The casualty numbers are in for October, and man god damn things are going swimmingly over in Iraq. Only 34 U.S. dead – that’s just a little more than one a day (a bitter pill for someone to swallow, but no one who counts, apparently). I don’t recall what the Iraqi corpse figure was – it had four digits, for sure – but (and this is important!) the first digit was smaller than last month’s. Progress! Or so we’re told by the administration, the “commanders in the field”, the mainstream press, and supporters of the “surge” in general. This is, after all, best framed (from their point of view) as some kind of ball game wherein the winning team is the one with the highest (or lowest) score. It makes the war easier to sell, report on, and defend. But war differs from sports in one very important respect – in sports the object is simply to win, so numbers count; on the other hand, there is typically a strategic or tactical purpose to any war, and this one is no exception. While we should be thinking about why we’re in Iraq, the “surge” cheering section wants us to think about how well we’re doing. There’s light at the end of the tunnel! they tell us… but what’s the destination?

All of you who have been opposed to this stupid war from the very beginning, as well as those who’ve turned against it along the way, be prepared to hear some crowing. You can hear it already, I’m sure – the armchair admiral next door, perhaps, who probably believes that if we had listened to those “cut-and-runners”, Al Qaeda would be in charge of Iraq right now. They still think (as they are encouraged to) Al Qaeda is like Wal-Mart: a huge, vertically integrated global enterprise in which every suicide bombing is instantaneously tabulated by a sophisticated inventory system somewhere in Waziristan. Of course, that’s what our political culture wants us to think, and it’s rubbish. Whereas there is a lot more terrorist activity globally now since the invasion of Iraq (no accident), outfits like Al Qaeda in Iraq are made up principally of Iraqis, many of whom now comprise the “Anbar Awakening” council. These cut-throats have ethnically cleansed large areas of central Iraq, and are now in the process of cutting deals with us for oil concessions and reconstruction funds – hence the tactical cease fire. So much for quelling the violence of others – we’re merely underwriting it.

Hearing our military commanders and political leaders (the “experts”) talk, you’d think we’d invaded Iraq just to keep Sunnis and Shi’as from killing one another – part of our broader strategy of spreading sunshine wherever we go, right? Two points relating to that. First, with probably close to a million dead and at least 4.5 million driven from their homes (2.5 million in Jordan and Syria), the human catastrophe has already largely taken place, the direct result of our invasion. Second, we invaded to establish that “enduring relationship” Bush now speaks of; a long-term military presence in the heart of the middle east’s richest oil producing region. In this respect, the mission has succeeded, because now both major U.S. political parties support the idea of staying in Iraq for years to come. If the administration, the major parties, or our military leaders gave a damn about the Iraqi people, they would make some minimal effort to a) determine how many have been killed, injured, or displaced by our invasion, and b) pay reparations for the terrible toll we have taken on their lives and their nation. This won’t happen (unless we insist upon it), and our so-called experts – Republican and Democrat – will do and say anything it takes to keep our military in the heart of Iraq. That’s the point of this game.

Rummy’s rap. Looks like former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may have a bit of a Kissinger problem. At a conference in Paris, he narrowly avoided being hit with a civil action by several human rights organizations, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, over his participation in torture. Seems torturers have to watch their step in Paris these days. Dommage.

luv u,

jp

These are unnerving times. I feel as though, once again, we stand at the edge of catastrophe and yet we are unable to summon the will to stop it. I don’t mean to depersonalize that observation – I include myself in that broad “we”. Sometimes I wonder whether, years from now, I will look back on these days and curse myself for being so limp and impassive in the face of disaster. For the second time in just a few years, we seem to be sleepwalking into war. Our lame duck leaders, eager to demonstrate their relevance, are almost certain to bring about some kind of attack on Iran. Many in the Democrat-led congress are walking in lock-step with them (and sometimes a step or two ahead), particularly those with presidential ambitions. At the same time, Israel has struck a site in Syria, raising the question of what will come next (and from where) and Turkey is poised to invade northern Iraq.

With all of this (and quite a bit more) seemingly going septic at once, our ever-trusty mainstream news media is playing the same role it did in the run up to the Iraq invasion. I took a few moments to watch PBS’s Washington Week this Friday and was treated to the kind of superficial news analysis I’ve come to expect from a program sponsored by Boeing and the mining industry. It closely resembles sports coverage, actually – how the players are positioned and what their next move will be. We hear all about our leaders’ assessments of whether or not a given strategy – e.g. additional sanctions on Iran – will work, but little to nothing about why we’re doing it in the first place. Sure, they’ll regurgitate the administration’s rationales, most of which would fit on a bumper sticker – Iran is killing U.S. soldiers, Iran is building nuclear weapons, Iran is responsible for all known diseases, etc. Clearly, no one besides us has any business either contemplating a nuclear deterrent or maintaining a presence in Iraq… not even when they share a long border with Iraq, have suffered a particularly brutal invasion by Iraq in the past, and now see their neighbor occupied by an openly belligerent superpower.

The Hitler/Germany/1938 analogies continue to fly. Don’t wait for the New York Times to deconstruct them – best to do it yourself. It’s easy. Just ask yourself, is Iran occupying another country? No. Are they the most technologically advanced industrial and military power in the region, let alone the world? I think not. Are they issuing ultimatums? No, though Bush and others have tried to characterize some of Ahmadinejad’s comments as such (without accuracy). So… why are the nominal leaders of both political parties apparently pushing for an escalation, perhaps a military attack? Is there anything in this situation that could justify such an aggressive action? Don’t we already have two hands full with pointless war? What, we’re going to carry one in our teeth now? I hate to sound like Bob Dole, but … where’s the outrage? Sure, most of us will not be forced to fight any of these wars, but if we keep starting them willy-nilly like this, we will ultimately get bit on the ass, even way back here at home.

Bush suggests that he wants to avoid a general war in the middle east. If so, he’s going about it exactly wrong. I think we all need to tell our representatives that, and make clear that we’re not going to sit on our hands while they pour gas on the fire they started.

luv u,

jp