If one listened to the most interesting portion of the recent Fox News Republican debate, the part where they were debating whether the escalation, aka the "surge," in Iraq is achieving progress or not, there were two sides, both of which essentially failed to realistically present the options available to us. On one side was Ron Paul, who basically said we need to get out of Iraq for our own best interest and not worry much about what we leave behind. The other side was most forcefully represented by Mike Huckabee, who said that since we broke it, it is a matter of honor that we fix Iraq before we leave. Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz declared that Huckabee’s comment won in the focus groups. (link)
Although one has to give Huckabee credit for some creative spin, in a real debate someone should have challenged him on the underlying assumption that maintaining the current escalation is the best way to go about fixing Iraq. Unfortunately, the profound silence on this point during the Republican debate mirrors that of most of the traditional media in the larger public debate about the escalation.
This point about the surge not really fixing anything is also an important part of the response to the Freedom's Watch ads running in a lot of districts, including my own, saying that "if we declare defeat now all the hard fought gains made by the surge and the sacrifice of our troops will have been wasted" and also falsely tying Iraq to 9/11. (link) Our brave troops deserve respect but discussion of the real gains made by the troop escalation/surge needs to be objective and reality based. These ads are intended to play on emotions and are aimed at the heart rather than the brain.
So in response to all this, here are some points to consider:
1. Increasing troop strength is mostly irrelevant to fixing the biggest problems we face in Iraq.
First, and most importantly, even if fixing Iraq is a matter of honor, troop escalations are the wrong way to go about fixing it. The military is a part of the solution but political reconciliation, diplomacy and economic revitalization, three of the most important parts of fixing Iraq, are only tangentially related to the military part. My friend General John Batiste, who will be with me at a private gathering later today, recently wrote about this in Think Progress and both he and Think Progress were promptly banned by the military, apparently in an effort to silence dissenting voices that contradict official White House propaganda on the "surge." Details were previously discussed at dailykos here. A recent frontpage piece at dKos mentioned General Batiste’s response to Petraeus here.
Another friend and former boss, General Wesley Clark, has also made the point that the military part that President Bush is focusing on is not the part we need to work on to fix Iraq. General Clark mentioned this in a keynote address at the YearlyKos convention (link) and repeated it again recently in a piece published in the UK: Military in Iraq are solving nothing. Most recently he also had a piece in the Washington Post about Iran here. It is worth noting that General Clark emphasized the importance of talking to Iran, as an option to troop escalation, in the abovementioned keynote address. Here are some related snippets from that speech (link):
The Iranians have tried several times over the last three or four years to engage us. We've rebuffed them every time. Of course, you understand the Iranians are not our friends. We've been in a virtual state of war.....
The Bush administration says we don't have enough leverage. Well, we're the most powerful country in the world. We've got aircraft carriers on two sides of Iraq. We got air bases on the other two sides. We've got planes that can fly over. We've got military dominance over Iran. And we can go into Iran any time we want, and they know it. Not only that, we're the most powerful nation economically in the world. Virtually every organization that Iran wants support from we either control, dominate or heavily influence. So, we don't have enough leverage? We want to capture five more Iranian spies or something? It doesn't make sense.
Let's get engaged. Let's talk. Let's give our troops the kind of diplomatic support they need.
Now, people usually say, 'Okay well, what's your plan?' Well, we did this in the Balkans. We started with a statement of principles. We had, here's the principles we're looking for. Here's what we can do, plusses and minuses for you. And then we sort of launched out. As Richard Holbrooke said, "It's not exactly, it's not exactly like a military plan, it's more like jazz." You know, the thing about diplomacy and engagement is it takes two, three, four sides to participate. So, you can draw up all the timelines and visits you want, but it doesn't mean anything if you haven't got the other side to sort of engage with you.
.
It is important to note here that General Clark and others are trying to head off a war with Iran that would make our problems in Iraq even worse. The site is StopIranWar.com.
2. Most of the evidence being used to show the escalation is working is, to put it bluntly, bogus.
Second, since most of the statistics being generated to defend the escalation seem intentionally deceptive, "honor" seems a poorly chosen theme for those who seek to continue the escalation. One glaring deception is about the number of civilian deaths. The numbers provided by the White House simply do not jive with those provided independently by the AP and the AP numbers seem based on solid data. (See Josh Marshall’s discussion of soundness of the AP methodology and efforts to verify their numbers here.) Perhaps the White House is accidentally underestimating civilian casualties. But if they are, one is left with the choice that they are merely inept instead of intentionally deceptive. Neither option inspires confidence.
Directly related to the discussion of the civilian death rate is the level of violence within the country. The White House Report says violence decreased in August but that seems to contradict the verifiable data the AP used to show civilian casualties increased in August. If civilian casualties went up, then it seems the level violence must have also increased. As with the civilian death reports, the White House seems to either be leaving out part of the story on purpose or they are incapable of telling the full story. As above, neither option inspires confidence in the White House report.
(A GAO report that often contradicts the White House report is here. A good Washington Post article questioning the White House figures is here. A solid diary on the dubious nature of White House numbers by dailykos frontpager Meteor Blades is here.)
It is also worth remembering at this moment in history that the US was dragged into this war by less than honorable Republican public debate, falsely connecting Iraq to 9/11, four and a half short years ago. For supporters of the escalation, siding with the same people who were the source of such dishonorable public debate so recently, to use the word "honor" seems mind-numbingly disingenuous. Compare the top quote from Karen Kwiatkowski here, about the intelligence manipulation that led to the Iraq War, with the one from the WaPo piece about the statistics ginned up to show the escalation is working:
Karen Kwiatkowski:
"They'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, often by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together." It was by turning such bogus intelligence into talking points for U.S. officials‚ -- including ominous lines in speeches by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell's testimony at the U.N. Security Council last February‚ -- that the administration pushed American public opinion into supporting an unnecessary war.
Unattributed WaPo quote on the White House Numbers:
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
Incidentally, Sidney Blumenthal has a new Salon piece saying that Bush knew before the Iraq War that there were no WMDs in Iraq and blocked the public from finding out. (link) And General Petraeus seems to have had a hand in questionable reporting of data about biological weapons supposedly possessed by Iraq before the War. (link.
3. Success in Anbar Province, the one part of Iraq that is continually mentioned as proof the escalation is working, has little to do with the escalation.
Third, in addition to the questionable nature of data presented in defense of the troop escalation, the main supposed success story in Iraq, Anbar province, has little if anything to do with the surge. In addition to the discussion by dKos frontpager DHinMI here, take a listen to a Thomas Ricks interview with Terry Gross here. The success in Anbar has largely come from arming the local Sunni militias and getting them to fight Al Qaida in Iraq for us. Although that has produced some positive results, the motives of the Sunni militias might be to help us now so they can get arms to use against the Shia later. So this could help foster the Civil War already growing in Iraq.
4. No end in sight to justify current strategy.
Fourth, President Bush has been say that "as the Iraqis stand up we will stand down." The surge seems to have done little to make that happen. Recent estimates show that the Iraq security forces are still at least a year away from being able to take over. (link) We need more than just extra US troops to make this happen. This will probably require some of the diplomacy and political reconciliation mentioned above. More of the same, which is all that the White House seems to be offering, is absolutely unacceptable. This failure to produce a credible Iraqi security force is perhaps the strongest indicator that President Bush is simply trying to stall long enough to make Iraq someone else’s problem in January 2009.
Public Opinion and The Debate in NY-29
There is no doubt that the supposedly objective reports by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are actually completely subjective propaganda tool, used by the White House to sell the current troop escalation as a success. TPM shows conclusively that is a (former RNC chairman) Gillespie-run media operation rather than an objective report. As Glenn Greenwald and others have noted (link), this propaganda blitz doesn’t seem to be increasing support for continuing the Iraq War. Other polls show that the public is distrustful of the numbers. (link) As it should be.
Here in NY-29, sentiment seems similar to what national polls show. My opponent recently wrote an op-ed in a local paper saying that although he had his doubts about the escalation/surge, he is going to listen to whatever Petraeus and Crocker tell him to do. (bmp version here) Since we all know that Petraeus and Crocker are saying what the White House and it propaganda arm want them to say, this is basically an admission by Kuhl that he, per usual, will rubber stamp the White House agenda. As noted in one of our local blogs (link, and note the included pdf of the editorial), local papers are saying that Kuhl’s support of the war and unquestioning support of the White House agenda are hurting him in the polls.
We as a nation cannot accept this anymore. If you really believe in change, then I need you to help me fund my campaign to change the course of our nation. Your $100 and $50 contributions will allow me to hold my rubberstamping opponent accountable without forcing me to turn to Washington lobbyists to fund this race. I know we can win this race as we came within 1% of winning last year and although I don't have polling data available yet, I'm certain we would win if the election was today. We are moving forward and I need your help to sustain the effort.
Thank you,
-Eric Massa
US Navy Commander (ret.)
Congressional Candidate, NY-29