Iraq’s Tragic Future
Posted on Feb 5, 2008
 |
| AP photo / Khalid Mohammed |
Mohammed Salman sits in the rubble of what used to be a book market in Baghdad. His brother died in the explosion.
|
By Scott Ritter
Any analysis of the current state of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq that relied solely on the U.S. government, the major candidates for president or the major media outlets in the United States for information would be hard pressed to find any bad news. In a State of the Union address which had everything except a “Mission Accomplished” banner flying in the background, President Bush all but declared victory over the insurgency in Iraq. His recertification of the success of the so-called surge has prompted the Republican candidates to assume a cocky swagger when discussing Iraq. They embrace the occupation and speak, without shame or apparent fear of retribution, of an ongoing presence in that war-torn nation. Their Democratic counterparts have been less than enthusiastic in their criticism of the escalation. And the media, for the most part, continue their macabre role as cheerleaders of death, hiding the reality of Iraq deep inside stories that build upon approving headlines derived from nothing more than political rhetoric. The war in Iraq, we’re told, is virtually over. We only need “stay the course” for 10 more years.
This situation is troublesome in the extreme. The collective refusal of any constituent in this complicated mix of political players to confront Bush on Iraq virtually guarantees that it will be the Bush administration, and not its successor, that will dictate the first year (or more) of policy in Iraq for the next president. It also ensures that the debacle that is the Bush administration’s overarching Middle East policy of regional transformation and regime change in not only Iraq but Iran and Syria will continue to go unchallenged. If the president is free to pursue his policies, it could lead to direct military intervention in Iran by the United States prior to President Bush’s departure from office or, failing that, place his successor on the path toward military confrontation. At a time when every data point available certifies (and recertifies) the administration’s actions in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere (including Afghanistan) as an abject failure, America collectively has fallen into a hypnotic trance, distracted by domestic economic problems and incapable, due to our collective ignorance of the world we live in, of deciphering the reality on the ground in the Middle East.
Rather than offering a word-for-word renouncement of the president’s rosy assertions concerning Iraq, I will instead initiate a process of debunking the myth of American success by doing that which no politician, current or aspiring, would dare do: predict the failure of American policy in Iraq. With the ink on the newspapers parroting the president’s words barely dry, evidence of his misrepresentation of reality begins to build with the announcement by the Pentagon that troop levels in Iraq will not be dropping, as had been projected in view of the “success” of the “surge,” but rather holding at current levels with the possibility of increasing in the future. This reversal of course concerning troop deployments into Iraq highlights the reality that the statistical justification of “surge success,” namely the reduction in the level of violence, was illusory, a temporary lull brought about more by smoke and mirrors than any genuine change of fortune on the ground. Even the word surge is inappropriate for what is now undeniably an escalation. Iraq, far from being a nation on the rebound, remains a mortally wounded shell, the equivalent of a human suffering from a sucking chest wound, its lungs collapsed and its life blood spilling unchecked onto the ground. The “surge” never addressed the underlying reasons for Iraq’s post-Saddam suffering, and as such never sought to heal that which was killing Iraq. Instead, the “surge” offered little more than a cosmetic gesture, covering the wounds of Iraq with a bandage which shielded the true extent of the damage from outside view while doing nothing to save the victim.
Iraq is dying; soon Iraq will be dead. True, there will be a plot of land in the Middle East which people will refer to as Iraq. But any hope of a resurrected homogeneous Iraqi nation populated by a diverse people capable of coexisting in peace and harmony is soon to be swept away forever. Any hope of a way out for the people of Iraq and their neighbors is about to become a victim of the “successes” of the “surge” and the denial of reality. The destruction of Iraq has already begun. The myth of Kurdish stability—born artificially out of the U.S.-enforced “no-fly zones” of the 1990s, sustained through the largess of the Oil-for-Food program (and U.S.-approved sanctions sidestepped by the various Kurdish groups in Iraq) and given a Frankenstein-like lease on life in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion and occupation—is rapidly unraveling. Like Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, present-day Iraqi Kurdistan has been exposed as an amalgam of parts incompatible not only with each other but the region as a whole.
Ongoing Kurdish disdain for the central authority in Baghdad has led to the Kurds declaring their independence from Iraqi law (especially any law pertaining to oil present on lands they control). The reality of the Kurds’ quest for independence can be seen in their support of the Kurdish groups, in particular the PKK, that desire independence from Turkey. The sentiment has not been lost on their Turkish neighbors to the north, resulting in an escalation of cross-border military incursions which will only expand over time, further destabilizing Kurdish Iraq. Lying dormant, and unmentioned, is the age-old animosity between the two principle Kurdish factions in Iraq, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP). As recently as 1997, these two factions were engaged in a virtual civil war against one another. The strains brought on by the present unraveling have these two factions once again vying for position inside Iraq, making internecine conflict all but inevitable. The year 2008 will bring with it a major escalation of Turkish military operations against northern Iraq, a strategic break between the Kurdish factions there and with the central government of Baghdad, and the beginnings of an all-out civil war between the KDP and PUK.
The next unraveling of the “surge” myth will be in western Iraq, where the much applauded “awakening” was falling apart even as Bush spoke. I continue to maintain that there is a hidden hand behind the Sunni resistance that operates unseen and uncommented on by the United States and its erstwhile Iraqi allies operating out of the Green Zone in Baghdad. The government of Saddam Hussein never formally capitulated, and indeed had in place plans for ongoing active resistance against any occupation of Iraq. In October 2007 the Iraqi Baath Party held its 13th conference, in which it formally certified one of Saddam’s vice presidents, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, as the supreme leader of the Sunni resistance.
1
2
3
NEXT PAGE >>>
Email Newsletter
Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Previous item: The Democrats' Salvation
Next item: The Legacy of Bush II
Elsewhere: .
Comments: 67 Published. Add Yours?
Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Render Unto Darwin That Which Is Darwin’s
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By CorkExaminer, February 14 at 10:43 pm #
(8 comments total)
Best analysis, again
Thanks Scott. Nice to see that somebody still believes in good old fashioned reality and ethics.
Reply to this | Report thisBy bogi666, February 11 at 1:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ritter and Iraq's tragedy
“Mission accomplished 2, The Surge”, directed, produced and starring G.W. Bush in his flight uniform complete with bulge.The American military has ceded areas in Iraq to Sunni groups and pay them not to attack American troops. HOW IS THIS NOT A SURRENDER. Now those groups are asking for more money not to attack American troops, surprise!What happened to WE DON’T TALK TO ‘TERRISTS’. WHAT HAPPENED TO “Not 1 cent for tribute but $trillions for defense”? Now the Same Sunni’s are extorting money from the American military. They’ve Awakened all right, that the gullibility and ignorance of America cannot be overestimated. Just ask Chalabi and the Hamburg taxi driver whose information laid the basis for invading Iraq despite the fact that he is a certified mental case.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Pashupati, February 9 at 11:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Brezezinski is evil
All of you who are commenting about Brezeznski amuse me. The man is inherently evil and if you don’t know why you have not done your homework. That Obama even dreams of using this man as an “advisor” shows that Obama doesn’t have a clue.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBrezezinski has an agenda and he sees this inroad into Baraks sphere of influence as a way to get back onto the real power stage ... he has tasted it once and saw what incredible damage to the world he could inflict. He probably was beside himself having to watch from the wilderness of think tanks etc… at how the neo cons were able to put their sick policies into action ...
If Obabma becomes President then this individual will have gotten what he wants and there will be big trouble ... In a certain sense he is much more dangerous than the neo cons ...
Go do your homework ... look at the total life of this individual and find out, like many of you did with the sick mind of W, what makes him tick and what he will do with another chance at unfettered power.
Americans, even intellectuals such as yourselves, are in need of a big wake up call as to who you allow to influence the mostly weak and insecure people you choose to be your leaders.
By bogi666, February 12 at 6:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Brezezinski is evil
he is a nut case
Reply to this | Report thisBy David, February 9 at 9:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The US people and the Iraqis must understand that they have the pro-Israeli neocons to thank for this mess. The PNAC neocons, AIPAC and AEI worked and connived their little butts off to push us into war with Iraq for one purpose only, to supposedly increase the security of Israel.
Reply to this | Report thisBy nefertiti, February 9 at 1:47 pm #
(76 comments total)
Bush should be proud , he helped Fundamentalists
I have 3 photos of iraq
women BEFORE US sanctions and occupation
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4613/1659/1600/iraqi qirls 64.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4613/1659/320/iraqi girls 46 2.jpg
Iraqi women NOW In basra
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4613/1659/1600/1.0.jpg
from this blog (photos from May 2006)
http://www.thewomaniwasblog.blogspot.com/
Reply to this | Report thisBy mieke, February 9 at 7:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
why are you surprised
With much respect for Mr. Ritter I just want to ask him one question. Why would we leave Iraq just when everything is going the way it is supposed to? There are two camps those with a public agenda and those with a hidden agenda, who put smiling faces on everything they do that is untoforward. They just need to keep us believing long enough that all is well in the state of Iraq until their agenda is secured.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe, February 8 at 9:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Stephen- thanks for your reply. You noted:
“..turning to someone as hawkish as Zbig.”
Actually, Z is the polar opposite of hawkish. See the article at:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-25.htm
“..he [Brzezinski] wrote that attacking Iran absent an imminent threat and without Security Council approval, “either alone or in complicity with Israel,” would make it [the US] “an international outlaw.”
Brzezinski poses for his government choices based on likely outcomes. He is, in effect, a systems analyst, his strategy board the expanse of history. Surely he has made mistakes but he is not even the same species as the murderous incompetent, Henry Kissinger.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Nabih Ammari, February 8 at 8:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re:Iraq’s Tragic Future February 5
Dear Mr. Scott Ritter,
I respectfully refer you to a post I have written as
a response to your article entitled “The Five Iraqs”,
dated January 2,2008.
In that post of mine,I have written that the reality
on the ground in Iraq has not been dictated by the
U.S. or by Iran, but by politically untainted
“undercurrents”.The word “undercurrents” is the real
operative word in the whole paragraph.I just did not
know and was unable to specify the break down of the
composition of the “undercurrents”.Therefore,thank you very much for spelling out,in such an accurate
specificity,the forces which have dictated the path
and magnitude of the Iraqi national resistance,in
your article Re to above.Outstanding.
Although,I do hope that you are wrong about the
eventual and ultimate death of Iraq,I firmly believe
that there is not a single soul/person,in the U.S.
political arena or sphere,who can match your profound
knowledge and critical analysis of the reality on the
ground in Iraq.I say this because I happened to know
the Iraqi people very well and the political forces
that had run their affairs,in the seventies and the
eighties,through working with them on behalf of a
multi-nationals American corporation.The sooner the
occupying forces get out of Iraq,the better for every
sides involved in this criminally instigated war by
the self-appointed “experts” Neoconservatives chicken
hawks who were never elected by anybody and yet,by
hook or crook,succeeded in high-jacking the current
Administration’s policy,actions and inactions for the Iraq,Palestine and Lebanon.Enough is enough of
their garbages.The American people will eventually
be living in absolute poverty if this war in Iraq
continues.It is bankrupting us in every angle you may
wish to look at. Get out and just let the untainted
real Iraqi nationalists determine their destiny, not
bunches of puppets to the U.S. and Iran;and who live
in the comfort of the American Green Zone in Baghdad.
Mr. Ritter,I really feel I cannot thank you enough
Reply to this | Report thisfor a really brilliant assessment of an extremely
complex political mosaic of the agonized Iraq.Superb.
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio.
By John Taylor, February 8 at 10:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Can't pull out of Iraq
If America pulls out of Iraq, Iran’s shiite gov’t will fill the vacuum. This, more than Iran’s nuke program is the greater concern for the administration. This means total Iranian (Russian/Chinese) control of the strategic Straits of Hormuz. The US will not let that happen. The problem will be left for Madam President to resolve. Expect more false flag terrorism followed by a joint US Israeli invasion of Iran with tactical nukes. It will be ugly and could likely ignite ww3. I don’t envy the next president.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy the way Russia has been conducting Mediterranean manoeuvers with fully armed ships and planes.
By wilson, February 10 at 1:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Can't pull out of Iraq
Buker Buster Nukes on the 2000 targets in earthquake prone Iran; irradiate the water of the entire Mideast. The goal can only be a Zionist goal: “...to inflict wrath upon the goyim” and depopulate the Muslim world. And American taxpayers are in the process of commiting moral suicide.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe, February 7 at 6:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Stephen- You are getting your info from corrupt sources. Brzezinski, after initially accepting the Shah as a stabilizing influence in the region, came to despise the man and the abuses he committed. Even the Republican author Slater Bakhtavar, president and founder of Republican Youth of America <cut> a frequent commentator and respected analyst on foreign policy issues, ...
(last sentence written by unknown commentator, so I can’t credit him)
see:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/profile/2653
Bakhtavar credits Carter and, by extension his security adviser Brzezinski, with laying down the law with the Shah.
“The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release “political prisoners,” whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our “war on terrorism.”
“The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts. The effect was to allow trials to serve as platforms for anti-government propaganda. Carter pressured Iran to permit “free assembly,” which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies.” This last well-intentioned push helped the Iranians get rid of their tormentor, the Shah. As things go, he was replaced by the religious leader Khomeini, who gave Carter unending grief.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, February 8 at 9:00 am #
(213 comments total)
Re: More on Big Zbig
Joe, thanks for setting the record straight. In a similar vein it is worth recognizing, out of fairness, that Brzezinski was far from alone in advocating armed support for the mujaheddin. Having recognized all that, however, I still have to wonder just what Obama was thinking in turning to someone as hawkish as Zbig. It seems to me that much of Chalmers Johnson’s analysis of blowback always seems to trace back to hawkish policies, decisions, and actions, while much of Obama’s appeal seems to reside in his opposition to such policies, decisions, and actions. On the other hand Obama may just want to use Brzezinski as the “big stick” he carries while he speaks softly!
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe, February 7 at 12:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
heavyrunner, February 6 at 10:19 am posted:
>>Ritter should Advise Candidates
“Barak Obama, according to James Ridgeway in his recent book outlining the advising teams of the various candidates, has as his principal foreign policy adviser Zibignew Breshinski.
He would be better served to listen to Scott Ritter.”
heavyrunner, your concerns are misplaced. The man’s name is Brzezinski. He is the foremost non-partisan analyst on international affairs, especially as concerns causes of future conflict. Scott Ritter has the potential to become a man of equivalent stature as he continues to develop in scope of regional and historical knowledge. Ritter would surely be a fine advisor but there is no one better than Zbig Brzezinski to advise on critical matters, especially in times of emergency. ZB has written several fascinating books for the layman interested in the dangerous side of international affairs.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, February 7 at 5:21 pm #
(213 comments total)
Re: Big Zbig
I am less concerned over whether or not Brzezinski is nonpartisan and more concerned with his track record. Remember that his only direct involvement with the Executive Branch was during the Carter administration. Since Eric Meiers raised the concept of blowback, we should bear in mind that Zbig was responsible for two such instances. First was his commitment to supporting the Shah of Iran, which had blowback for Iran and the Carter Presidency, if not the entire Democratic Party, as well as the global standing of the United States in the Middle East (not to mention our getting in bed with Saddam Hussein). Second was his support of the mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which is what got Chalmers Johnson talking about blowback in the first place. I am no more desirous of Brzezinsky returning to a “position of influence” in our government than I am of Henry Kissinger doing same!
Reply to this | Report thisBy Joe, February 7 at 11:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
If Ritter is right about the “embed” components throughout Iraqi society, there is no possible way for the McCain “victory” to ever come about. The sophisticated mix of interests and reluctant cooperation among opposing factions, and the self-control exerted by leaders such as Muqtada al-Sadr,
Reply to this | Report thismake it clear that any occupation force of any sort will simply be marking time for many years with the inevitable outcome being the usual for such occupations..the occupation will end with no apparent rationale for its former existence. If Bush and McCain would take the trouble to read any history, ancient or contemporary, they would understand that their approach can yield one benefit only: thinning out the world’s population. To call these leaders stupid is to tarnish the good names of hardworking stupid people worldwide.
By Charlie, February 7 at 8:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Credibility
Why would anyone, take anything, this pedophile had to say, seriously. His beef with the Iraq war is that he can’t contact, and arrange sexual encounters with any underage muslim girls while the fighting is still going on.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Ozone, February 7 at 7:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good to have Mr. Ritter’s analaysis here. I believe that Sadr’s main thrust has always been nationalistic. Now, whether this means a unified Iraq, or federalized states, is anyone’s guess, but it will certainly be determined by Iraqi’s (whether by force of arms or internal deal-making). The FACT that Sadr has openly made alliance with like-minded Sunni nationalist groups, nearly assures that this will be the dominant power group. Those that believe that Iraqi’s are only fixated upon their tribal or sectarian identities, are in for a shocking wake-up call.
In the end, the increasing impotence of US interference in others’ sovereign affairs will be revealed for the hubristic fairy tale it is.
The veil has been ripped away from both foreign and domestic machinasations (erg!sp!) for those with the courage to face their [many] mirrors’. Beware...and prepare; it’s going to get extremely “interesting”, everywhere.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Eric Meiers, February 6 at 10:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
And the cost this year Est. 628 million
WE can afford nothing for domestic spending but to keep up a occupation that will surely breed terrorists and create a blowback for years to come all for the 628 mil what a country. Keep it up Scott proud to fight with you. Eric
Reply to this | Report thisBy John Taylor, February 6 at 4:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Americans are too absorbed in sports to see
Mr. Ritter is very perceptive and makes his points clearly and logically. His strongest points are the fact that the public knows very little about and cares less about the middle east.
Reply to this | Report thisI think he is wrong about the farce and failure of the surge to make headlines in 2008. I believe the mainstream media is a powerful a tool of the elite and the fiasco of the surge will remain hidden. Why??
The US dollar is on the point of collapse and the economy is in a far greater mess than anyone cares to disclose in no small part to financing a war few Americans want. This has been under-reported by the media so Americans remain unconcerned.
The new hope for America politicans come out of the same mold as the old crowd and Americans will again endorse one of them endorsed by the mainstream media and will continue to endure the old policies that are not working now. All the heavily promoted candidates favor continuing this war and none seem too opposed to stepping into Iran.
America is the only country in the world that believes it’s own propaganda.
By jbart, February 6 at 4:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I feel obligated to add this opinion, that is not (necessarily) directly related to this article nor to the blogs/opinions offered to respond to it.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisI just saw the MSM (CBS) run a story about kids as young as 6 yrs. old being trained to be “terrorists” by AL QUEDA. These “kids” wear masks/hoods and brandish guns. They even need to be “picked up” by adults to drop mortar shells into mortar firing tubes (as they’re not tall enough to reach on their own). WOW !! We spend a zillion bucks on weaponry and have ALL adult soldiers but we need to get “nuts” because a 9 yr. old is now a terrorist. Folks, let me tell you. They’re running out of “believable” bullshit to try and sell us and now are relying on “selling” us the dangers posed to us with pre-pubescent warriors “prepared” to do combat. Sure, they used kids in ‘NAM. But to fight us through “trust”, and to get us to leave their soveriegn nation. We never considered THEM to be “terrorists”. Only, to trust no one, including kids. Shit. How stupid do they think we’ve become? Or better yet, HOW stupid have we actually become?
By Jules, February 7 at 8:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: kids and weapons
I agree and thought the same when I heard about this video. It seems ironic for us to be worried about this as the military recruiters have complete access to our own schools here, tempting children just past puberty with the “opportunity” of joining the armed forces. The hypocrisy is mind blowing. The reality is we are indeed furthering terrorism by continuing conflict in Iraq and the middle east. Democracy begins here. Is it too late for us as well?
Reply to this | Report thisThank you Mr. Ritter for your clarity and your voice. You articulate the urgency of this crisis like few do.Our own democracy has a festering wound brought about by years of special interests bound in fossil fuel which we have allowed into our government like a parasite invading its host. Quite unfortunately, the host is oblivious to its own demise!
By Stephen Smoliar, February 6 at 5:47 pm #
(213 comments total)
Re: Child soldiers
I saw this on the BBC, which is still mainstream but not always as biased toward the American viewpoint as our home-grown media. Those of us who saw the footage of the child soldiers pressed into combat in Africa (as in the conflict that dragged both the Ivory Coast and Liberia into its wake), have no trouble with the “believability” of this footage; but this does not eliminate the possibility that it HAS been faked, since every good lie needs at least a ring of plausibility. As to the general “rule of thumb” to trust no one, that rule has been in effect ever since the “liberation” turned into an “occupation.” When you have no way to tell whether a kid is throwing a rock or something that could blow up your Humvee, you tend to assume the worst case. This is why, as a Mennonite peace worker I met in Jerusalem back in the Seventies said about conditions there, “There is no such thing as a humane occupation.”
Reply to this | Report thisBy Hammo, February 6 at 3:44 pm #
(368 comments total)
Ritter see any positive approaches?
Ritter paints a sad and tragic, and quite possibly an accurate picture of the future of Iraq and the U.S. occupation.
I wonder if there is any hope of implementing strategies and deploying various assets that might improve the outcomes.
Are there any unconventional or “outside the box” approaches that Ritter might recommend? Food for thought in the article ...
“U.S. global peace officer or corrupt cop? ‘Peace operations’ explored” (AmericanChronicle.com, Dec. 20, 2007) at ...
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle. asp?articleID=46707
“Global peace officer or corrupt cop?” (PopulistAmerica.com, Populist Party of America, Dec. 24, 2007) at ...
http://www.populistamerica.com/global_peace_officer_or _corrupt_cop
Reply to this | Report thisBy ocjim, February 6 at 2:45 pm #
(355 comments total)
Surge Cynically Planned?
Most likely the surge was cynically planned with BushCo knowing that sectarian cleansing was spent. Considering that Bush never cared about the deaths and the savagery in Iraq, they were pawns to suit his own purpose and plans.
Last year’s report by the non-governmental organization International Medical Corps, said that 540,000 Iraqis had fled their homes from the February 2006 bombing of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra to early 2007.
Consistent reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times revealed stories of the nightly wails and cries of ethnic cleansing reaching a peak by the end of 2006 and into early 2007, when something like 2000 civilians a month turned up mangled and dead.
According to Pepe Escobar, the ‘Roving Eye’ for the online publication, Asia Times, in the rush of dawn hundreds of bodies were displayed to advertise the deaths of Sunnis living in the ethnically-mixed area of Baghdad, thus spreading grief among relatives and intense fear among the rest, causing leagues of Iraqis to leave their home and their possessions.
By the time that Bush announced the surge, the cleansing showed signs of ending and the Shiites were ready to cooperate with allied forces and Sunnis pledged to fight a small al Qaeda force. This might suggest that ethnic cleansing was already complete, and seemed to correspond with the Bush surge.
Some, who are always looking for cynically-calculated Bush policy, say that Bush forces knew this before they even planned the surge.
Even with the improvements, the latest figures show that more civilians died overall in 2007 (16,232) than in 2006 (12,360).
Reply to this | Report thisBy Listen to an Iraqi Expat Sadrist, February 6 at 12:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
a year ago:
http://www.saudidebate.com/index.php?option=com_conten t&task=view&id=573&Itemid=121
Mahan Abedin: Let’s begin by discussing the so-called “surge” of American troops into Baghdad. What is the real American military objective behind this campaign?
Munthir Al-Kewther: Maybe they are preparing the ground for a military campaign against Iran. They feel they have to sort out the mess in Iraq before they attack Iran. But I don’t think they can solve the mess in Iraq.
MA: Do you think it is too much of a coincidence that the briefing on alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq – including allegations that the Iranians are indirectly involved in the killing of American soldiers – came just before the start of the new military campaign in Baghdad?
MK: The two are clearly linked. They have been preparing the ground for a war against Iran for a long time. But obviously they are accelerating the media, propaganda and psychological warfare campaign as the date for their campaign approaches.
MA: What is your assessment of how the surge started? The Americans were very keen to start it in as low profile a way as possible.
MK: That tells you that the Americans and their allies in Iraq lack confidence. They don’t really know what they are doing. They expect to fail so they confuse things and try to blame others for their failures. But the Maliki government ends up getting most of the blame because its only role is to enforce American edicts in Iraq. The Americans use Maliki as a scapegoat.
MA: The Americans claim the surge is targeted equally at the mostly Sunni insurgents and the mostly Shia militias. Do you believe them?
MK: The real objective is to weaken the Jaish Al-Mahdi (Mahdi Army) because this is – by far – the largest and most popular resistance movement in Iraq. The Americans are also hoping to weaken the Sadrist movement as a whole. For the Americans there is no difference between Shias and Sunnis. The Americans fight anyone that resists them, but they talk about Shias and Sunnis in order to pretend the problem is among the Iraqis themselves, not between the American occupation army and the Iraqi resistance.
MA: Do you believe the Americans want a full-scale confrontation with the Mahdi Army? I say this in light of information that both sides are trying to avoid a full-scale confrontation.
MK: The Americans have started a low-profile assassination campaign against key Mahdi Army and Sadrist figures. In recent months they have assassinated some of the best and most moderate people in the Sadrist movement—the kind of people that were effective at helping the poor and oppressed. The best example was the assassination last December of Sahib Al-Ameri in front of his wife and children in his house in Najaf. Al-Ameri was the Secretary General of the Shahidollah Institute, a charitable organisation that helps poor and displaced people. He had no connections whatsoever to the Mahdi Army.
MA: How long is the surge likely to last in Baghdad?
MK: I doubt it will last long. It is not likely to succeed and the Americans are the first people to know this. Baghdad is a city of 6 million people. Stability for Baghdad requires one soldier or policeman for every 50 people. Therefore, to restore stability to a city of 6 million people, the Americans need at least 120,000 troops. The Americans cannot commit this number of troops. And even if they could they would still probably not succeed because the local population is utterly hostile to them. I am talking about the Iraqi people as a whole – Shia and Sunni alike – they all despise the Americans and are bristling for revenge. No amount of troops can overcome this level of hatred and determination.
Reply to this | Report this....
By Neocons Win, February 6 at 11:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
ISRAEL WINS
The real and only winner will be ISRAEL. If this truth doesnt begin to be addressed- and LOUDLY- Ritter and Co are just pissing in the wind.
Reply to this | Report thisBy heavyrunner, February 6 at 10:19 am #
(58 comments total)
Ritter should Advise Candidates
Barak Obama, according to James Ridgeway in his recent book outlining the advising teams of the various candidates, has as his principal foreign policy adviser Zibignew Breshinski.
He would be better served to listen to Scott Ritter.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy not cynical enough, February 7 at 10:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
how naive
The only candidate Scott Ritter could advice is Ron Paul. The others have their owners who have already picked advisers for them.
Reply to this | Report thisBy heavyrunner, February 6 at 10:19 am #
(58 comments total)
Ritter should Advise Candidates
Barak Obama, according to James Ridgeway in his recent book outlining the advising teams of the various candidates, has as his principal foreign policy advisor Zibignew Breshinski.
He would be better served to listen to Scott Ritter.
Reply to this | Report thisBy kikosan, February 6 at 9:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
scott ritter's latest
although i have great respect for mr. ritter’s intellect and integrity, and avidly read every one of his articles and books, his seeming lack of concern when it comes to the sufferings of iraqi people and the constant praise he showers on american soldiers is striking. the soldiers in iraq don’t seem particularly “brave” but rather are a collection of average americans of average intellect, clueless to the iraqi culture and swallowing the racist christian vitriol of their leaders. they are seen as a brutal, vicious occupation army by the citizens of the country they’ve “liberated”. for every american killed, hundreds of iraqis die. mr. ritter’s focused concern on american soldiers is understandable in that he is, first and foremost, a loyal marine. for those of us, however, who are not, the suffering of the iraqi people is the central theme of this tragedy, a tragedy that seemingly has no end, given our current foreign policy paralysis.
Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report thisBy cyrena, February 6 at 1:06 pm #
(4080 comments total)
Re: scott ritter's latest
Kikosan, thanks for pointing this out. It IS the tragedy of the Iraqi people, above and beyond all of the rest, that it the totality of the tragedy.
And yes, Scott Ritter does have a tendency to gloss over that.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Nabih Ammari, February 6 at 6:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re:Remember… February 6
Expat,
Mussolini’s definition of fascism is just one single
definition.There are so many definitions given by so
many different scholars on the subject to the point
of utter entropic confusion.However,I have found that
the most comprehensive definition is the one given by
Stanley Payne,Professor Emeritus at the University of
Wisconsin in Madison,Wisconsin.
Furthermore,the nature of fascism is very complex.It
Reply to this | Hide 3 replies | Report thisis made of 14 specific features,according to Umberto
Eco,Italian writer and is considered as one of the
top Italian thinkers.If you care to review the 14
features of fascism,please Google “Umberto Eco on
Fascism”.It is an interesting read.You may enjoy it.
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio.
By Expat, February 6 at 9:08 pm #
(834 comments total)
Yes, I'm aware.....
^ of this. I thought his (Mussolini) 1932 speech was particularly relevant to our situation today. I felt the parallels were noteworthy. Thanks for your comment.
Reply to this | Report thisBy cyrena, February 6 at 1:11 pm #
(4080 comments total)
Re:
Nabiah..
Thank you SO MUCH for this reminder on Eco. It is right in the nick of time, as I try to wade through all of these various definitions, and keep track for my exams.
Because, it IS complex. Just looking at the difference between Hitler’s fascism and Stalin’s fascism shows that while the practice of it may result in the many of the same atrocities, the methods and the ideologies are not always the same.
VERY complex.
Thanks again. I feel like I’ve been provided with a study guide, that breaks down these complex issues.
You ARE a dear.
Cyrena…
Reply to this | Report thisBy Stephen Smoliar, February 6 at 9:45 am #
(213 comments total)
Re: Understanding facism
When teasing out the nature of a complex issue, it is always good to know every writer’s own biases. Eco never misses an opportunity to take a Marxist jab at any topic he chooses to examine. Unfortunately, his obsession with such rhetorical tricks usually tends to obfuscate, rather than clarify. Still, for those who like that sort of thing, he can be very entertaining!
Reply to this | Report thisBy writeon, February 6 at 4:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Eternal War?
I don’t think the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a ‘mistake’ or a temporary aboration, committed by a democracy led astray by a few evil men.
I think it represents the future of US foreign policy which will become increasingly; imperial, colonial and violent. Think of the US as a kind of enormously more powerful version of Israel in it’s relation to much of the rest of the world, especially those areas of the world that contain vital raw materials and/or threaten our ‘interests’ which always, always, in the final analysis, means our economic interests.
Given that the United States only has a few per cent of the world’s population, yet it consumes around a quarter of the earth’s resources, it’s debatable that this state of affairs can continue, especially as other, rising powers are also determined to access their rightful share of the ‘pie’. Something has got to give, somehow the American ‘slice’ is going to get smaller, and how will the US ruling class react to such a global redistribution of wealth? Considering how much of the wealth of the United States they’ve grabbed for themselves, it’s unlikely they’ll passively watch China and India challange the global position of the United States.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Outraged, February 6 at 2:46 am #
(869 comments total)
Great Post Scott. Your verbiage on a topic is great, seriously even when I disagree, although on this issue I definitely DO AGREE.
Great Posts everyone else also, enlightening.... I might add.
One of the issues which undermines our representatives as well as our democracy is corporatism. In this case oil and arms. In reality the situation is much bigger. Because the corporatocracy undermines our democracy, and this I fear is the bigger evil. Definitely we should do what we can concerning EVERYTHING that everyone spoke of, however, there is (at least currently) a more ominous evil. We don’t want to lose sight of the forest though the trees......
Know that every fight for our soldiers and every fight for our rights and every fight for our sovereignty is actually one against corporatism.
As we hop from dot to dot fighting the battles step back and consider the war. What is the war...? It isn’t “terrorism” (at least not the one we are told is terrorism). And it isn’t even Iraq if you focus on the “big picture”. It is corporatism. And currently, in fact for quite a while, this is where the undermining of our country and in fact the much of the world has been, especially when you consider human rights.
They have their hired thugs. And they have infiltrated many of our institutions....tread carefully folks, but remember...if you kill a corporation, you’ve killed a business entity, not a human being. There’s no flesh and blood involved, not in the bigger picture.
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Expat, February 6 at 3:29 am #
(834 comments total)
Remember.....
^ corporatism is fascism. Musollini said it best; “Fascism is nothing more than corporatism actually.”
Musollini, 1932;
“Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism—born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision—the alternative of life or death....”
In so many words doesn’t this sound vaguely familiar?
Reply to this | Report thisBy A Khokar, February 5 at 5:15 pm #
(109 comments total)
In the Days to come We Might Be
It is worth repeating time and again that George W Bush and his team are guilty of numerous impeachable offences for repeatedly violating the Constitution and transgression of national and international law; as well as nonsensical war against Iraq, which has resulted in killing of some 4000 Americans and savagely butchering of more than 600,000 innocent Iraqis. This has been done without the declaration of war from American Congress as well as; it is in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international laws. The reckless disregard for life and property in foreign lands and constitutional law has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
The conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced the image of United States to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world.
But have we really tried to peep behind the closed doors of ‘White House’ and found the real forces at work; which tends these figures like Bush and Cheney to remain on their toes all the time? It may not be difficult to grasp that there are some deep seeded policies being pursued behind these closed doors; away from the common public eyes; with a special mind set to secure US hegemony in the world. Thousands of people including many a think tanks are employed to plan and execute the tasks by means of covert operations through out the world. This may be our hypocritical face not to realise the truth of the matter that; it is in fact the policy of grand plan of ‘American Adventurism’ which is at its play and it has become a matter of contention for all the intellectuals of the world.
The divisive policies implied in execution through deception and fallacy by US is awful. The dismantling of sovereign states and to bring the havoc in the lives of millions and millions of defence less destitute people; to dislodge them and wipe them off from the face of earth; just in pursuance of US rapacious greed of her hegemonic hold in foreign lands are but the crimes against humanity? American adventurism is strife; a matter of concern for the entire world; a fearsome agenda concerning the future of the humanity on this planet.
Anarchy, mayhem in the house of purported adversaries and media manipulation to upkeep the climate of fear of terror, in our own society are the orders of the day. The evidence of government sponsored terror and how they use the fear of terror to control own society is evident and found bursting out at the seams. This horrific climate is keeping the world in its grips, which can easily be visualised that it will stay for many more decades to come.
We find that US top political parties; Conservative as well as Democrats; with out exception; all seems in full agreement in pursuing the common dream of their hegemonic aspiration in the world.
Today it is Bush and Cheney’s team and tomorrow we will have another set of figures; may they are Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton with their teams; we will find them pursing the same evil policies?
The consolidation of the American standing in Iraq; (military wise as well as politically)and the efforts being implied to Secure it as a self propelled US mega base has turned Iraq into a good stepping stone; a launching pad very well secured to facilitate the next moves on the way to Central Asia and beyond.
All said and done; but in the days to come we might be praising this out going president as...a legend? that where politically he ditched himself and his personal credibility plummeted and touched almost zero; we might find our self giving him a credit that after all he did facilitate the ‘Dream Goal Plans of American Adventurism’.
Reply to this | Report this-----------------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none
By Gabir, February 5 at 4:36 pm #
(84 comments total)
I'll Be Right Over
Dear Iraqi Friends in Need
Reply to this | Report thisI’ll be right over to help you
To overthrow the sadistic dictator
My elected representatives and my tax dollars created
While I satisfied that the correct steps would be taken
And justice would prevail for you as a long suffering country and people
The talking heads all weigh in with their opinions
They claim that this escapade is a failure
That the only wise choices are to bomb you into oblivion
Or leave as soon as the White House can find a respectable window of reason to slip out of
We hear that the American “people” have had enough of this debacle
But what of you as a people ? Do Americans even view you as human beings ?
Or just the unjust portrayal of Iraqis as violent , bloodthirsty animals
You did not ask for this war , only liberation from the blood dripping jaws of another American supported Dictator
America will more than likely abandon you , and after our departure point fingers and say
See - look at them - we told you so - a venture so wasteful in American lives and MONEY - MONEY !!!!!!!!
I will never forget you , but for many American “patriots” you are already in the morgue
Too bad you can’t just change the TV channel to escape your Hell the way most Americans do
American Idol anyone ???????????????????
By jackpine savage, February 5 at 3:58 pm #
(671 comments total)
A stupid/visionary idea
I have decided that if the whole house of cards doesn’t fall on us before we get a new president (if we get a new president) and that president develops a well supported, diplomatic rescue mission for Iraq, then i will volunteer to and do my part. I mean helping clear the rubble, rebuild homes, reestablish farm land, etc.
Perhaps we need hundreds of thousands of civilians willing to take the chance, with their own lives, to go help rebuild Iraq. No guns, no Blackwater...just an honest effort to show the people of Iraq that what happened to them does not represent Americans.
Anybody willing to come along?
Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report thisBy Expat, February 6 at 2:44 am #
(834 comments total)
Re: A stupid/visionary idea
Count me in! Great idea, I’m half way there already. Only about an 8 hour flight from here.
Reply to this | Report thisBy cyrena, February 5 at 1:01 pm #
(4080 comments total)
Another great piece from Scott, except of course that even he doesn’t go far enough in putting the reality out there, and REALLY calling a spade a spade…Because…
This isn’t a look into a crystal ball, it’s a look at reality, and we’ve seen it. The surge has ALREADY been ‘exposed’ as the grand debacle that is was before it even began.
From “BEFORE the beginning”...BEFORE one boot was on the ground in Iraq, we KNEW this was a farce..it didn’t take a farce ‘surge’ to prove that. The purple fingers were a farce before that, just like the alleged WMD were a farce before that…and on and on.
It was an attempt by the Neo-thugs to steal a resource rich nation, and to remake the entire region in the image and likeness of these same thugs. The corporate neo-thugs, led by cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, richard perle, jeb bush, and whomever else I’ve left out..but we all know them.
And, the destruction of Iraq was a signed and sealed ‘given’ as soon as the American public allowed their own government to be highjacked by the same cabal, which gave them the power to destroy Iraq.
The only possible thing that ‘might’ have “saved’ Iraq, (and I don’t consider it as any real salvation) would have been if they hadn’t attempted to resist the occupation and the assault on their sovereignty. If they had ALLOWED themselves to be colonized and enslaved by the conquers; that might have possibly spared some lives.
But, what kind of life is it really, to be enslaved, and forced to give up one’s independence to a brutal occupier? After decades of British occupation, (which wasn’t even close to being as brutal and bloody as the US occupation has been) how or why would anyone expect that the Iraqis (ANY of them, not just the Sunni minority) would NOT resist and fight against more of the same?
No, they were doomed from the start, if their only option was simply to give in, and allow themselves to return to a brutal colonial existence.
Meantime, it’s still anybody’s guess whether or not the Cheney thugs actually realized that there would be any resistance. But, there is NO doubt that they don’t intend to give up the original plan as a result of that. So, if that has meant leveling the entire country, and eliminating the entire population, (or anyone who stands in the way of full and permanent access to the oil) then they’ve long ago prepared to do exactly that. That’s why they set off the destruction to begin with, and nothing - aside for the whimpy will of the American people to remove these thugs from power- is going to prevent them from continuing the destruction of Iraq.
Of COURSE the resistance will continue to resist and fight the occupation, for as long as they have breath in them. But there is no “win’ for them in that, so it’s incorrect to suggest it.
The only ‘winners’ here have been the Cabal, as a result of the trillions upon trillions of dollars that they’ve laundered through the sands of Iraq, along with all of that blood.
And no, they AREN’T going to stop. That’s why George just did another signing statement to nullify any false promises that Congress thought they were making when they claimed they were forbidding any permanent military bases in Iraq. George’s latest signing statement, (like all of his others) says that he’ll damn well put them there and keep them there. Because, THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN.
So forget about any ‘policy” Scott, because the people and the leaders of the US have failed to do the only thing that could have or can stop this in it’s tracks...and that’s to remove the criminal regime responsible for this. That starts with Dick Bush. They still have 10 months to continue to wreck havoc on Iraq, and the rest of the world, and that includes us. And, they WILL.
Reply to this | Report thisBy Bill Blackolive, February 5 at 1:00 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Scott, you are accurate and I wonder might you agree that this honest-man-presence-of-Obama-as-president could change the fear climate enough for all this backwash of the 9/11 coverup to break through?
Reply to this | Report thisBy Bubba, February 5 at 12:58 pm #
(44 comments total)
Well, Scott, this is quite an evaluation. I’d like to know how much is based on known data and how much is speculation.
In forthcoming articles, I’d be interested to read more about the following:
“all-out civil war between the KDP and PUK”;
“the Sunni resistance continues to use al-Qaida in Iraq as a useful tool”.
Thanks for a most interesting read.
Reply to this | Report thisBy dobropet, February 5 at 10:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Rather than offering a word-for-word renouncement of the president’s rosy assertions concerning Iraq, I will instead initiate a process of debunking the myth of American success by doing that which no politician, current or aspiring, would dare do: predict the failure of American policy in Iraq.”
Are you completely sure that there is no politician, current or aspiring that would dare do such a thing? I believe this statement is only in retaliation because of the current administrations strangle hold upon the constitution, this being done by corporate interests as Ender has stated(with whom I agree). Funds exceed the American peoples interests, when corporations are involved, thus providing the military-industrial complex with unequaled power. We have been warn