Scott Ritter has an article on Common Dreams, "Calling Out Idiot America," that is sheer brilliance and should be required reading for everyone in Congress, in the media and among the general citizenry who isn't actively agitating for a withdrawal from Iraq.
In essence, the article, structured in the form of a "pop quiz," exposes the fact that the US is in way over its head in Iraq and cannot hope to begin to understand the complexities, intensities and irreconciliable nature of the internecine conflicts that are tearing Iraq apart. More specifically, the article exposes the fact that those charged with overseeing those in charge of this impossible project (i.e., the Congress and ultimately the citizenry) are hopelessly ignorant of the crucial factors involved, and thus cannot possibly provide effective, informed or meaningful oversight, so we have absolutely no hope of "success" on any terms and no business being involved in the project at all.
More below the fold.
Ritter begins by slapping down weak-kneed Democrats who can't seem to get over their fears of being called bad names by the likes of Rove and Lieberman and take a stand against Bush and his insane war. He flips the conventional frame by asserting that their inability to stand up to Bush disserves the "troops":
The ongoing hand-wringing in Congress by the newly empowered Democrats over what to do about the war in Iraq speaks volumes about the level of concern (or lack thereof) these "representatives of the people" have toward the men and women who honor us all by serving in the armed forces of the United States of America. The inability to reach consensus concerning the level of funding required or how to exercise effective oversight of the war, both constitutionally mandated responsibilities, is more a reflection of congressional cowardice and impotence than a byproduct of any heartfelt introspection over troop welfare and national security.
[Ritter somewhat simple-mindedly posits that their equivocation is due to a fear of losing votes, which, in my opinion, is close to non-sensical, given where the American public is at on this issue. In fact, their fear is of creating a mess out of the situation in Iraq for which the most powerful constituency US politicians must answer to -- the owners and investors who have the largest stake in the US economy -- will hold them responsible. The status quo simply seems "safer" to many of them, and those they must answer to, than the unknowns inherent in withdrawal. For public consumption, these concerns get translated into sobbing phrases, pronounced through gnashing teeth, about the "genocide" and "bloodbath" that will follow a US withdrawal. Behind closed doors, you can bet the touchy-feely talk about suffering innocents is shelved and replaced by hard-nosed assessments of the geo-political downside risks to US power and influence in the region and the effect on US control over oil supplies that they fear would follow from "defeat."]
Making the sensible statement that "one cannot begin to search for a solution to a problem that has yet to be accurately defined," Ritter then rehearses the sparse common understanding of the different factions in conflict in Iraq and indicts it for being almost worse than useless.
Americans might be able to nod their heads knowingly if one utters the words Sunni, Shiite and Kurd, but very few could take the conversation much further down the path of genuine comprehension regarding the interrelationships among these three groups. And yet we, the people, are expected to be able to hold to account those whom we elected to represent us in higher office, those making the decisions regarding the war in Iraq. How can the ignorant accomplish this task?
Good question. But to illustrate the magnitude of the complexities involved, Ritter poses a one-question pop quiz:
Explain the relationship between the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Baghdad as they impact the coexistence of Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni populations.
The answer, it turns out, requires a thorough understanding of centuries of complex, byzantine conflicts -- political, national and religious -- that have defined the Muslim faith and formed the current factions that are struggling with each other, and the US, in Iraq and beyond.
Although it is too long for a diary, I urge you to read Ritter's article for his answer, because it is, as he states, crucial to understanding what must be dealt with in our occupation of that country. His conclusion, however, states the essential summation:
A pop quiz, consisting of one question in two parts. Most readers might complain that it is not realistic to expect mainstream America to possess the knowledge necessary to achieve the level of comprehension required to pass this quiz. I agree. However, since the mission of the United States in Iraq has shifted from disarming Saddam to installing democracy to creating stability, I think it only fair that the American people be asked about those elements that are most relevant to the issue, namely the Shiite and Sunni faithful and how they interact with one another.
It is sadly misguided to believe that surging an additional 20,000 U.S. troops into Baghdad and western Iraq will even come close to redressing the issues raised in this article. And if you concur that the reality of Iraq is far too complicated to be understood by the average American, yet alone cured by the dispatch of additional troops, then we have a collective responsibility to ask what the hell we are doing in that country to begin with. If this doesn’t represent a clarion call for bringing our men and women home, nothing does.
Amen. Bring them home.