Bush will lie about Iraq again and isn't even hiding his chicanry

Yahoo news has provided me a Reuter's story that says:

The assessment by Gen. David Petraeus could be a turning point in the conflict and is considered vital to any decisions by President George W. Bush on force levels as he faces demands from Democrats and some senior Republicans for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq.

The problem with this is that Bush just went to Iraq to discuss ongoing events in Iraq and I imagine that he told Petraeus what he must say when he returns. Why else would Bush make such a trip -- to prove that his pilot knows where Iraq is?

In fact, Bush went to a military base in Iraq very far from Baghdad. You younger souls do not know this but there came a time when the only places that Pres. Lyndon Johnson could deliver his speeches was at military bases. These were the only places he could avoid the chant, "Hey, hey, LBJ. How many kids did you kill today?" Since the chanters couldn't easily get on army bases, this ploy was pretty successful. Of course, it further isolated an already isolated President.

President Bush is, I think, a man who, like Hitler, would prefer to bring the USA down around him (figuratively) rather than face a post-Presidential life of ignominy worse even than that of LBJ. He would be able to hob nob at country clubs, his ranch, and other protectable places. He is not going to be able to do as Carter, another unpopular President, did by becoming a statesman. Indeed, the idea is laughable.

President Clinton gads about in public because he knows that except for Right Wing Republicans, he is pretty well loved by the American people. Have I told you that a retired officer relative of mine has a joke that goes, "The two greatest Americans are named "Bill." Bill Gates and Bill Clinton." Pretty good choices. I wish I could believe BC's wife was anything like him but I don't.

So, back to the Petraeus Report, aka "The Petraeus Report as dictated to him by Geoprge W Bush." He will not be able to bring back bad news. Presidents hate bad news. This is what wrecked our Vietnam war effort. Johnson and then Nixon demanded the truth as they wanted to hear it. This will be what we get from Petraeus. Bush's ears will not burn with the truth about his failed enterprise. He will be able to smile and joke around. Then he will look stern and say that we need to keep force levels high bringing just a few troops home for we are on the verge of victory as George W Bush defines the term "victory." One National Guard unit will, it seems come home. They should never have been sent.

The American Exit from Iraq

No, I don't know when this will happen. I am pretty sure it can't happen under Bush. He is too vain to admit defeat. And Republicans have created an impossible situation for him should he wish to orchestrate a graceful exit because they have referred to this to a "surrender."

The Republicans seem to have perfected the the art of biting oneself in the butt. The poor Senator from Utah, who apparently somewhat successfully managed to stay in the closet for some years, is being bitten in the butt by the Republican prejudice against gays, a prejudice he himself adopted when "being a Republican" as opposed to "being a human" was required. Of course, the party has bitten itself in the butt as well. Democrats don't blink when a Democrat is outed or outs himself since they do not practice discrimination toward gays. In fact, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party in regard to gays is heightened because the Utah senator's proclivities were known to the leadership, just as were those of Sen. Foley.

In referring to Democratic proposals to end the war in Iraq, some Republicans have referred to this as a "surrender." They have also referred to this policy as a "cut and run" policy. Of course, for a withdrawal from Iraq to be a surrender, there would have to be someone to surrender to. Would it be the head of the government? Some Shiite cleric like Sadr? The head of the insurgency whomever he might be? Or would it be the top Al Queda guy if there is one? Without someone to hand your sword too, you can't surrender.

Cutting and running might be more relevant. I am guessing that what these Republicans have in mind is a case in which one might go crab fishing using a pretty big hunk of meat and one catches an alligator instead One might want to cut the line and run though it would be smarter, if one were really afraid, to leave the alligator attached to the line and run.

I am tired of two cowards like Bush and Cheney continuing to demand that our soldiers submit to extended stays in Iraq thereby increasing their chances of being killed or maimed or, should they survive, being psychologically damaged by the continued stress of combat against an enemy who hides in the shadows, a kind of stress neither Bush, flying around in National Guard planes when he wasn't AWOL, nor Cheney, studying at Wisconsin with his student deferments, during the Vietnam War could possibly understand.

Of course, if the Democrats can get their act together and defeat the Republican candidate for President and take both houses, then they must find some way to leave that doesn't expose them to Republican ridicule of a sort that might stick. If I knew how to do that I would tell you. We could, of course, adopt Sen. Aiken's proposal during the Vietnam War and declare victory and leave with our heads held high. A verbal declaration of victory is as close as we will come to victory, whatever that means.

On Believing Generals on Active Duty

It occurred to me after doing my last blog on the Petraeus report that I missed the deeper point that it doesn't really matter whether he or George Bush writes this report. George Bush isn't believable because he has proved over and over that he will lie when it suits his purpose. Hell, I'm not sure he has ever told the truth. But what about Generals?

During the Vietnam War, there was an early phase in which reporters would hang out in Saigon bars as well as Saigon brothels, I would imagine, and show up for the daily briefing. This would be swallowed whole and regurgitated on the pages of our newspapers and our nightly news broadcasts. Then reporters started going into the field and they saw a very different picture from what was being told to them in these briefings and coverage of the war began to change. I didn't have a TV at the time but I understand that moving pictures of some of the events of that war were presented on national news shows while people ate their dinner.

I knew that war was a fraud almost before it began, thanks to a two page piece in the Houston Chronicle sometime in the late 50's on how the S. Vietnamese people felt about the Viet Minh (the precursors to the Viet Cong) and the Saigon government. What became a permanent memory for me is that it was reported that the people didn't seem to care who was in control of the part of the country they lived in. I decided that if they didn't care, why the hell should I?

As is well known, General Westmoreland and the rest Generals and the Pentagon and our Department of Defense lied through their teeth every day about progress in Vietnam. They had to lie because they had no clue whether they were making progress or not. Body counts began to be the norm as a way of keeping score. Unfortunately for the truth, an individual dead body, identity unknown, would be seen as a bad guy (unless he or she was an infant), and would routinely be counted multiple times as each unit that encountered it would count it. It could be that General Westmoreland's minions inflated the body counts so as not to piss him off with bad news.

The generals and the Pentagon civilians lied to our Presidents who, themselves, did not cover themselves with glory either. Indeed, the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident was a total fabrication, probably ordered by the President. I know that the incident was a total fabrication but can't tell you how I know. Even the report refenced in the link just given admits that we provoked the attack. But, believe me, there was no attack. I have a record for telling the truth as I know (remember) it so I hope you will accept this as an honest report of the facts. We needed reasons to level N. Vietnam. We finally had it. The problem with trying to level any third world country is that it is so easy for them to rebuild. The N. Vietnamese recovered from the destruction of its buildings way faster than New York has recoverd from the 9/11 attack. Indeed, some firemen were killed yesterday trying to put out a fire in a building damaged in the 9/11 attack. The reality is that nothing we did seem to inhibit the ability of the Viet Cong and the N. Vietnamese Regulars to kill enough Americans to make this war intolerable to the vast majority of Americans.

The fact that the Right Wing has no problems lying has led to a great deal of revisionist history about that war as part of their effort to smear Sen. Kerry. I have a Right Wing relative who told me that we actually won that war since we are now friendly with N. Vietnam. This is a highly educated person. But this is among the most stupid things I have ever heard. It provides a nice picture of the workings of the Right Wing brain.

Our current war is intolerable and has gone on too damn long. One reason is that the American people actually believed the Shrub, Rummy, Chaney, and the war leaders. They were heroes for good long while. But they lied through their teeth about everything concerning Iraq. I fully expect that Petreaus will lie about progress in Iraq. He has a reputation to try to uphold. If he really wants to do the right thing and possibly salvage his personal reputation (though also destroy his career) he will tell the truth. Whether the Shrub would have the guts to fire him after that would be fun to watch.

Do not ever believe what any General says about a war he is in charge of. The military is the paradigm Cover your Ass organization.

Bush and Blair: Liars or Fools?

My morning paper carried a story on a meeting between Bush and His Poodle, as some Brits like to call Blair, headlined

President, Tony Blair express no regrets

This, of course, pertained to their invasion of Iraq.

Now there are two ways in which that headline could be true. It would be true if they simply failed to express regrets as to starting that war or as to how it was conducted and would be true if they explicitly asserted that they had no regrets. I was very interested as to which situation pertained. If the former had been true, the newspaper would have implicated that they should, perhaps, have expressed regrets but chose not to. Instead, the latter interpretation was the case. Both leaders explicitly stated that they had no regrets. In a masterpiece of meaningless prose, we have

Said Bush, "I don't regret things about what may or may not have happened over the past five years."

What in hell does that mean? One problem lies in the use of "about what." Had it read

I don't regret things that may or may not have happened over the past five years.

it would have been a bit clearer. But in saying, in effect, that he doesn't regret things that may not have happened he has crossed over into sheer silliness.

In using the modal "may" Bush has entered a very weaselly world. He could have said, "I don't regret doing anything I did or failing to do things I didn't do." That would have been the manly thing to say. It would, of course, show him to be a total fool or liar or both. A reasonable President -- will we ever get one again? -- might have chosen to regret lying to or, at least, deceiving the UN when it constructed its argument for an invasion of Iraq or might have regretted having totally failed to create plans for various less than optimal outcomes of the invasion such as the people's looting of museums, Saddam's palaces, and other public buildings, or the emergence of a Sunni backlash against both the American forces and the emerging Shiite government, as well as the emergence of Shiite militias or the failure to build an effective Iraqi military and local police forces, just to mention some of the things Bush would have cited as things he regrets if he were not a liar or a fool.

Blair is leaving office a bit prematurely. He was forced out. This is what happens to poodles who poop on British public opinion. It is not unprecedented for an American President to leave prematurely but Bush will not have to do so. This proves how important it is for a democracy to adopt a Parliamentary system of government. We cannot get rid of our Presidents even though they have proved to be liars and fools and that is a sad state of affairs.

Now, to be honest, I would not expect either Bush or Blair to overtly assert that they had regrets about this or that action they took in re Iraq. Blair could do that since he is a goner but not while Bush is holding his leash. The fact is that though Robert S. Mcnamara did express regrets about the Vietnam war he managed he didn't do so until his book In Retrospect came out in 1997. It is worth taking a look at this comment by Mcnamara:

"I have no regrets about not speaking out then. I have deep regrets that we ever got involved or that I supported our involvement," McNamara said. "Most of all, I want to try and look back on what I think were our mistakes -- not all my associates agree they were mistakes -- but ... what I think were our mistakes, and try to draw lessons so we won't make the same mistakes again."

Sadly, because Bush has not learned from past mistakes, the US did repeat the mistake made in Vietnam.

To ask Bush or Blair to express regrets now would be foolish on our part. That is something a regular human might do after making a number of egregious mistakes but it is not what artificial people like Bush and Blair do. Of course, Bush will never mature to the point that he expresses regret about what he did or did not do or may or may not have done or whatever.

Bush and Blair could have had a lovely meeting in which they express their mutual admiration and their belief in the importance of the Anglo-American alliance without overtly saying that they have no regrets about what they have done or didn't do. Saying what they did is an overt insult to the intelligence of the American and British people, to say nothing of the dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis.

Winning vs Losing in Iraq

Harry Reid has earned the scorn of right wingers and others in claiming that the war in Iraq has been lost. So far as I know, no one is claiming that the US has won this war. But there are many other possibilities besides winning and losing simpliciter.

As you may have gathered by now, I see the analysis of concepts as little different from the analysis of the meanings of words and phrases and I want to turn now to an analysis of the concepts of winning and losing in the context of the Iraq war.

There was a time when winning and losing a war had very clear meanings. The Allies clearly won World Wars I and II in that Germany and in the case of WWII Japan were forced to surrender. In both cases, but especially World War II one could chart whether we were winning or losing by looking at the maps our newspapers carried showing where the front lines were. As the font lines advanced closer and closer to Berlin, the more confident we could be that we were winning. The same could be said for the Allied Island hopping in the Pacific. The closer we got to Japan, the more confidence we could have that we were winning.

There were other measures. In the European theater, the toll on German air force gave us a good measure of the ability of Germany to resist the Allies. The same was true in the Pacific as well. But in the Pacific, a decisive additional measure was the level of destruction meted out to Allied and Japanese Carriers and other major ships.

In the case of the Korean war, we also needed only to look at our morning newspapers to see where the front lines were. There were times when it was clear that UN forces were getting their butts kicked but then their fortunes changed. Ultimately, it became clear that neither side could win the war and a stable truce was established at the 38th parallel.

Iraq, like Vietnam, affords no simple measures of winning and losing. There are, it seems, several different wars going on. There is the sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites. Then there is the hostilities between US military and Shiite militias, which waxes hot and cold. Then there are the attacks by Insurgents on elements of the Iraqi government, including especially attacks on any Sunnis who cooperate with this government, as well as the general population, including especially Shiite civilians. And there there is the very hot war between the Americans and the Insurgents. In this context, it is virtually impossible to gauge success and failure in the case of the American war effort.

The Democrats, having failed to mandate a withdrawal with their first piece of legislation on funding the Iraq War (as well as that in Afghanistan, which few Americans seem to oppose) have moved to the idea of aligning funding with specific benchmarks that could be argued to represent success, if met, and failure, if not met, in the Iraq war. Interestingly, Bush and his Secretary of Defense (War) seem not to be in complete agreement as to the merits of the use of benchmarks in this way. In my morning paper, which I seem unable to access this morning, but also in the LA Times, there are indications that Gates himself wants to see some "progress" in the war in Iraq. It seems that he, like the Democrats, sees use of a timetable for the Iraqis to meet certain guidelines or benchmarks as the correct way of measuring success and failure in this Iraq.

During a recent trip to the Middle East, Gates told the Iraqi government that time was running out and praised Democratic efforts in the U.S. Congress to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying it would help prod the Iraqis. He reiterated that point during a meeting with reporters last week.

Naturally the Bush administration does not like for Gates to stray from the herd, to use a Texas cowboy metaphor and seems to have forced Gates to backtrack a bit.

A spokesman for Gates insisted there was no distance between the Defense secretary's thinking on the timetable for Iraq and views held by the White House or Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

So, the question arises as to whether Bush is himself prepared to go along with some sort of timetable for Iraqi compliance with American demands, including the Iraqi army's taking control of the war.

I believe Gates is on a completely different page than President Bush and Gen. Petraeus," said a former senior Defense official who has supported the buildup. "He wants to see some results by summer, and if he doesn't see those results, he seems willing to throw the towel in."

It seems Gates is unwilling to go along with Bush's view that if there is to be some sort of timetable for Iraqi compliance with various benchmarks, the timetable should be flexible. Of course, a flexible timetable is no timetable at all. But the fact is that in a war like this the only way to measure success and failure is to measure how well the Iraqis do in regard to meeting various benchmarks such as taking full control of the war against Insurgents and efforts to stop the sectarian violence.

In my view, Bush is afraid to admit defeat in Iraq, that is, to admit that the Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself against against Insurgents of whatever kinds as well as bringing an end to the sectarian violence. Such an admission would mark his administration as a near total failure. He would much prefer to pass this on to a future, very likely Democratic administration. All that really remains is to see how long Republicans running for Congressional seats and Republicans trying to win the the party's Presidential nomination and then the General Election will go along with Bush. What Republican wants to be the one to withdraw American forces from Iraq? Right now, few prominent Republicans are willing to admit that Bush is wearing no clothes. I suspect that will change by late Fall.

The "Occupation" of Iraq

The Saudi King seems to think that the US is "occupying" Iraq. The New York Times writes:

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq is “illegal,” and he warned that unless Arab governments settle their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.

Like the Democrats in Congress, I want the US out of Iraq. However, no part of our involvement in Iraq constitutes the occupation of that country in any useful sense of the word. Back in the day, Brittan, France, Belgium, Germany, and The Netherlands occupied various countries in the world, using military force to maintain control of these countries so that they could gain exclusive access to the natural resources of these countries. The US too has occupied a few countries, often liberating them from control by one foreign government and installing ourselves as the dominant force. This was true of Cuba, for instance, which we liberated from Spain. We installed a permanent military base there but do not control the politics of the country as a whole. We also have bases in other countries in the world usually either at the invitation of the government or by leasing the space from the government of both. But as far as I know, we do not have the kind of political control over any country that rises to the level of an occupation of that country.

Contrary to the Saudi King's claim, the US does not have political control over Iraq and I am not even sure how much political influence we have. Moreover, I see no evidence that the Iraqi government wants us out. If it said it did, it is difficult for me to see how Bush could not withdraw our troops.

Bush's "surge" depends for its success on the willingness and ability of the Iraqi government to continue to build up its military and police forces (and to rid them of sectarian thugs) and to join with American forces in suppressing violence in Baghdad and environs. One ofBush's major problems has been to get the Shiite-dominated government to suppress the Sadr Army. Never before has the Iraqi government done what it said it would do to share the burden of stopping the insurgents as well as squash the various militias and street gangs who are killing perfectly peaceful Iraqis. This inability of Bush to get the Iraqis to protect themselves demonstrates to me that Bush's influence over the government is quite limited. This is the real shame of Bush's war. Under Saddam, these people were safe so long as they behaved in ways Saddam wanted. Now that they are under our "protection," the citizens of Baghdad aren't safe.

It distresses me when people use terms like "occupy" as inaccurately as the King has when there are so many criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy that are true and very difficult to refute. All Bush has to do to counter this silly claim is point out that there is nothing about our presence in Iraq that is reminiscent of how Germany operated in Occupied Europe or reminiscent of the occupation of the Middle East, Africa, India, and elsewhere by European nations, nor of the Japanese occupation of Korea, the Philippines, and China. The King's claim is a distraction from the real job of demonstrating to a sufficient number of Americans that they should support the Democrats in removing Bush from Iraq. Saying that we are occupying Iraq and that the occupation is illegal is counterproductive.

There is one thing the Saudi King could do that would be useful and that would be to try to persuade Iran to join with them in attempting to persuade Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis to stop killing each other. If they accomplished that, then I think Bush would have to leave. There would be little for our military to do.

Supporting the Troops

During the Vietnam War, I and other opponents of the war ran into the roadblock that the American people seemed to be unable to distinguish between the two concepts "supporting the troops" and "supporting the President." The same problem has arisen again in the case of our current war in Iraq, but now, finally, Congress is about to draw the distinction between these concepts.

A majority of the members of Congress oppose the Iraq War and this includes a nontrivial number of Republicans. In order to express its displeasure with Bush's handling of the war, Congress is about to debate a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's proposal to increase the number of troops in Baghdad. The mission of these troops will be to attempt to suppress the violence on the streets of Iraq. According to my morning paper, the effort went well on the first day. But if the troops leave the areas they have cleared, the bad guys will return. Moreover, 4 Americans were killed elsewhere. One step forward, one or two steps backward.

The Democrats have been forced to issue a fairly weak resolution opposing the troop surge in order to bring some Republicans along with them. However, even this very weak action counts as failing to support our President and is therefore a very worthy thing to do at this time for it shows the people that it is acceptable to oppose the President publically. The main reason the action is so weak is that the Democrats are afraid to give Bush's Pit Bull in Chief, Dick Cheney, the opportunity to argue, in his typically sophistic way, that Congress is putting our troops in danger. The Pit Bull in Chief, whom I never tire of reminding you evaded the Vietnam War with something like 5 student deferments, has already harried war opponents, as arm chair warriors always do, on the grounds that they are giving comfort to the enemy by passing this resolution. Cheney, of course, has never let the truth interfere with what he wants to say.

Conceptually, Congress has made it acceptable to draw the distinction between supporting the troops and supporting the President. The problem is that there are few ways in which Congress can create legislation that limits Bush's options. He acted quickly enough to make this opposition not only ineffective but moot since the troops have already begun the mission of clearing the streets of Iraq. Will Congress cut off funds to provide the reinforcements required to help them complete their task? I think not. Congress has so far never run a war -- has never deployed troops or laid out battle plans -- and this would not be the right time to start. They could set an end date for the war, however. They might dictate a deadline of January 1, 2008 for the removal of the troops by giving that date as the date the money will stop flowing in furtherance of this war. It would be claimed by the Pit Bull that the enemy would be emboldened. Perhaps it would. But no one really knows what will happen. Americans have proved to be pathetically unable to predict what enemies from markedly different cultures like SE Asia and the Middle East will do in response to what we do. That is the interesting thing about the future. It is like Forest Gump's mother's box of chocolates.

---

Tags: supporting our troops, supporting the President, Congressional resolutions, concepts, language, the Iraq war