I was spending my late Monday morning like any typical day: on the computer screwing around, while I had the tv on to keep myself company. Then something happened that made me really pissed off.
I was listening to the View from the tv downstairs, and it was the usual: women just chatterin’ to one another. Then, out of nowhere, one the panelist went on to talk about the "good things" that was currently happening in Iraq. She continued on to say that it was getting safer and that we were doing a good job.
But, what made me mad was "we were winning the war."
That is when I shook my confused head, and said outloud,"Bullshit."
I already knew from my knowledge of the war that something wasn’t right with this assertion, and heard about this from different sources. But, when a popular show goes on the record to state something that is very ignorant and incorrectly factual, people will be hypnotized into thinking the wrong way.
I decided to do some research on what was really occurring with the war. Then, I discovered a great article by Pepe Escorbar, author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War in the Asia Time online newspaper. What I read was something that needed to be shared.
This whole "getting safer" line all started when Major General Joseph declared that Iraq is getting better, no doubt from the troop surge that we sent in months ago. But, if you read Escobar’s analysis on not only Fil’s statement, but the current situation in Iraq, it is not because of the surge. Rather, it is all about political and sociological matters.
First off, Escobar points out the real reason Baghdad is not being escalated to violence:
...Baghdad has been reduced to a collection of blast-walled, isolated ghettos in search of a city. Baghdad, from being 65% Sunni, is now at least 75% Shi'ite, and counting. Sunni and Shi'ite residents alike confirm sectarian violence has died down because there are virtually no more neighborhoods to be ethnically cleansed.
But that’s not all folks.
Escobar continues with his educational, but devastatin truth about Fil’s statement that makes people shock and cringe:
When Fil says the Iraqi forces are "much, much more effective", what he means is they are much more ferocious. Terrified middle class, secular Shi'ite residents have told Asia Times Online these guards - Shi'ites themselves - roaming Baghdad with their machine guns pointing to the sidewalks are "worse than the Americans".
But, how about Muqtada al-Sadr’? Oops... I wrote too soon:
Violence has also (relatively) decreased because the bulk of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is still lying low, following his strict orders, even though they are being targeted by constant US air strikes on Sadr City.
Just when you thought it was over, it gets worse:
The falling numbers of US deaths have also been subjected to merciless spinning. Yet already more US troops have been killed in Iraq in 2007 than in all of 2006. This temporary fall is not caused by a burst of Sunni Iraqi resistance good will - even though an array of groups has taken some time out to concentrate forces in these past few months on unifying their struggle (See It's the resistance, stupid Asia Times Online, October 17, 2007.)
Once again, Baghdad residents, who daily have to negotiate life in hell, reveal what's going on. Lately, as a Shi'ite businessman says, "We have not seen the Americans. They used to come to my neighborhood almost every day at night, with Humvees and Bradleys. They stopped at the end of September." This means less US-conducted dangerous "missions" in the Baghdad wasteland - with less exposure to snipers and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) - and more time spent in ultra-fortified bases.
Now, here’s the after effect:
The Pentagon even had to admit that sniper attacks, conducted by real pros, have quadrupled during the past year and could "potentially inflict even more casualties than IEDs". The US Department of Defense's Defense Advance Research Projects Agency had to rush a program using lasers to identify snipers before they shoot.
If the troops can’t deal with snipers, then there is only one reasonable solution:
... [W]henever there is a mission in Baghdad now it inevitably means an air strike. Mega-slum Sadr City residents confirm the US keeps attacking alleged Mahdi Army "terrorist" haunts - but mostly from the air.
These facts are both truthful and heart-breaking. To me, though, this one blows the lid:
... [A]s of October 1, there were no less than 30,294 military victims of accidents and diseases so serious they had to be medically sent out of Iraq.
After reading the article, I just shook my head in more disbelief, not only about the war, but the continuation of the media spin machine that is only helping Mr. Bush and his friends out. Not only that, but seeing people believing the misconception about winning wars. When you read that at least 30,000 soldiers have serious injuries that can’t be instantly cured, do you think we have won something? Or, when Iraqis are killing other Iraqis, have we gained a great accomplishment? Or, when you see a country losing its financial status to a war based on reckless lies, was it good for you? I cannot bear to see people being stooped to this concept.