The stars are dead-set against George Bush (they always have been), and therefore against us.  Schade.  George Bush could actually salvage something from the burning wreckage of his legacy, if he did take this most excellent opportunity to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq.  He could then claim with greater credibility that he did, in fact, depose a dictator (however illegal) and allowed a newer, more representative form of government to take root in Iraq.  As one Iraqi businessman said:

http://www.usatoday.com/...

"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."

What will end up being the most famous quote of the Iraq war?   Remember, Bush did not actually say "Mission Accomplished." Perhaps Cheney's "final throes" will win the prize. .  But increasingly, as the significance of Gen. David Petraeus grows (seemingly by the minute), I have come to believe that it might up being his once-obscure 2003 remark: "Tell me how this ends."  It was cited again today by Andrew Bacevich in his New York Times op-ed contribution.

Petraeus said that when he was a Major General directing the 101st Airborne during the U.S. invasion but it's clear that today he has no more of a clue to the answer than he did five years ago. Maybe you'd like to supply an answer below. I will forward all replies to his press spokesman, who I have been in contact with.

The centerpiece of John McCain's campaign is that "the surge is working" in Iraq.  He has repeated this lie  hundreds of times on the trail, and in doing so, he has rarely been challenged.  The press has largely reported his contention as fact, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The surge, the president's "New Way Forward," was supposed to provide stability, promote political progress, and otherwise assist the Iraqi government in meeting certain benchmarks.  As to those expressed goals, the surge has, by any measure, failed.

Yet John McCain, this administration, and members of the press who dutifully repeated their spin as fact maintain that the surge "worked" because of there has been, in the last several months, a sharp decline in violence.  The reality presents a much more complex situation.  Ilan Goldberg summarizes:

The drop in violence in Iraq has generally been attributed to four elements 1) More American forces and the change in tactics to counterinsurgency; 2) The Awakening movement; 3) The Sadr ceasefire; and 4) The ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides.

Goldberg goes on to explain that which the media and McCain refuse to acknowledge:  the drop in violence is more attributable to the Sadr ceasefire than the escalation.

It's hard to say for sure, which of these factors was the most important. The Bush administration will tell you it's all about the troop levels. I've tended to believe it's more of a mix and was most inclined towards the Anbar Awakening and the sectarian cleansing as the important factors. But when you look at the data it really seems to indicate that the Sadr ceasefire may have been the key.

If you look at the graph that the military has been using on civilian casualties it looks to tell a pretty clear story. The first major drop in violence came in early 2007 before the troop surge. It looks like it was mostly based on the fact that the worst of the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad had been completed (I outlined this argument more thoroughly a few months back).

The second drop in violence came in September. By that time the full surge had already been in effect for 2-3 months and the Awakening had been going on for a year. The Sadr ceasefire occurred on August 28 and suddenly boom a big drop in violence. That could be a coincidence and it could be that all four factors came together. But the data seems to point to the fact that the Sadr Ceasefire more then anything else is what caused the drop in violence in the early fall.

That fragile ceasefire may be on the verge of being broken:

Iraq's leaders faced their gravest challenge in months Tuesday as Shiite militiamen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr battled government forces for control of the southern oil capital, fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad and unleashed rockets on the Green Zone.

Armed Mahdi Army militiamen appeared on some Baghdad streets for the first time in more than six months, as al-Sadr's followers announced a nationwide campaign of strikes and demonstrations to protest a government crackdown on their movement. Merchants shuttered their shops in commercial districts in several Baghdad neighborhoods. [...]

The burgeoning crisis — part of an intense power struggle among Shiite political factions — has major implications for the United States. An escalation could unravel the cease-fire which al-Sadr proclaimed last August. A resumption of fighting by his militia could kill more U.S. soldiers and threaten — at least in the short run — the security gains Washington has hailed as a sign that Iraq is on the road to recovery.

Measured against the goals established by both the president when he sent more troops into Iraq and by McCain when he vociferously argued for escalation of that conflict, the surge has failed.  But even when measured against the post-hoc and truncated "goal" of only reducing violence -- which is what McCain and others point to when they claim the surge is "working" -- the surge has failed.  

Simply put, if the surge had worked, Iraq would not find itself in today's precarious situation, relying upon a radical cleric's fragile ceasefire for relatively stability.

If what we wish never happens occurs -- that is, if the violence in Iraq continues to rise after such a positive downtrend -- will the media finally report that the surge has failed?  Regardless of the level of violence, will the press admit that the escalation has failed to bring about the promised political progress? Or will they, in typical, stenographic fashion, allow John McCain to repeat the lie that has become the cornerstone of his candidacy?

It isn't "progress" unless you're moving forward:

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq's presidential council rejected a plan for new provincial elections and sent the bill back to parliament Wednesday for reworking, a major setback to U.S.-backed efforts to promote national reconciliation.

The ruling came despite a reported last-minute telephone call by Vice President Dick Cheney to the main holdout on the three-member panel, which has to sign off on laws passed by the legislature. The White House tried to put its best face on the development, saying "this is democracy at work."

Other administration officials are a little more blunt:

The veto is "somewhat of a setback," Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, acknowledged Wednesday during a hearing in Congress.

Five years after the fall of Baghdad, and the Iraqi government has yet to agree on a power-sharing agreement (or otherwise meet 18 benchmarks of progress).  As the AP points out, the "surge" was supposed to make this process easier:

Such power-sharing agreements are the end goal of last year's buildup of U.S. troops. The hope has been that the declining bloodshed will remove the fear that has paralyzed Iraqi politicians, enabling them to compromise and strike deals across the sectarian divide. And that, in theory, should blunt support for the Sunni insurgency and allow American troops to withdraw from the country.

Political progress, of course, just a "hope" but was the explicit justification and goal of the escalation.  Will the media look beyond the administration's "shit happens" spin and report on this and other setbacks whenever John McCain & Co. claim that the "surge" is a "success"?  

Yeah. I didn't think so.

For more on this topic, check out dday's excellent diary here.

Part of the media's fawning coverage of John McCain includes repeating the lie that the "surge" advocated by McCain is "working" in Iraq.  Of course, the "surge" can only be viewed as a success if you ignore the stated goal of that "surge," which was to provide an environment conducive to political progress.  To put things into perspective, here was what was the President and John McCain promised when they argued for this nation to send another wave of Americans into war:

The President's New Iraq Strategy Is Rooted In Six Fundamental Elements:

  1. Let the Iraqis lead;
  2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
  3. Isolate extremists;
  4. Create space for political progress;
  5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
  6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

A year after the surge, that progress has not yet occurred:

Washington has been urging Iraq to take advantage of improved security and move ahead with a series of laws aimed at reconciling majority Shi'ite and minority Sunni Arabs.

But several of those laws, including the 2008 budget and another that would release thousands of mainly Sunni Arabs from Iraqi jails, remained deadlocked.

"The delay in the budget is harming everyone," Iraq's Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi told a news conference.

Furthermore, the adulation of McCain and the escalation strategy only works if you ignore that violence has decreased in Iraq in large part because of the cease-fire ordered by Moqtada al-Sadr.  Indeed, even General Petraeus acknowledges that al-Sadr and his cease-fire have helped to curb violence in Iraq. That cease-fire, which is "fragile" and set to expire this month, may be extended:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his feared Mehdi Army on Thursday to maintain its six-month ceasefire as members of the militia clashed with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad.

Shi'ite Sadr's spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi said the ceasefire, which expires later this month and has been vital to cutting violence in Iraq, should continue to be observed until militia members are told it is over or has been renewed.

Meanwhile, McCain's wish for a 100 year war becomes that much more irrational in light of these revelations by the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the war is weakening our military:

WASHINGTON - The top uniformed military officer told a congressional panel that U.S. troops are tired, worn thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and unlikely to come home in large numbers anytime soon.

The assessment comes as President Bush decides whether to continue troop reductions in Iraq - possibly endangering fragile security gains made in recent months - or not, and risk straining ground forces further.

"The well is deep, but it is not infinite," Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday. "We must get Army deployments down to 12 months as soon as possible. People are tired."

It's not just the people who are risking their lives that are tired.  It's also the families and friends waiting for them at home and the strangers wishing for their safe and speedy return that are tired -- tired of this war, tired of the casualties, and tired of politicians promising progress in the face of stagnant chaos.  

For the record: eight soldiers were killed so far this month in Iraq, for a total of 3,952 American soldiers killed in this conflict.

Despite Republican and media assertions to the contrary, the "surge" in Iraq failed.  The escalation, which President Bush promised would directly result in political progress in that country, has neither pressured the Iraqi government into much-needed action nor has it operated to produce long-term stability.  Rather, as was warned before the escalation, the President's "New Way Forward" was just a step backwards towards burying ourselves indefinitely in a conflict which continues to drain our country of it's best citizens and of billions of dollars.

As we discussed yesterday, American deaths have increased in Iraq this year, and the U.S. government, despite its specious claims of "progress," will not be drawing down U.S. forces in Iraq (even though the ability to pull troops out would be the plainest indicator of claimed "success".)

McClatchy News explains the increase in violence:

The fact that more Americans have been killed in [Diyala and Ninevah] provinces has some fretting that the United States is fighting another round of "whack-a-mole," a term that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., once used to describe chasing insurgents and terrorists from one part of Iraq to another.

Last month, American and Iraqi forces launched an operation to rid Mosul - Iraq's third-largest city - of Islamic militants, a battle that could last months, a senior U.S. commander there said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the subject publicly.

Is the shift in casualties "an indication that Al-Qaida is on the run or that we are entering another phase of a long war?" asked retired Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Ryan, a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Others argue that the drop in American deaths in Baghdad and Al-Anbar is evidence that Al-Qaida in Iraq has been weakened, and that operations such as those in Diyala and Ninevah will weaken it further.

"Al-Qaida knows the surge is working," President Bush said Thursday in a speech in Las Vegas. "They no longer have a safe haven in Anbar province; they're on the run."

However, Pentagon officials have said that although Al-Qaida in Iraq is weaker, they still don't know when they'll be able to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq below the pre-surge level of about 140,000.

American commanders in Iraq are even more circumspect. Nearly all agree that Al-Qaida in Iraq is weaker since the U.S. troop buildup began, but they caution that violence probably would return to places such as Baghdad and Al-Anbar if American troops left.

In other words, the President's strategy has failed so miserably after nearly five years that American troops are obligated, under the administration's plan, to remain in the quicksand of the President's policy, for an indefinite amount of time, sustaining an undetermined yet surely escalating number of casualties.  And that would be fine with Senator McCain, who doesn't care if Americans stay in Iraq for another 100 years.

The President's "New Way Forward" -- the so-called "surge" -- has failed.  We cannot afford to wait for a Democratic president to propose a reasonable and responsible plan for Iraq.  Our soldiers and our nation deserve better.  From this president, and from this Congress.

For the first time in five months, month-to-month deaths in Iraq have increased.

As of today, 37 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. That is the same number of troops that died in May of 2003, when President Bush smiled in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner and declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over.

That's two more than the number of deaths in May of 2005, when Vice-President Cheney insisted that the insurgency was in its "last throes."

That's six more than the number in March of 2006, when the President insisted that "Iraqis will continue to take more responsibility for their own security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission."

And that's the same number as the number of American deaths in November of 2007, when, according to the President, the Iraqi government was supposed to "take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces."

As the last several years have proven, military progress in Iraq is illusory without the political progress necessary for long-term stability.  The President's strategy of using American troops as a compress works not to heal the underlying cultural and political wound, but only to stem the bleeding. A full blown civil war becomes a low-grade civil war.  Instead of dozens of bodies found tortured and beheaded in Baghdad, there were only a dozen headless bodies found there yesterday. Regardless of the level of troops, one thing remains constant:  without political progress, the violence continues, steady and horrific -- a nightmare by any other name.

This week, we learned that despite claims that the surge is a "success," it has done nothing but brings us back full circle.  Back to a U.S. military presence of some 130,000 troops:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 30 -- Senior U.S. military commanders here say they want to freeze troop reductions starting this summer for at least a month, making it more likely that the next administration will inherit as many troops in Iraq as there were before President Bush announced a "surge" of forces a year ago. [...]

Privately, White House advisers say Bush is loath to do anything that would jeopardize what he sees as hard-won security gains and predict he would be very receptive to any go-slow suggestion from Petraeus.

And certainly, no Republican president would want to "jeopardize" perceived security gains in the months before a presidential election, particularly when it is likely that his party's candidate was a chief proponent of the "surge" strategy.

U.S. military officials in Baghdad say that trends in Iraq are good but that officials back home and indeed the American public may not grasp how uncertain the situation remains.

"We say, 'Violence is down, but' -- and no one hears the 'but,' " said Lt. Gen. James Dubik, who oversees the training and equipping of the Iraqi army and police. "The war is not over."

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, a strategic adviser to Petraeus, said that Iraq is "kind of normalizing" but that "it is still tenuous."

And so, here we are, America, championing 37 American deaths as "success."  It is a stale "success," recycled year after year to entice the American people and a cowering Congress into giving the administration the funds and support it desires to keep the pipe dream of validation alive.  

In the meantime, we have an entire military paralyzed by that tragic circumstance, caught in the middle between an incompetent Iraqi government and an insolent American one.  We have a nation trapped in the president's hamster-wheel foreign policy.  It is a policy which promises "success" year after year but  which has only succeeded in prolonging a conflict that should never have been initiated and that continues to leave constant chaos and fallen heroes in its wake.

Blah blah handshake blah blah snub blah blah passed me a note in study hall.

For those that were paying attention to Bush's (thankfully) final State of the Union Address, there was a moment when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had a very revealing moment.

Not about whether they like each other, or whether they're versed on Washington etiquette.

Nope.

It's about getting our troops home from a place called "Iraq."  

The details below the fold.

One year ago today, President Bush announced his response to the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which centered on a gradual but significant troop withdrawal and invigorated diplomacy.

Bush's response, of course, was an escalation of the occupying force, and a renewed effort to get an oil law beneficial to U.S. companies passed.

In looking back at the past year of the surge earlier this week, Bush described it as "incredibly successful, beyond anybody’s expectations." We all remember, of course, what Bush's stated expectation for the surge was: to improve security in order to give the Iraqi government "the breathing space it needs" to "make reconciliation possible." As Think Progress points out:

Though violence in Iraq has diminished in the tail end of 2007, these "fragile" security gains have not been accompanied by sufficient "progress on any of the key political benchmarks so critical to bringing Iraq together." In fact, as we enter 2008, Iraq is "even more bitterly divided along ethnic and sectarian lines than it was at the start of 2007."

And as clammyc points out, quelling of violence in and around Baghdad resulted in eruptions of violence elsewhere. That fact, and the fact that more troops on the ground in Iraq meant more targets, resulted in 2007, the year of escalation, being the the deadliest year for American troops since the war began in 2003. 901 American troops died in Iraq in 2007.

In the 10 days that have passed of 2008, 17 Americans have lost their lives. Devilstower noted earlier today, "We are on a pace so far this year that would put us back before things 'improved' to levels that we found intolerable pre-surge, and the last two days have been right up there with the worst."

As for the Iraqis, again, no one is really responsible for counting. Iraq Body Count reports between 22,586 and 24,159 civilian deaths in Iraq in 2007, down a bit from 2006, but much higher than any previous year. They note, however, that they are using incomplete sources, and cannot have an accurate count.

Of course, a look back on a year of splurge would be incomplete without a view from the wingnut side, helpfully provided by the GOP's current front-running candidate and Villager favorite John McCain and his faithful lapdog Joe Lieberman. The only two people who think keeping us in Iraq for at least another 100 years is a capital idea. Rather than subjecting you to the gory details, it's enough to say that they assert that "the surge worked." Except for that part about reconciliation. And that part about the Iraqi government functioning. And that part about people not dying.

It will be a tough sell for McCain. even among his fellow veterans and military families, according to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll. Among those with family members who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60 percent say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost.  Nearly seven in 10 military community members, including active-duty members, veterans and their family members, favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away," a view echoed in by about the same majority of the rest of the citizenry.

And while we're talking about the citizenry, last month's NYT/CBS poll reiterated that the majority of Americans still think that the Iraq war is the most important issue facing the country.

By the way, it's the 1716th day since Mission Accomplish was declared.

Today’s WSJ has a commentary by new best friends forever John McCain and Joe Lieberman that is simply titled "The Surge Worked".  We heard this same nonsense on Sunday night during a long soliloquy by Charles Gibson as he debated the Democratic Party Presidential Candidates, and this commentary by McCain and Lieberman is only stunning in reaching new heights of disingenuous drivel.

No doubt, on this one year anniversary of the escalation, we will be treated to more of the same crap about how "the surge worked" and how "Democrats and other anti-war people are living in denial of reality".  And as usual, it is the war cheerleaders who are living in denial of reality when it comes to any measure of success.

Between asking questions about what candidates would do on the morning after an atomic bomb had left a mushroom cloud hanging over an American city, millions dead, and children running through the streets with their hair on fire, Charlie Gibson took time to play Praise the Surge.  

GIBSON: We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked. ... But -- and I'm not here to debate -- the parliament meets, an oil law is under consideration, de-Baathification has progressed to some extent, and were it not for the surge, instead of counting votes, we'd be counting bodies in the streets. ... And all of you -- all of you wanted the troops out last year. ... Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year...

Charlie most certainly was not there to debate, because he ignored any interruption by the candidates on the stage to continue his surge song.  In fact, Gibson sings the chorus louder than the Bush administration, which is at least willing to admit that political progress (which was the purpose of the surge) has not occurred.

So, Charlie, this is for you.  

"My son was there fighting in Ramadi when the situation began to turn around, and I don't believe that it would be appropriate for people to say that that was even part of the surge," says Webb.

McCaffrey and other former officers say that a surge of 30,000 additional troops into a country of 30 million could never have enough of an impact alone to turn things around.

"The least important aspect of the so-called change in strategy was the surge," McCaffrey says.

Wait a second, if dropping another 30,000 troops into the pot didn't result in reducing violence back to the same levels we found intolerable before the surge, when what was?  

But another part, and possibly the most significant, can be traced to the end of last May. That month, 126 U.S. troops died; it was the second deadliest month for U.S. forces during the war. Petraeus was under pressure to reduce those casualties.

"Petraeus seems to have concluded that it was essential to cut deals with the Sunni insurgents if he was going to succeed in reducing U.S. casualties," Macgregor says.

The military now calls those "deals" the Concerned Local Citizens program or simply, CLCs.

Outside of Iraq, these deals have a different name.  Two, actually.  You could call it bribery.  Or you could call it blackmail.  But in any case, after seeing the disaster caused by the surge, Petraeus implemented another strategy that no one in Washington seems that eager to praise -- paying off our enemies.

There have been two results from this.  Complete segregation of Iraq into warring factions.  

"Segregation works is effectively what the U.S. military is telling you," Macgregor says. "We have facilitated, whether on purpose or inadvertently, the division of the country. We are capitalizing on that now, and we are creating new militias out of Sunni insurgents. We're calling them concerned citizens and guardians. These people are not our friends, they do not like us, they do not want us in the country. Their goal is unchanged."

And we've provided space, not to the politicians, but to the militias who are preparing to start the next civil war, the bigger civil war, the civil war that will be fought with the dollars and training and weapons we have provided.

Iraq can be seen as a conflict temporarily frozen.

The largest Shiite militia group has temporarily sworn-off attacking both the U.S. military and Sunni Muslims. Sunni groups are, for the time being, allying themselves with the United States for a fee. And in the north, Kurdish militants are focused on Turkey rather than Iraq. It is a waiting game.

And still, quietly, each group builds its own armory, preparing for the inevitability of fighting another day.

How can you be sure that the bribery was what made the change, not the escalation?  You have only to look at what happened in the surge before the dollars started to flow.

During the first six months of the surge, violence in Iraq reached an all-time high. Retired Army Col. Douglas Macgregor said, "Up until that point, the surge was simply providing more targets for the insurgents to shoot at."

So next time Charlie, how about asking the Republican candidates how they think wide scale bribery is working as a strategy in Iraq?

Last week speaking at the National Press Club (hey who invited her anyway, isn't that for "Journalists?") CBS News Katie Couric announced that theIraq War was a "Mistake?"

Really now? Y'think?

Now the right-wing via Fux News is punching back, and not every swing is above the belt!

Following questioning of Defense Secretary Gates on the issue of the Webb proposal to increase the time at home for troops to a year, in which the SecDef stated that he would support a veto of such a measure, Joe Biden responded back that Webb's measure is neccesary because - We Are Breaking the Military.

A visit over to After Downing Street and Dave has this posted, IVAW Responds to Petraeus / Bush BS

Tonight, Adam Kokesh, co-chair elect of Iraq Veterans Against the War, will be providing IVAW's response to Bush's primetime speech on Iraq. Tune in to Larry King Live on CNN immediately following Bush's speech which begins at 9 PM EST. And please spread the word to your friends and neighbors.

Now a trip over to Larry's place

I just posted this in the comments of Brandon's Diary and added it to my site. Looking at it made me think it needs a stand alone, for it's something that should not be allowed to happen again, and that Message should start being engrained in our minds and souls!

Thing is the 'Blowback' from this Present Folly will be with us for decades, not just the lessons of!

{David had the first vid over at AfterDowning Street.org, I just added the rest to make the Point!}

Follow me.

From Veterans For Peace E-Bulletan and Produced and distributed by United for Peace and Justice

A response to the Petreaus Report on Capitol Hill

If Anbar Province is such a model example of the success of "the Surge &trade"....

Why did it begin four months prior to our troop escalation in Iraq? From the WaPo.

The sheik who forged the alliance with the Americans, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, traced the decision to fight al-Qaeda to Sept. 14, 2006, long before the new Bush strategy, but the president’s plan dispatched another 4,000 U.S. troops to Anbar to exploit the situation. As security improved, the White House eagerly took credit.

The implication here is obvious, if Sunni tribal leaders were able to suppress al-Qeada on their own, exactly what do they need more and more U.S. troops hanging around for?

And how can anyone now claim that the withdrawal of our troops would "lead to a disaster" in the region?

I examined U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq for the period of February (when the surge escalation began) through August of 2007 for troop deaths compared to the same months of 2006. I also looked at comparing the number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq for the period of February through July of 2007 compared to the same period in 2006 (numbers for August 2007 were not available through the data source I used -- http://icasualties.org/...

I must add the caveat that I am not a statistician and was doing this from vague memories from my college statistics classes using the very simple statistical functions in Microsoft Excel. Those who know more about this type of analysis please feel free to let me know if I am way off base.

At least based upon my admittedly simple comparison, it appears that both the number of troop deaths since the surge escalation began and the number of troops wounded since the surge began have increased significantly when compared to the same time period in 2006. Details after the fold.