It looks bad, but really, it’s worse

Much of the “success” that is often attributed to the surge escalation by administration mouthpieces and the rah-rah chorus in the establishment media can actually be traced to a truce called by Moqtada al Sadr, and a “strategy” that has US forces paying protection money to assorted Sunni militias.

But we knew that.

However, now that fighting in Basra is reaching pre-surgescalation levels and violence is heating up around Baghdad, here are a couple of things that we are just learning.

First, to Basra:

Since August 2007, Moqtada al Sadr has established a cease fire and held back his forces from attacks but he has never denied their right to self defense. This cease fire is the primary cause of decreased casualties in Iraq.

. . . .

With upcoming provincial elections likely to show serious losses for both Maliki’s Dahwa party and Hakim’s SIIC and growing support for Mahdi associated representatives, it’s not surprising that Cheney and our occupation allies were deep in talks last week – nor is it surprising that we now see a dramatic push by green zone forces on Basra where Sadrist forces had been gaining power where Hakim's SIIC used to have considerable power.

. . . .

[During his visit, Cheney] reported[ly] gained agreement from al Hakim for provincial elections, elections in which Hakim’s SIIC is expected to do poorly given popular support for al Sadr. As Badger writes today:

These are two of the famous Bush "benchmarks": Oil and Gas Law, and progress toward provincial elections. In the case of Barzani and the Oil law, the quid pro quo was obvious. But what was the quid pro quo for the Supreme Council? One possible--I would say obvious--answer now suggests itself: In exchange for the Supreme Council dropping its obstruction of the Provincial Powers law, the US would tolerate, and provide air-support for, a campaign against the Sadrists in the Basra region.

The gains for George and Dick are clear - weaken or distract those pesky nationalist forces, justify continued troop surge and presence, gain "approval" of US benchmarks (though not popular approval) and keep control of Iraqi oil in the hands of men like Hakim.

And, literally breaking as I write this, al Maliki has given the Mahdi militias 72 hours to lay down their weapons or face unspecified serious consequences.


As for the Sunni “awakening”/bribery:

. . . a strike by (formerly) pro-American members of an Awakening council in Diyala reveals a country-wide frustration with the US, even among its allies. The men of Diyala say they have not received pay they were promised, and feel that the US does not appreciate the sacrifices they have made for the surge. They have buried over 400 of their own, and now some feel they are just being manipulated to advance an American political agenda. Of 49 groups the Guardian spoke with across Iraq, most reported not being paid. In Hillah, discontented fighters spoke of organizing a nation-wide strike.

It is discouraging enough that these “truces” are now falling apart—for Iraqis and Americans alike—but it is disgusting to realize that, once again, what little good might have come of the recent “breathing space” will now be fouled by typical Bush-Cheney greed and cynical political gamesmanship.


(cross-posted on The Seminal)

Dana Perino Explains It All for You

I know that obsessive fans of faith-based reality television still miss the comic high jinks of the Scotty Mac Show—better known to some as the White House press briefing, then hosted by Press Secretary Scott McClellan—but audiences have recently had reason to cheer as springtime replacement Dana Perino has lent a carefree toss of her hair and her own subtle brand of humor to that afternoon giggle we call the gaggle.

Here’s Ms. Perino giving “heck” to Harry—Harry Reid, that is, the Democratic Senate leader from Nevada—after Reid dared to give the White House a little geography lesson.

One thing that concerned me today is I heard that Senator Reid said that the President is in denial about the war. And I think that any quick glance in the mirror would show him that he's in denial on several things -- that Senator Reid is.

First of all, he's in denial about the enemy that we face. This is a vicious and brutal enemy that wants to kill innocent men, women and children of Iraq, people who enjoy and love freedom, and that includes Americans. So it's not in our long-term national security interests in order to not deal with this enemy now.

Secondly, he's in denial about the conflict that we are in, how al Qaeda is inciting sectarian violence. He is in denial about the new Baghdad security plan and the new changes that we've implemented in al Anbar province. He's also in denial that a surrender date he thinks is a good idea. It is not a good idea. It is defeat. It is a death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who voted for a constitution, who voted for a government, who voted for a free and democratic society.

We all want the Iraqis to move faster, to do more and to do it faster, in terms of their political reconciliations. But they're just not ready to do it yet. And Americans are not the type that walk away in times of hardship. To leave people in Iraq flailing and defenseless against an enemy who is determined to kill them. And withdrawal is like crying "uncle," it's giving up. And I can assure you they are diluting themselves if they think that offering a surrender date is in the long-term strategic interests of this country. It is not.

Comedy gold, right?

“Diluting themselves?” What with, I wonder. Show me, Dana, don’t tell me! Tell ya’ what, I will give Ms. Perino the benefit of the doubt and chalk that one up to the bonehead responsible for transcribing these briefings (or should I call it “the writers’ room?”). And that whole soliloquy about the “Baghdad security plan” working—that would be hysterical if it weren’t for all the dead bodies piling up. So, instead, let me point out a couple of other laugh lines.

“This is a vicious and brutal enemy that wants to kill innocent men, women and children of Iraq, people who enjoy and love freedom, and that includes Americans.” What’s more absurd: the usual administration claptrap about how the “evil doers” in Iraq are going to come on over and kill us here, or that Perino and her boss have decided to bring the war home by extending Iraqi citizenship to all Americans? It’s a little avant-garde, but imagine the comic possibilities.

And here’s the wicky wacky one I really want to call to your attention: “ . . . he's in denial about the conflict that we are in, how al Qaeda is inciting sectarian violence.”

Now al Qaeda is inciting sectarian violence? What a scream! Al Qaeda? Really? I mean, Dana, don’t get me wrong, I’m laughing and all, but I ask because I feel almost certain that you said Iran was fueling sectarian violence. I even remember some sketch about “explosively formed penetrators”—that was prop comedy at its best!

Forgive me Dana, I know you have your own style, and I don’t want to mess with that, but if you are going to tell a joke, you gotta tell it right. You see, and I know you’re kind of new to the circuit, so maybe you didn’t pick up on this, Iran is a predominantly Shiite country, and they are partial to the Shiite population of Iraq, while al Qaeda is exclusively a Sunni organization. Iran—Shiite. . . al Qaeda—Sunni. . . got it?

Now, it has been said that al Qaeda was starring in (or maybe they’re just in the supporting cast—we can debate that some other time) a little off-Broadway production called “the insurgency” because of said insurgency’s ties to former Baathists or “Saddam loyalists” who are overwhelmingly, yes, that’s right, Sunni. Insurgents are supposedly trying to drive American occupiers out of Iraq, or at lease pick off a few of those occupiers, maybe destabilize the new, American-backed government. . . that sort of thing. (Not good for the tourist dollar, but I hear it kills in the sticks.)

“Sectarian violence,” on the other hand, is thought to be a bit more, shall we say, sectarian. As Sid Caesar—I think it was him, anyway—always used to remind me: It’s not an insurgency; it’s a civil war. It’s Shiites going after Sunnis and vice-versa. American troops are just, uh, well, “innocent” seems like a silly word, so let’s just say “bystanders.” Americans might still get killed, but it’s likely more because they got in the way.

I know it seems like a subtle point—maybe even a little nitpicky—and keeping it all straight is, uh, “hard work,” but, Dana, it’s like they say, “the devil is in the details.”

In this case, it’s the devil you know, and, clearly, the devil you don’t.

All kidding aside, it’s recitations like Ms. Perino’s Monday briefing that make me certain that over four years into this occupation, the White House neither knows nor cares about the reality of the situation in Iraq. Learning the differences between Sunnis and Shiites, their beliefs, their grievances, or their chief supporters is of little interest to the Bush Administration because, when seen through their partisan prism, it doesn’t serve any purpose.

Distinctions in the type of conflict or the parties involved just muddy the message (be afraid; vote Republican) and do little line the pockets of the war profiteers (aka Bush’s “base”).

But I know what you’re thinking, Dana, “I think I’ll remember the laughter.”