If any of you watch the NBC Nightly News from time to time, you'll know that Brian Williams has been reporting from Baghdad over the past couple of days and is traveling with General Petraeus and his staff.
Though I generally like Brian, on Sunday (3/4) he gave what I thought was an overly favorable view of Bush's 'surge', claiming that violence had dipped in Baghdad in recent weeks. Though he gave a perfunctory disclaimer about future violence, his tone was decidedly upbeat and must've been pleasing to the Admninistration.
His report made me recall the countless times the military and Media have said things are getting better, or that 'we're turning a corner', only to have that bit of optimism cruelly dashed by a vicious and bloody string of attacks. The last time the Administration and the military gave such an assessment was only 3 weeks ago while the US House of Representatives was debating the anti-escalation resolution. That bit of 'good news' was shattered before the week ended. This time, we see that since Brian Williams's report on Sunday (3/4), over 90 Shiite pilgrims and 10 US soldiers have been killed, along with scores of wounded in and around Baghdad, in the suburbs, and in the outlying areas. Perhaps the attacks aren't occurring exactly where certain patrols are, but the insurgents and militas seem just as active now as before.
My point is that we've had 4 years of this spin and reporters ought to know better and give more context. Of course Sadr had advance warning of the US focus and his people are lying low or have moved to other areas. The same is true for other groups that are on the US's list of targets. If Sadr City is calm for 2 days it means nothing because we don't have the ability to maintain that level of troop commitment. If we can't find the milita members because they're hiding, then when we leave, they'll simply return and resume control. Moreover, what we are seeing in Iraq is a bit like sticking a finger in a dam. It plugs one hole while a bunch of others remain open and new cracks develop. The Iraqi government and its American funded police and military have never proven themselves effective. The government is of questionable legitimacy (to put it charitably) and loyalties are tribal and sectarian, not national.
In other words, the "surge" has absolutely no strategic value. Even if it is implemented as Petraeus wants, the US military doesn't have the ability to control the violence outside of its limited sphere of influence, and even there not for very long. It is not an anomaly that a record 80 soldiers were killed in the month of February (an increase of about 33% over Feb. 2006). Our soldiers outside of central Baghdad are less well protected and they are coming under fire from a more sophisticated enemy that has found different means to pierce our armor or render it ineffective (for those soldiers who actually have armor).
There is no reason to keep these soldiers in the cross-fire. It is time we pressure the Media to point out the flaws in the surge and to have it declared a failure in the coming weeks. That will enable a profound shift in the debate in Washington to withdrawal and wavering Democrats may fall into line with the party's majority. We cannot allow Bush to use the fiction of the 'surge' to keep troops in Iraq until the end of his Presidency. That is profoundly immoral.
Let's act now. Write to the reporters, the editorial boards, members of the Media, and the members of the House and Senate. Declare the surge a failure and put the onus on Bush to move to Plan B- WITHDRAWAL.
http://icasualties.org/...