The above was a quote by retired General Barry McCaffrey when asked about the future of Iraq. In the Fall I had the honor to attend a lecture in Kansas City initiated by the War College in Fort Leavenworth. The headliner for the event was General McCaffrey and it is was extremely informative. This week the General along with three other experts gave their assessments of the impact of the surge in Iraq and their idea where Iraq is heading in the immediate future. Their witness testimony was given before the Senate and provided the best insight into the war. Their bias-free view was refreshing. If you have three hours to kill I encourage you as a voting American to listen to their testimony. I believe everyone has this obligation. It is beyond the breadth of the bullet point driven media and free of political propaganda. To listen in it’s entirety click on the link at the end of the entry.

Gen. McCaffrey spoke first and gave his assessment. He led by saying the surge changed the nature of the struggle in Iraq. McCaffrey believes (and I strongly agree) the current commander in the Iraq theater (General David Patraeus) is the best military leader the US has had in 40 years. The other positive is the makeup of the Iraqi police is changing from thugs who had sectarian affiliations to a more professional force. McCaffrey, however, has much more to criticize than he does to praise. The Maliki government is completely dysfunctional and does not hold authority over any sector within Iraq, and that includes Baghdad. In other words the Maliki government is in fact totally useless. Corruption is breathtaking within the government and has added to the ineffectiveness. There is no doubt that a lot of the money being wasted is American tax dollars. In the meantime Iran is arming, funding and training the various Shia militias including the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades, et al. With our current troop strength, the US military can easily put down a Shia uprising but as we withdrawal, and we will withdrawal (as McCaffrey points out) not because of political reasons but because our military is overextended to the limit.

The US officers in the field are the defacto government in Iraq. Since the central government is absent in providing services, it is these officers that go around Iraq with hand fulls of dollars getting things done at the local level. McCaffrey stresses the US military is starting to unravel. The fourteen month rotations and the fact that some units are on their third and fourth tour is starting to grind them down. The weapon systems, including both air and sea assets, are deteriorating and in some cases becoming obsolete. Contractors in Iraq, both US and foreign have begun to play the roles traditionally done by regular service members in the past. Without these contractors the war would grind to a halt.

The situation that erupted in Basra over the past week underscores the obstacle for Iraq. Not only do they have to overcome a Sunni-Shia rift that has not even begun to be dealt with, never mind beginning to be healed but there is severe tensions within the Shia family which played out in south Iraq. With no effective government the only hope for Iraq is for the elections that will occur in the Fall to change the dynamic of government just like the surge did for the military component. But the US is almost done being the baby sitter. Soon Iraq will have to stand or fall on their own merits and this may depend almost as much on their neighbors as it does from within.

Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing on the U.S. Troop Buildup

The war in Iraq has taken a new twist in recent days. Fighting has flared in Baghdad and Southern Iraq between the Iraqi government, backed by the US, and principally rogue elements of Moqtada Al-Sadr’s militia, known as the Mahdi Army in an attempt to tamp down growing tensions between the south’s Shia factions. This rift, occurring between the Mahdi Army and their Shia rival, the Badr Brigade, is quite troubling. Since the power vacuum was created following the ousting of Saddam Hussein, Shiite factions have been vying for supremacy in Iraq. The wild card, of course, is the role of Iran. Their influence in the struggle has been immense and they are sure to play a significant part in the current conflagration.  The current tensions have arisen over the rich oil reserves in southern Iraq and principally in Basra, Iraq’s third largest city and chief port on the Persian Gulf.  For the time being Al-Sadr continues to uphold his cease fire despite mounting casualties. If he elects to end the cease fire you will begin to see large scale fighting break out in the south, ending years of relative calm. To put the current crisis in perspective I have included a recent report from Al-Jazeera-English:

Thousands in Baghdad Protest Basra Assault

Al Sadr in Trouble, Iraq Headed for Meltdown

Moqtada’s Bitter Cup

It is fascinating how the Bush Administration is incapable of winning an argument these days. In fact, it appears they have given up even trying. Like the waning hours of the Titanic when the crew understood bailing out the water was hopeless, the Bushies have deemed any struggle to state their case is not worth the effort. Take, for instance, the latest report compiled by the Defense Department that used 600,000 documents captured from Saddam after he was deposed. The document suggests there was no link between the Iraqi dictator and Al-Qaeda. But in a recent article written by the right wing apologist, William Kristol, he points out the document does elude to possible connections. Kristol states those inside the administration are mum on the assertion there are no terror links because  the case is “too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, (the administration) will say.”  Kristol goes on to write, “Furthermore, once the first wave of coverage is bad, you can never catch up: You give the misleading stories more life and your opponents further chances to beat you up in the media.” If you read the government document it highlights how Saddam Hussein (SH) supported terrorist organizations throughout his reign but clearly states and I quote, “

…But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no “smoking gun” (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.”

We know the various nations within the Middle East support terrorist groups but the question is, is it a causus belli (cause for war)? The reality is the Bush Administration doesn’t have the credibility to fight this fight. The political capital that Bush boasted about after being re-elected was a chimera. As a result of Bush’s almost five years of inequities, the nation is left fighting the war’s origins, its progress and its future.

The reason why the war in Iraq is so contentious goes beyond the cost in human life and treasure; it is unpopular because most people know the reason for going to war was built on falsehoods. Those who look even deeper into the war know that Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not really affiliated with the Bin-Laden crowd but instead were mostly comprised of those in Iraq who had the most to lose with the passing of the Ba’athist regime. Those who are currently causing mayhem in Mesopotamia are almost exclusively Iraqis. In a recent article in the Washington Post entitled Iraq’s Jihad Myths, Reuel Marc Gerecht writes:

“But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller).”

Now as the war moves into a new stage, a post-surge stage, Americans are confounded by not only the falsehoods that got us involved in the war but also the changing dimensions of what victory and defeat mean. As one Democratic candidate states he will begin withdrawal upon taking office, and the Republican candidate is willing to stay committed for a hundred years, the commanding general in Iraq has recently said the Iraqi government is failing to live up to their part of the bargain due to the divisions that have made the progress so difficult. John McCain seems to win the debate if we talk about the Iraq War in the present and Barack Obama seems to win if we talk about the Iraq War in the past but it is the future in Iraq that is so troublesome as has always been the case there. In each step along the way, that which appears to be the condition in Iraq has rarely been accurate and when something definitive occurs in Iraq it doesn’t stay defined for very long; it changes like the a sandy landscape. The more articles that appear from both the right and the left, the more anyone can be right about Iraq at any given time because the conditions in this war torn region are never fixed. In this way William Kristol can claim there were Al_Qaeda links to SH’s government even though the Defense Department clearly state’s there was no “smoking gun”. This type of thinking got us involved in the war and those on the right obviously still cling to this phantom rationale.

The clock seems to have struck 11:00 PM as the Democratic race enters into a stretch run. With Ohio and Texas looming large in two weeks, we should be able to see much clearer into the crystal ball after those primaries. Hillary has gone negative in ads leading into Tuesday’s primary in Wisconsin.

If Hillary loses in either Ohio or Texas this race is over. If she holds serve and then wins in Pennsylvania then there will be no carriage turning into a pumpkin and this one will drag all the way to the convention in Denver. Lately, even with primaries in Wisconsin and Hawaii this week, there seems to be a pause in the race. It is as if everyone is holding their breath for the big state primaries ahead. Even the goofy add above has this strange “happy” music attached as it attacks Obama. It’s kind of like getting in a fist fight with cartoon music in the background or worse yet, kicking some ass with “Kung Fu Fighting” as your motivational tunage.

Last night, as I’m sure you are fully aware, Obama pulled the trifecta in the Potomac Primaries. John McCain hushed those who claimed the preacher should not be counted out. And then in the minutes following the results Barack Obama came out to a huge crowd in Wisconsin and spoke. He spoke about how McCain was the old guard and pointed at his connection with President Bush. He was eloquent as usual and he spoke as the Democratic nominee (click here for a snippet of the speech). When he was done most cable networks switched over to John McCain. The contrast was stunning. It was as if someone let all the air out of the room. (Click here to see his speech) Notice the people surrounding the two candidates and also the nature of the events. McCain even had old Macaca handy. Does anyone besides me sense the days of the old politics are about to become history? Like a dirge for old despots I give you two videos that remind us all why the 2008 election is significant and detail why Democrats and even some Republicans are so thirsty for change.

Heard about the day
that two skyscrapers came down
Firemen, policemen
And people came from all around
The smoke covered the city
And the body count arise
The president spoke words of comfort
With tears in his eyes
Then he led us as a nation
Into a war all based on lies, oh

…and this one. Thank you Bill Schultz

You may have seen a recent “elect featuring several hip young artists. Not to be outdone, someone who obviously doesn’t care much for the Republican nominee-to-be has entered the fray:

______________________________________________

10:50 PM

In recent articles it seems the Clinton candidacy is holding on by a thread. On the eve of Tuesday’s Potomac Primary there are so-called super delegates that are waffling in their support of Hillary Clinton. Like a modern day Custer (or Bastogne, if you don’t want to be so grim) the New York Senator must have good showings in Ohio and Texas. It appears that a close win there will not do. In Maryland and Virginia, latest polling shows Barack Obama leading significantly. But the stunning data resides in the fact he is leading among women in those states.

Barack Obama has found much success this weekend. After winning Nebraska, Washington, Louisiana, Virgin Islands on Saturday and Maine today the senator from Illinois heads into Tuesday’s Chesapeake Primary with momentum. He is expected to do well in Virginia, Maryland and DC as well. The Clinton campaign is in crisis mode. Her camp manager has stepped down after not wrapping up the nomination on Super Tuesday. It appears the strategy was to have a hold of the Democratic race after last Tuesday’s big primaries. Now the Clinton strategy must be rearranged at a time when the news for them is not good. This weekends primaries and caucuses along with this coming Tuesday’s have all favored Obama. The talk now is the Clinton campaign is eyeing the big state primaries in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania where her 50/50 supporters are more numerous. The 50/50 are those over 50 years old and those who make under $50,000 a year. Along with female voters, these are the core of Hillary’s support. I wonder if waiting for the big states to roll around might be a strategy of “Giuliani light”, referring to the former Mayor’s plan to not compete in the early primary states and prepare for the later primaries in Florida and then Super Tuesday. As other’s won these early primaries, Giuliani was simply forgotten. As Obama rolls through smaller states throughout the nation this weekend and the following days and weeks, will voters not see Hillary as viable? This is the burning question.

_____________________________________________

On the Republican side the returns this weekend show the complete dissatisfaction of core conservatives with their candidate. With Romney dropping out of the race so that “we won’t surrender to terror”, Republicans in Kansas and Louisiana chose Huckabee over the candidate that is certain, short of a massive coronary, to win the nomination. Perhaps that is the “miracle” in which Huckabee is referring. In Washington McCain received 26%, Huckabee 24% and Ron Paul (yes, that kooky son-of-a-bitch) received 21% (most of those must have come from the eastern part of the state, next to Idaho). So McCain is competing with an ex-minister who wants to amend the Constitution to outlaw both gay marriage and abortion and also a crazy fringe Representative from Texas. There was a time when Republicans would get behind the anointed candidate. Bush’s disastrous presidency along with McCain’s go-it-alone Congressional history have turned the Vietnam hero into a pariah in his own party.

_____________________________________________

Iraq, on the ground, is going well. The momentum the surge has instilled is really breathtaking. But the Iraqi government is as worthless as any government in the region. There is no conciliation going on. In fact as the US is creating peaceful sectors in the Sunni region of Al-Anbar, the Iraqi government won’t fill the economic void because the Shia dominated politicians don’t want to legitimize the Sunni militias that are holding the line.

Read more details from an excellent article written by an ex-marine, Bing West.

In the meantime the Kurds are more and more acting like an autonomous country. Most Kurds don’t even refer to themselves as Iraqi any longer. Their policies have been so independent minded lately that many believe they have overplayed their hand. The Kurds have begun to make their own oil deals and the Shia and the Sunni Iraqis have protested this move, perhaps the only time when the two contentious factions have seen an issue eye to eye.

With just a day to go to Super Bowl Sunday I would like you to take a moment to calm down some and get in the groove like the Schwam. Football is a contact sport with lots of movement. Being a football host and analyst is another animal all together. This is one of my rare moments away from the important issues.

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War. The Tet Offensive was an attempt by communist forces throughout the country to weaken American resolve during the Vietnamese New Year in 1968. On a tactical level the Communist forces were devastated. For a rare moment in the war the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army (NVA) came out of the shadows where they were ground down by superior American firepower. On a strategic level, however, the Tet Offensive proved to be the turning point that tilted the war in favor of the Communists. The images that were beamed back to American televisions revealed an enemy that did not appear defeated as the then commanding general Westmoreland had bellowed. On the contrary, as the US Embassy was breached it gave the impression the US presence there was under siege. The years that followed saw some of the most deadly fighting of the war. Soon the policy of Vietnamization was the concept that would provide a way out for the US. Handing over the war to the South Vietnamese while the US withdrew proved flawed and fatal for a free, pro-western government in Saigon.

We face a similar decision in Iraq forty years after the Tet Offensive. Bush’s policy has been to “stand down when the Iraqis are able to stand up”.  Joseph Galloway writes in the Miami Herald about death squads in Iraq and how they are attempting to kill the head of the snakes that have stepped up to fight Al-Qaeda forces. There is also tensions within Iraq between the Sunni tribes and the Shia majority. If Moqtada Al-Sadr resumes his campaign against the Sunni in the coming months or years Iraq will again descend into chaos. Currently we are arming and training the Iraqi army which is made up of mostly Shia Muslims. We are also arming and financing the Sunni militia and their new “Awakening Councils” that are currently battling Al-Qaeda in Iraq forces. This has become the equivalent of our Vietnamization policy in Iraq. The difference is we are in effect arming both sides of the divide in the hope that there will be reconciliation. But what will  happen if the two sides slip away from each other. With training, arms and religious fervor a new stage in the history of Iraq would be like the Lebanon civil war on steroids. We are pinning our hopes on the new Iraqi government and the bravery of US soldiers. Like in Vietnam, an early withdrawal means almost certainly that Iraq will fail. But a continued US commitment does not guarantee success there.

We study history for a reason. The true lessons that can be learned from both conflicts is not to enter into war when we don’t understand the dynamics of the nation we have invaded and, when either nationalism and/or religion are in the mix the result of the war will never be assured. Finally, when the government we are supporting is weak only a continued presence by American forces will make victory a possibility. The question for both wars is how long will it take for the host nation to take over the mantle of power?

We know what happened in Vietnam. We did not continue the commitment for viable reasons and the nation along with large portions of Southeast Asia flowed red under communist rule. In Iraq, the enemy and the conditions are different. There is no political division, but there is an ideological and a sectarian division. Are any of these factions truly on our side? Perhaps one could say the Iraqi government is and if they fail we will lose any influence we may have in Mesopotamia. In essence, if the fledgling Iraqi government fails, we fail. These are the lines that are drawn as we contemplate the implication of the 40th anniversary of the Tet Offensive and the lesson’s we learned from the US policy of Vietnamization and the withdrawal from Vietnam.

I know this is beating a dead horse but I have to pass on data that a pair of think tanks gathered in relation to the US going to war in Iraq. These two groups, the Center For Public Integrity and the Fund For Independence in Journalism counted the number of false statements the Bush administration concocted between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The total: 935. You may have known some prevaricators in your lifetime but I bet no one you know has lied to you 935 times. And just think of all the conservatives who got their panties in a knot over Monicagate (sorry about the pun). These 935 instances of deceptiveness are broken down into those within the administration who have spoken the most falsehoods (I am running out of synonyms for the word lying). Bush led with 259 instances, 232 dealing with weapons of mass destruction alone. Powell actually led the way  over WMDs with 244 utterances. The following quotes come directly from the Center for Public Integrity.

• “1) On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ ”
• 2) In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
• 
• 3) In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
• 4) On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
• 5) On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
• 6) On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”
• Vote well this year, eh?