TRUTH STILL A CASUALTY IN IRAQ

Admiral Fallon opposed the Surge because
he saw that the tactical successes that would
be achieved, besides being temporary, would
put an unsustainable strain on our military
without any strategic pay-off. He was right,
of course. Which means he has to go! Truth
and logic are unwelcome distractions when the
"state of denial," as Bob Woodward called it,
continues to confuse national leadership as
well as much of the public.

We have lost 1,000 of our people killed since
the surge started, and are pouring $12 to $15
billion per month of borrowed money down that
rat hole. Yes, it's a total waste, I'm sorry to say.
And yes, the terrorists are losing in Iraq. But
they are gaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan!
So where's the progess? Is Iraq any closer to a
political settlement it will live with? If you
believe that, you'll probably buy Christopher
Hitchens' spurious argument that it's worth all
the lost and disrupted lives, and the $3 trillion
(lost so far) just to be rid of Saddam! More on
his inane babbling later, for now I want to
answer another popular bit of propaganda
nonsense.

This is the "leaving now is surrender," mantra.
In a letter to the editor of the Albany Democrat-
Herald (3/12/08) I made the following points:
Bush/McCain claim that if we leave Iraq now al-
Qaida will take over there. That's not only
impossible, it betrays an underlying ignorance
about Iraq that has doomed our efforts there
from day one.

Sixty percent of Iraqis are Shia, and they make up
most of the current government and army. They
are bitter implacable foes of al Qaida in Iraq (which
are Sunni), and will (and do) kill them on sight,
without hesitation or mercy. 20% of Iraqis are
Kurds, who although secular Sunnis, have
suffered as much at the hands of Arab Sunnis as
the Shia have, and are just as bitter enemies of
al-Qaida in Iraq. Most of the remaining 20% of
Iraqis, the Sunni Arabs are secular (unreligious)
and have now turned against the extremists,
especially al-Qaida in Iraq.

The Kurds have a well-trained, well-equipped
army of about 140,000. That's about the number
of troops we'll have left there after the surge. The
two Shia militias have (together) an estimated
100,000+ under arms. The Iraqi army we are
now training and arming has about 300,000.
If we left tomorrow there would be at least
500,000 armed and trained anti al-Qaida forces.
And the Bush people (including McCain) fear
that less than 5,000 al-Qaida (in hiding) are
going to take over the country? They are either
unbelievably ignorant or trying to scare us with
what they know is hogwash! Pedaling that kind
of nonsense shows how impoverished their
whole rationale for Iraq really is. It has been
dishonest from the beginning, and remains so
today.

Turning security responsiblity over to the
elected Iraqi government that we established
is hardly "surrender." Surrender to whom? How?
Besides we are "winning" over there. Remember?

And speaking of winning, isn't the relevant
question: what are we winning? What we
are winning, basically, is a holding operation --
that's all! What for? Who knows? It keeps
changing. Are we winning battles? Yes, thank
God, we are winning them all. It's all tactical. At
the moment, we're holding the lid on. But if
(and when) we reduce our forces, it all comes
unglued again. What's the point? Actually, we've
been winning like this for five years. We've never
lost a battle. But the Iraqi Minister of Defense
says they need us there until at least 2018.

So if winning doesn't mean we can leave now
after 5 yrs, what exactly does it mean? We are
satisfied with tactical successes because we have
no overall strategy for larger success. That would
require cooperation with other countries in the
region, as was explained by the Iraq Study Group
(ISG). As long as their neighbors are supplying
various elements of the civil war in Iraq, that war
will continue, no matter what we do.

After the Viet Nam war, a colonel from our army
met a Vietnamese colonel at a social gathering
in Europe. "You guys never defeated us in a
single battle," the American said. "That's true,"
replied the Vietnamese, "but it's also irrelevant."
So much for tactical successes without a winning
strategy within which to fit them.

The ISG found that a military solution is not
possible in Iraq without a political solution, and
the latter is not possible without agreements and
help from the surrounding countries. Until and
unless that happens, we are not winning any-
where near enough to offset our terrible and
continuing losses. We are repeating Viet Nam
all over again!

And the losses, both of our people, and civilians,
after slacking off for awhile are inching up again.
We are losing nearly 50 a month KIA, and Iraqis
are dying at the rate of 60-80 a day. So the much
touted idea that since the surge all is sweetness
and light is incorrect. As Eugene Robinson wrote
in The Washington Post (3/11/08): "Has anyone
noticed that Iraq, supposedly transformed into
an oasis of peace and tranquility by George W.
Bush's troop surge, is growing less peaceful and
tranquil by the day? . . . The past several weeks
have seen a recrudescence of the kind of horri-
fying, spectacular violence that the Decider's
surge was supposed to have ended." (As, by the
way, Adm. Fallon and other military that were
opposed to the surge, could (and did) forsee.)

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net