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq” and creating conditions for the “phased redeployment” of U.S. forces.

Among those supporting the lofty language were Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina. The 79-19 vote in favor was bipartisan.

But now a sober Warner, questioning Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top generals earlier this month, dares to ask if the original congressional resolution that authorized the president to invade Iraq still applies now that U.S. troops appear to be caught in the drift toward civil war. “What is the mission of the United States today ... if that situation erupts into a civil war? What is the mission of our forces?”

The question gets to the truth of where we are in Iraq—caught with no immediate or obvious way out.

The Bush administration seems incapable of seeing reality and is disdainful, always, of diplomacy. Yet Hiltermann and others warn that a full-blown civil war in Iraq could not be contained within its existing borders, and would instead engulf the whole region—with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states instigating strife, or threatened by it. One way to head this off is with a regional peace summit of all parties whose fates are tied to Iraq’s. It is the sort of talkfest that Bush abhors; he must be forced to it.

For Republican senators weary of Bush’s unrestrained militarism, of the president’s petulant refusal to talk with foreign leaders he finds objectionable, of the crushing burden the Iraq war has placed on the armed forces, of the unconscionable sums spent on a war with unclear purpose, it is past time to show they are leaders and not just politicians. However many seats Democrats win in the House and Senate elections this fall, there will be no new plan for Iraq without the Republicans.

Anyone can pass a resolution. It takes courage to resolve a crisis.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Mike, August 22, 2006 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, this is not good news and it’s depressing. 
I’m gonna go turn on Fox news to cheer me up!

Report this

By lester vestal, August 21, 2006 at 4:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bushco/CheneyINC, are complete idiots. they are taking this country down the tubes. Bush will invade anyone to be a “WAR PRESIDENT”, the coward could not even complete his own daddy bought Air Guard stint.

Report this

By cognitorex, August 19, 2006 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Articles like these lead to a collective epiphany like, holy hell, is there no one in the cockpit of the good ship America that ever, ever, ever contemplates setting a course for peace. Do we bomb Iran to get our way? What are the resulting scenarios if we use nukes? Should we take out Syria also? These seem to be the only course maps used by this administration and they all engender hate, fear and the ‘rule of brutality.’
We need to bear arms and defend ourselves but if the radar has no reading for a someday world of peace we ain’t going to get there. Think about the fact that the US will not hold discussions at any level with Iran and Syria. In a world where a cell phone and a cup of liquid can cause untold horror who in their right mind thinks destroying sovereign nations who already detest us is going to make the world safer? It seems plain nuts.
Somebody needs to tell Kristol and Cheney to shut their yaps for at least a few minutes each day to see if there is not some alternative to incinerating a goodly chunk of humanity in the name of self defense.
I don’t want to go all Buddhist here, but ‘gosh all mighty’ there has to be some middle road short of ‘War-mageddon.’

Report this

By Joshua, August 18, 2006 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Considering the rhetoric given by Bush for the presence of US troops was to prevent “civil war” from breaking out in Iraq, it’s rather clear that his policy is not only failing, but is a failure.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, August 18, 2006 at 10:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who says we haven’t succeeded? We went there to steal control of the oil, and we HAVE control of the oil, and we will continue to have control of the oil.

No one gives a rat’s whatsit about the Iraqis, dead or alive, fed or starving, safe or in peril, so why pretend that we had some lofty purpose so you can claim we failed?

We COVETed, we LIEd, we KILLed, and we STEAL.

If you want to complain, why don’t you complain about these religious fanatics who pay little or no attention to the laws of their own professed God?

Oh . . . you’d have to mention oil, wouldn’t you?

Report this

By David, August 17, 2006 at 7:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How can you say his policy is failing?  By his own words this policy cannot be judged until far into the future after we’re all dead and gone.  Is it too much to ask for a little patience?  By 2075 there should be a clear indication of whether the current policy is correct or not.  Please reserve your judgement for then.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook