Sad, far-fetched title? It's the European view. We're lucky that our press does report news as it come, unvarnished and far less biased than the US MSM. And the prevailing view here is that the US army has reached an unsustainable point of attrition. Which to me could be the main reason why it's best to get the hell outta there, and pronto.
As the Congress prepares to vote more money for war next week, it is expected to take up legislation to provide at least another $100 billion for GWB's failed war strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the November elections approaching, this vote could be the last binding vote on the war in 2008.
Well, allow me to throw in a few unsavory nuggets from our side of the pond, gleaned from various publications, and please feel free to correct me if you have better data and/or add to this: at the end of the day, we ALL want a competent Democrat in charge at the White House.
On May 1st, 2003, with the infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner stretched behind the Commander-in-Chief, codpiece firmly ensconced, a victory of sort was announced. At the time the US military had lost 139 personnel, killed in action on the Iraqi battlefield. Five years on, the official losses amount to 4,064 and as of today, just under 30,000 US troops have been either killed or seriously injured, medically evacuated from the theater of war, arising directly from combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. A further 30,000 or so have been repatriated home during the same period due to non-combat injuries, illnesses and stress-related conditions.
In November 2007, the US combat operations have increased in size and scope with the help of the "surge", adding an extra 30,000 troops to the conflict. So, on average, over the entire period of the war so far, 500 US troops have been killed or seriously injured each month, an annual total of approximately 6,000 per year. In other words, within the US military core of combat troops, as many as one in four troops in Iraqi streets (or in the Green Zone) can expect to become a casualty during their tour of duty. This is almost three times the attrition rate endured by US troops in Vietnam.
I read the bulletins from Centcom, and occasionally peruse their website. Not many good news there either. In fact, in addition to the Sunni factions, al-Qaeda and foreign fighters, Centcom concedes that up to 100,000 heavily armed Shia Militia, deeply loyal to al-Sadr, pose a serious threat to any future stability. It makes the uncomfortable admission on its Operation Freedom site that
"there is clearly potential for Shi'ite participation in violence within Iraq with a strategy remarkably similar to that of groups such as Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon".
Thus far, the US military has avoided direct sustained confrontations with Shia militias except when attacked. Given the sheer number of Shia militias throughout Iraq, US commanders in Baghdad know that to open a second front within Iraq on al-Sadr's Medhi army or the Ayatollah's Badr Brigades would mean an unsustainable level of attrition for the US troops. According to most European military pundits (we have our own as well, some good, some bad and some plain stupid) all agree on this: the US military is just about able to adopt a holding pattern in Iraq, meaning it can only secure the Green Zone (except when the rockets are flying in), its forward operational bases & supply lines. For how long, who knows. Not for ever, that is a given.
Furthermore, according to a report by the US National Security Advisory Group entitled "The US Military, under strain and at risk", senior US commanders are fearful of a mass exodus of middle-ranking officers and non commissioned officers from the US army and Marine Corps should the current regime of repeat deployments continue. This would represent a
"catastrophic hollowing out of the US military which would have highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force."
With approximately 20 of the 40 or so available Brigade Combat Teams deployed to Iraq any given time, America's volunteer army is stretched to its elastic limit. And some of us do remember the words of Gen Richard Cody, who reporting to the Congress last month, admitted that given its ongoing overseas commitments, the US army would not be capable of responding to a major homeland security incident on US soil, particularly one with a chemical or "nucular" dimension. US authorities have also admitted that they could not respond meaningfully "on the ground" to any new escalation of conflict, or indeed, any new one on the globe, like Lebanon, North Korea or elsewhere.
And now guess what? Petraeus backs Iraqi government talks with Sadr! That, my fellow kossacks, is the proof in ze pudding! Cripes, even Jack Cafferty has doubts (Cafferty initially supported the government's decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. He says he "bought the whole song and dance about WMDs)!