GEN. PETRAEUS AND THE WAR IDOLATRY

Is the good general reliable? Absolutely! And fully
predictable, as well. As we look forward to his much
awaited September report, Paul Krugman (NY Times)
reminds us of a previous September report by the
good general, that one in 2004. Of it, Krugman wrote:
"After all, it puts to rest any idea that the general stands
above politics: I don't think it's standard practice for
serving military officers to publish pieces that are
strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before
a national election."

Well, he'll do it again this September, Paul. You can
take that to the bank! In that election eve September
Petraeus wrote that "Iraqi leaders are stepping for-
ward, leading their country and their security forces
courageously." And those security forces were coming
along well. Their leaders "are displaying courage and
resilience . . . and "momentum has gathered in recent
months." That was three years ago, and the general
earned another star in the interim, and an enlarged
command.

The president tells the general what he wants to hear
from him, and the general gives the president the
happy talk he has asked for. The president wants us to
know that he listens to his generals, and his generals still
listen to him. Krugman added: "In other words, Gen.
Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed
the totally misleading impression, highly convenient
for his political masters, that victory was just around
the corner. And the best guess has to be that he'll do
the same thing three years later."

Let me hasten to add that I am not in any way doubting
Gen. Petraeus' integrity, ability, patriotism, or veracity.
He's a true believer, like the Prez. He doesn't question
what he's doing, or why. He is a brave man, and I admire
him and appreciate greatly his service to the country. I
believe we are wasting his considerable talents along with
the lives of his men (and women) on a lost cause. It's a
kind of idolatry: human sacrifices offered up to Moloch, the
god of war.

But the war is lost, and the sacrifices futile. Let me be
clear: the war is not and cannot be lost militarily. It
can continue the way it is ad infinitum for as long as
we are willing to pay the costs. And there will be
"progress" from time to time. (Although the number of
unidentified bodies -- usually the victims of Shiite
death squads -- has risen in May and June to pre-
surge levels.) The enemy will not run out of people,
resources or resolve. That's a given. Gen. Petraeus has
said repeatedly, as have the generals before him, that a
military solution is not possible.

What is lost is the political battle for a stable representative
government. That's not in the cards in the forseeable future
for a number of reasons. Peter Galbraith writes clearly and
persuasively of these reasons in The New York Review of
Books for Aug. 16, 2007. I hope all of you will read his article,
entitled: "Iraq: The Way to Go." Here is an excerpt from
that article:

"Abdul Aziz al-Hakim leads the Supreme Islamic Iraqi
Council (SCIIC, previously known as SCIRI), which is Iraq's
leading Shiite party and a critical component of Prime
Minister al-Maliki's coalition. He is the sole survivor of
eight brothers. During Saddam's rule Baathists executed
six of them. On August 29, 2003, a suicide bomber,
possible linked to the Baathists, blew up his surviving
brother, and predecessor as SCIRI leader, at the shrine of
Ali in Najaf. Moqtada al-Sadr, Hakim's main rival, comes
from Iraq's other prominent Shiite religious family.
Saddam's Baath regime murdered his father and two
brothers in 1999. Earlier, in April 1980, the regime had
arrested Moqtada's father-in-law and the father-in-law's
sister --- the Grand Ayatollah Baqir al-Sadr and Bint al-Huda.
While the ayatollah watched, the Baath securitymen raped
and killed his sister. They then set fire to his beard before
driving nails into his head. De-baathification is an
intensely personal issue for Iraq's two most powerful
Shiite political leaders, as it is to hundreds of thousands
of their followers who suffered similar atrocities."

De-baathification is not even politically possible for
the al-Maliki government right now, or anytime soon.
It's not going to happen! But until it does, nothing
else meaningful will happen so far as a "united"
government is concerned. The large Shia majority
is determined to finally rule, and most of them want
an Islamic government allied with Iran. The proud
Sunni Arab minority who have always ruled are just
as determined not to now be dominated by the
despised Shia. Fundamentalist Sunnis do not regard
the Shia as legitimate Muslims, even! Al Qaeda in
Iraq (and everywhere else) regard all Shia as
apostates, and are to be killed on sight. (Which means,
by the way, that al Qaeda is never going to have a
"safe haven" in Iraq, whether we are there or not. The
Iraqi army we are training and arming is 80% Shia, and
they hate al Qaeda as much as we do, and more. The
same goes for the Shia militias. Al Qaeda will be
permanently out of Iraq when we are! And they are
not "the same people who attacked us in America on
Sept. 11" as the president keeps falsely claiming. As
Eugene Robinson wrote in the Washington Post:
"Those who planned and executed the Sept. 11 attacks
are either dead, in U. S. custody or holed up in Pakistan.
They are nowhere near Iraq.")

And do it goes: look for lots of happy talk in September.
With tales of progress you can't believe (and shouldn't.)
We'll see plenty of light at the end of tunnel, and so on.
The bloody war god wants still more human sacrifice!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net