..out of the dark

.. this is dangerous. Lethal, in fact. As the prospect of the return of baathist strongman rule looms, just as at the beginning of this farce when the US marines failed to be greeted with candy and waving american flags and then didn't know what to do, anything that smacks of withdrawal scares anyone without beards down to their toes half to death. And for good reason, since "embracing western values" quickly becomes a political expression connected with the corrupt dogs currently wrecking the Iraqi economy while selling out their culture and sense of nationality at speeds proportional with the oil- production.

Consequently, the "progressives" and those not entirely confortable with embracing Islam and the clergy in place of any government, or a tribal militia instead of a justice system and ordinary police- force, are therefore fleeing for their lives. Because they know that anything resembling american or western ideas is going to be freely associated with what the insurgency will target.

"Threats Wrapped in Misunderstandings"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120602235.html

"It is a report to solve American problems, and not to solve Iraq's problems," said Ayad al-Sammarai, an influential Sunni Muslim politician.

..The ISG then "succeeds" with reinforcing the White House's strategy in pressuring the Iraqi government to employ a more heavy- handed approach in order to produce more palatable results as far as the mission is concerned. Which has been the strategy for several months already.

Expecting the US to abandon this idea of governance, however - the root of the problems for the Iraqi government - is out of the question. As described in detail in the Baker- Hamilton report, when referring to the various sunni- dominated governments in the region. Along with of course the thinly veiled expectations of help to sustain a similar government in Iraq from those surrounding governments. Which is as acceptable to the Washington establishment today as it was ten years ago.


The ISG also has succeded in pleasing the increasingly uneasy american public. Naturally, any journalist worth a damn will pick up on how the political remedy here is for internal consumption only, solely and totally, in simply enumerating how the Bush- administration has failed on every single point of their policy. And as such explains how any solution in Iraq will have to be something extremely flexible and "new", while the useful parts of the policy in place must be redrawn from the bottom and up.

This could help Iraq in the long- term, maybe, but by then it will surely be in the hands of the next president anyway.

But the reactions are curious and worth noting - the report hits home in a way that turns over established and entrenched anti- war as pro- war views.

For instance, here is Glenn Greenwald, reformed republican and now horrified civil rights advocate:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-rational-person-would-listen-to.html

What rational person would listen to people like James Baker?

And he is noting the obvious way in which this report gives the administration latitude towards "staying the course" a bit longer. And since Baker also argued for the war back in 2003, anything Baker says is considered tainted.

Would Glenn have accepted a "staying the course for some time longer" if it was stated by, say, Jack Murtha? Why, yes, he would. In fact, then it would be fine, since it rides on the unspoken assumption that the war was a horrible mistake in the first place (even though that one also supported the idea of regime- change at the outset, although like many others have expressed their shame for going along with the president for such a long time afterwards).

And Baker never says the mission was bonk from the start, or admits it now in hindsight. And it is absolutely true that none of the people on the ISG were ever of the idea that the US should not exercise their power in the middle east, in at least some way like what was done. And even the democrats on the committee like Nancy Pelosi have long argued for looking at practical ways forward, and not seeking a categorical rejection of the entire policy the president insists on.

In any case, the ISG enumerates all points of the initial plan, and any inferred point from that plan, and judges the effort employed so far to be beyond inadequate, or simply non- existent.

The Baker- Hamilton commission then succeeded in pissing off either extreme of the political divide in the US, by (1) not rejecting the fundamental rationale for war, be it only limited to Iraq or otherwise globally, while (2) looking at the practical considerations of the current plan - and therefore it passes the first test - it's bipartisan. Which on this particular occation means something, strangely enough.

And of course, if clever bloggers like Greenwald thought for a bit, they'd understand that they need to lay aside their just anger for a little while, and see this report for what it is - a golden opportunity to take on the fundamentalists that have rooted themselves in the White House on their own ground, and reject their policy as unworkable with the means available. Because the report makes it plain that victory cannot be achieved by means available in the realm of the possible or remotely moral. And that is, however redundant to any thinking individual, necessary to establish in the current state of political discourse in the US.

Rejecting the report as an attempt to enable more of the same is therefore as useless as it is wrong, while also affording the righties cover to decry the opposition categorically as usual. And since the report does such a splendid job of describing the magnitude of the failure of the current strategy, certain bloggers should indeed take Pelosi's lead, and aknowledge that this is how you need to challenge standing policy, no matter how utterly repugnant it is that the war was started on pure policy and image in the first place.

But this is how this fact is best described: with this report, however unberably overdue it is, and however unfair it is that this task falls to those who didn't draw up the plans for the war in the first place - it describes the glorious theory of the march of democracy in the middle east in real terms.

And that, see, is worth something. And failing to accept this for so long, in fear of trampling the image of american superiority, you elitist fucks, is why the Bush- administration got away with it when you were asleep at the wheel four years ago. And this is why the establishment has to do the job for you now, with the assistance of your "allies" in europe and the middle east. And it is also the reason why you are powerless now, and that this report is also a scathing indictment of the useless pandering bullshit that you've been so righteously spewing at the Administration for years.

(And we bloody well told you so early on as well.)

And this report will stand as a reminder, I think, and irrefutable proof, of just how utterly useless and adolescent the american political discourse is, and how dysfunctional and disconnected your government is - for decades and decades to come.

Remember that, later on.

(edit: the main point being that the decision to go forwards with more of the same, or to pull out because the solution isn't good enough - that is a political decision. Finding out whether the solution is good enough, shouldn't be. And however justified, hyping that part of the report and dismissing it, is nothing but copying the errors that led the US into this mess.)