Petraeus's Ponzi Scheme
By Tom Engelhardt
The Nation April 7, 2008
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=307286
They came, they saw, they deserted.
That, in short form, is the story of the recent Iraqi
government 'offensive' in Basra (and Baghdad ). It took
a few days, but the headlines on stories out of Iraq
('Can Iraq 's Soldiers Fight?') now tell a grim tale and
the information in them is worse yet. Stephen Farrell
and James Glanz of the New York Times estimate that at
least 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, or more than
4% of the force sent into Basra , 'abandoned their
posts' during the fighting, including 'dozens of
officers' and 'at least two senior field commanders.'
Other pieces offer even more devastating numbers. For
instance, Sudarsan Raghavan and Ernesto Londono of the
Washington Post suggest that 30% of government troops
had 'abandoned the fight before a cease-fire was
reached.' Tina Susman of the Los Angeles Times offers
50% as an estimate for police desertions in the midst
of battle in Baghdad 's vast Sadr City slum, a
stronghold of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
In other words, after years of intensive training by
American advisors and an investment of $22 billion
dollars, US military spokesmen are once again left
trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster
(from which they were rescued thanks to negotiations
between Muqtada al-Sadr and advisors to Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki, brokered in Iran by General Qassem
Suleimani, a man on the U.S. Treasury Department's
terrorist watch list). Think irony. 'From what we
understand,' goes the lame American explanation, 'the
bulk of these [deserters] were from fairly fresh troops
who had only just gotten out of basic training and were
probably pushed into the fight too soon.'
This week, with surge commander General David Petraeus
back from Baghdad 's ever redder, ever more dangerous
'Green Zone,' here are a few realities to keep in mind
as he testifies before Congress:
1. The situation in Iraq is getting worse: Don't
believe anyone who says otherwise. The surge-ified,
'less violent' Iraq the general has presided over so
confidently is, in fact, a chaotic, violent tinderbox
of city states, proliferating militias armed to the
teeth, competing regions armed to the teeth, and
competing religious factions armed to the teeth. Worse
yet, under Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the
U.S. has been the great proliferator. It has armed and
funded close to 100,000 Sunnis organized into militias
reportedly intent on someday destroying 'the Iranians'
(i.e. the Maliki government). It has also supported
Shiite militias (aka the Iraqi army). In Basra , it took
sides in a churning Shiite civil war. As Nir Rosen
summed matters up in a typically brilliant piece in the
Nation, Baghdad today is but a set of 'fiefdoms run by
warlords and militiamen,' a pattern the rest of the
country emulates. 'The Bush administration,' he adds,
'and the U.S. military have stopped talking of Iraq as
a grand project of nation-building, and the U.S. media
have dutifully done the same.' Meanwhile, in the little
noticed north, an Arab/Kurdish civil war over the oil-
rich city of Kirkuk , and possibly Mosul as well, is
brewing. This, reports Pepe Escobar of Asia Times,
could be explosive. Think nightmare.
2. The Bush administration has no learning curve. Its
top officials are unable to absorb the realities of
Iraq (or the region) and so, like the generals of World
War I, simply send their soldiers surging 'over the
top' again and again, with minor changes in tactics, to
the same dismal end. Time.com's Tony Karon, at his
Rootless Cosmopolitan blog, caught this phenomenon
strikingly, writing that Maliki's failed offensive
'shared the fate of pretty much every similar
initiative by the Bush Administration and its allies
and proxies since the onset of the `war on terror."
3. The 'success' of the surge was always an expensive
illusion, essentially a Ponzi scheme, for which payment
will someday come due. To buy time for its war at home,
the Bush administration put out IOUs in Iraq to be paid
in future chaos and violence. It now hopes to slip out
of office before these fully come due.
4. A second hidden surge, not likely to be discussed in
the hearings this week, is now under way. U.S. air
reinforcements, sent into Iraq over the last year, are
increasingly being brought to bear. There will be hell
to pay for this, too, in the future.
5. A reasonably undertaken but speedy total withdrawal
from Iraq is the only way out of this morass (and, at
this late date, it won't be pretty); yet such a
proposal isn't even on the table in Washington . In
fact, as McClatchy's Warren Strobel and Nancy Youssef
report, disaster in Basra has 'silenced talk at the
Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawals any time soon.'
Since April 2003, each administration misstep in Iraq
has only led to worse missteps. Unfortunately, little
of this will be apparent in this week's shadowboxing
among Washington 's 'best and brightest,' who will again
plunge into a 'debate' filled with coded words,
peppered with absurd fantasies, and rife with American
symbolism that only an expert like professor of
religion Ira Chernus is likely to decipher. 'It's
time,' he writes, while considering the upcoming
Petraeus testimony, 'to insist that war should be seen
not through the lens of myth and symbol, but as the
brutal, self-defeating reality it is.'
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's
Tomdispatch.com ('a regular antidote to the mainstream
media'), is the co-founder of the American Empire
Project and, most recently, the author of Mission
Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American
Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first
collection of Tomdispatch interviews. His book, The End
of Victory Culture ( University of Massachusetts Press),
has just been thoroughly updated in a newly issued
edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-
burn sequel in Iraq .
Copyright (c) 2008 The Nation
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment