When Reality Bites, Make Lemonaide

Many people are upset about the Iraq Study Group's report because it paints a bleak picture in Iraq. Like a child, they close their eyes and believe that reality is the darkness of their mind's eye. It's simply shocking to Ann Coulter to believe we are losing in Iraq because only about a thousand Americans are dying each year (she, of course, does not mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties or the 1.6 million displaced Iraqis). Heartened by the metric of American vs Iraqi deaths she then says 6,000 American deaths by 2010 would be perfectly acceptable to prevent another 9/11.

Yes, 6,000 American deaths to prevent 3,000 more. Such is twisted logic of a mind's eye long since gone blind. Such is the emotional pull of September 11.

I don't mean to start anything here but I'm sick of 9/11. How many people are we going to ask to die to prevent another 9/11? How much money are we going to spend to do it? Are we going to irrevocably cripple this country to prevent another 9/11? Are we going to suspend more civil rights to prevent it? Taken together, are we, in fact, doing more damage to this country than willful terrorists ever could?

Of course it pains me to say these things. I would love to live in the America of my childhood, an idyllic notion far detached from reality. But that does me no favors, just as believing in Santa will produce no extra presents under the tree on Christmas morning. When faced with future marginalization, debt, and possible attach, best to dwell in the house of reality.

The worst thing that could happen is not another 9/11, but an organization acquiring a nuclear device to use against us. How are we preventing that by being in Iraq? Has Operation Iraqi Freedom slowed down the development of WMDs in other countries? No. In-fact, Iraq has undoubtedly exacerbated tensions, given countries a reason for extra deterrence, and accelerated the process. Continuing, it has inflamed anti-American passions with people who would use such a device against us. And I'm not just talking about rogue terrorist organizations, although we have certainly widened their recruitment pool. North Korea, Iran, and other countries around the world really, really dislike us. Taken all-together, we have a serious problem.

So, the Bush doctrine to prevent another 9/11 has, in-fact, increased the chances that a 9/11 x 10,000 could occur.

Yes, actually, there are worse things than another 9/11. One of which I've just expressed. Another is losing our credibility and standing among countries who don't yet hate us. I know there is a strong feeling of unilateralism but that can only take us so far. We are mired in debt. We need intelligence that requires cooperation among countries. We also require that cooperation to deter future large-scale terrorists attacks.

The world is shrinking, whether we like it or not. That is a good thing if you know how to play well with others. It's a bad thing if you think your power can by the playground. We simply cannot afford to have a rogue attitude in a world where more countries are acquiring nuclear weapons, and the ability to conceal and deliver them increases.

Terrorism must be undermined with subtlety, something sorely lacking in this administration. Israel has not been able to destroy terrorism, with force, against a people it occupies. How are we supposed to stop it from germinating in a foreign country? We do ourselves no favors with large gestures of force which only lend credibility to a terrorist's belief that we are a dangerous country that must be stopped.

9/11 was a horrific event, no doubt. But are we going to take this ship down for it? No one likes the idea of resignation, but even George Washington had to retreat once in a while. He lost battles but his goal was to win the war. This was accomplished not with a dramatic charge, but with a bit of concession and a lot of strategy. George Bush, and so many of us, so badly wants to win this battle in Iraq, even if it costs us the entire war. That seems to me an anathema. It seems un-American to sacrifice the future of America at the alter of pride.

62 Million Divided by 79

I've been thinking a lot about the Iraq Study Group Report. It can really only be described as stunning; a complete repudiation of current Bush policies. 79 recommendations? Can you imagine if your next job review included a list of 79 areas to fix--all of which had to be implemented immediately? Besides the obvious part about you now being unemployed, you would be extremely embarrassed and shamed. 79? Not three or four. Not a misunderstanding. 79.

And so there was President Bush, sitting at a large table surrounded by the people who had just handed him his dismal report card, and, incredibly, he took it all in stride. He called the group's findings "very interesting" which--even for Bush--struck me as extremely odd. That he even had the nerve to speak, after such a dismal review, seemed arrogant--like a boy who steals his dad's car, gets loaded, wrecks the car, and then speaks about the event in abstract terms.

The results are not "interesting." The results are, in their own words, essential for region, the United States, and the world. Yet despite the gravity of it all, the hard work invested, the corroboration that there is indeed a serious problem and that his master plan is nothing more than an exacerbation, the President received the report as one receives a menu at a restaurant for the first time. Hmm, they have humus? Interesting.

I've never been a big believer in politics. I've always wondered how out of hundreds of millions the best tools we can put forward are figures so easily mocked on late-night television. The system is harsh and grueling and the fittest in that race can barely string logical sentences together. I likened them to boxers who have spent far too much time in the ring. And that was before Bush became president. His election made the matter deadly serious.

That this man could somehow rise to be our leader is nothing short of a serious indictment on the system. This is an injustice on the scale of the incompetent son getting to run the father's company. Certainly there were more qualified people? More deserving? Certainly our process is not that transparent is it? Bush is a real life Tommy Boy, except he does not save the company. He's so excited to prove everyone wrong he smothers it, like Lenny, destroying it in the process.

But even as I write things like this--even as many of my blog posts are as inner rattlings at the injustice of it all--it's hard for me to hate Bush. After all, he's just a tool, and one elected. Ours is supposed to be the elite process, the educated populace, the home of the brave. We're supposed to greet a guy like Bush at the door and tell him kindly that we'll call him. But no, somehow we found it within ourselves to make it a close enough race in 2000 for Bush to nab it. And in 2004 62,000,000 came out to re-elect him.

79 goes into 62 million 450 thousand times. Bush may be just a Tommy Boy, a Lenny, but someone elected him and those are the people I blame. Within a few years even I had figured out he lacked the judgment required. By 2004 I knew what we were getting was a Captain Queeg ready to take the ship down rather than be proven wrong. I could extend his past decisions and project them into the future. Certainly we all could.

Anyone who thinks Bush fooled them after 2004 should never be allowed to vote again. What about the elements didn't you understand? They are like those people who leave a baby in a hot car while they go in to buy some groceries. Democracy requires some responsibility, some thought. I don't blame Bush, a Terminator gone crazy, a metal shell programmed by religion and conservative zeal. I blame the people who unleashed this machine onto the world.

My Review of the Iraq Study Group's Report

"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating..."

With those words the Iraq Study Group beings its report. What follows is a reality gut-check of sober judgment on what current policy has wrought in the Middle-East.

The report's first plea is for some kind of trans-national diplomacy with the countries surrounding Iraq, most notably Iran and Syria. This recommendation flies in the face of long-standing policy (we haven't spoken to Iran in 30 years), but the panel views recognizing Iran and Syria preferable to continuing the failed Bush / Cheney "plan" in Iraq.

The report then recommends U.S. troops move into a role supportive of Iraqi security forces, while Iraq itself increases its commitment to raising and training such forces. "By 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the report reads.

The report further urges ceasing the open-ended commitment Bush has given the Iraqis. Instead we should put pressure on Iraq to fulfill its commitment to Democracy. "If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward achievement of milestones or national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."

The report formally recognizes a few facts.

1. Iraq is now a heaven for terrorists.
2. Violence is increasing
3. Iraq is in a civil war
4. 1.6 million Iraqis are displaced within the country
5. 1.8 million have left the country
6. The U.S. military is spread too thin. A troop increase is not an option.
7. Current U.S. policy is not working
8. Afghanistan is dissolving
9. A new approach must be taken immediately
10. A "stay the course" policy is unacceptable

All-in-all the panel set forward 79 recommendations, most of which are summarized by increased diplomacy, increased support for the training of Iraqi forces and the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, and increased pressure on the Iraqi government to perform. That's 79 steps that all need to be taken with a sense of urgency. Sobering.

Some of the most glaring recommendations, in my opinion, come at the end. One calls for the Bush administration to stop routing the war through emergency funds, which circumvent the normal budget process. This leads to a lack of accountability, and no budget reductions. Of course this is exactly how Bush and Cheney have wanted it--they get the war rhetoric without asking the government or taxpayers to sacrifice.

Another recommendation: increased culture and language training for those to be deployed to Iraq. Out of the 1,000 people working at the U.S. embassy in Iraq only 33 speak Arabic. Hmm, imagine that? Thankfully, the panel was nice enough to include a map attached to the report so they could point where Iraq was, and what the names of its neighbors are.

Finally, our intelligence community is not properly analyzing the insurgency in Iraq. In-case you forgot the insurgency is 99% of the problem. But what do I know? Also, these agencies typically report lower violence levels than what is currently happening. That's probably what the boss wants to hear, but it doesn't help get more troop armor into the field.

I find it disheartening that intelligence failures, which led to the war four years ago, are again addressed in a review designed to help us get out of that same war.

Some will read the 79 recommendations and be heartened. Specifically the report's statement that it agrees with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq--a free Iraq that can govern and protect itself. The problem, of course, is that there's a mile between the beginning and end of that sentence.

I find it very hard to read the report without reverting to anger at the foolish hubris that got us into this mess to begin with. The report's 160 pages read like a laundry list of failures replete with "no duh" statements like the U.S. should invest in more cultural awareness, and that Iraq does not exist in a vacuum. Perhaps that is the crux of the entire problem? A war in the Middle East led by a Commander n' Chief who could scarcely comprehend there were two major factions in Islam.

If the obvious must be reiterated in a report of this importance, I'm sure you'll allow my skepticism about our President's ability to implement it. And if diplomacy is the best route out of this mess, excuse me while I begin to shiver. Ours is a president who has the unique talent of smirking and slouching while speaking to you as if you were a foolish child. He practically begs you to smack him with a frying pan. That said, hopefully our diplomacy with the region will do better than our "efforts" with Israel and Palestine.

The panel, correctly, sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an exacerbating tension in the region. The panel cites U.N. 242 as a panacea to the situation. The idea is nice. But peace probably wont occur as long as Israel continues to build settlements in the occupied territories (in violation of U.N. 242), which erodes Palestinian confidence in any peace process, which augments a group like Hamas. The U.S. quickly cut off Palestinian financial aid after Hamas was elected, which further erodes any peace process.

Well, we'll see. We're like that annoying kid at Christmas, digging through underwear drawers and messing everything up. The places we shouldn't be we are. The place where maybe we should be we've largely ignored. I very much look forward to the next panel for the next disaster. Thank you for assembling.

Iraq Study Group Reveals Missing Ingredient: Love