Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Memo to George Will

Yo Willy!:

The people of Virginia elected Jim Webb to the United States Senate. If that bothers you then, as the Vice President would say, go f*** yourself.

Since you don’t seem to know the difference between boorish behavior and patriotism, allow me to remind you.

Here is what patriotism looks like:

And here is what boorish behavior looks like:

And some more of what boorish behavior looks like:

Literally yours,

Mash

Is Iraq in the middle of a civil war? Former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi thinks so. George Will thinks so. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney sees nothing of the sort. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld agrees with the Vice President. President Bush is way ahead of both the Vice President and the Secretary and sees victory looming on the horizon.

In an earlier post I had discussed the opposing views of the crisis offered by Donald Rumsfeld and George Will. I had suggested that the Administration might take this opportunity to discuss with the American people more candidly what the situation in Iraq is like. However, it appears that the Administration has decided to give no quarter. Everyone has come out forcefully with the same talking points. It’s their story and they are sticking to it.

I am reminded of Fonzi from the sitcom "Happy Days". He just could not come out and say he was sorry. The word would stick in his throat and the most he could say was "I’m s-s-s-o-o-o..". The Administration and its allies cannot seem to utter the words "civil war". It would be comical if the situation were not so tragic. Allawi states that about 50 to 60 Iraqis are dying per day and he thinks this means "civil war". I’ll grant that Allawi benefits from screaming "fire" because he sorely needs to get back in the game. However, it seems to me 50 to 60 people being killed per day in sectarian violence smells like civil war. That is up to 420 people killed per week; 1800 people killed per month; 21,900 people killed per year. The United States military lost 58,226 men and women in action in Vietnam from 1964 to 1975. That is about 5293 KIA per year in what was a shooting war. If the current Iraqi conflict rages 11 years, the Iraqi death toll will be, at the current rate, a staggering 240,900. By any stretch of the imagination, there is a war raging in Iraq. We may choose to call it a "fashion show" for all that matters, but by any name, it is a war.

The verbal gymnastics required to dance around the "civil war" issue is illustrated in The Washington Post article by a quote from British Defense Secretary John Reid:

Every single politician I have met here from the prime minister to the president, the defense minister and indeed Ayad Allawi himself yesterday said to me there’s an increase in the sectarian killing, but there’s not a civil war and we will not allow a civil war to develop

When does the Minister think the line will be crossed? And how will he not allow it to happen? Is there some hard line between sectarian killing and civil war? If there is, we would like to know where it lies so that everyone is on the same page. He follows that quote up with an unfortunate Orwellian statement:

The essential thing is to show maximum unity in a government of national unity so that the terrorists that do want a civil war do not get their wish.

Naturally, the government of national unity should maximize its "unityness".

The Vice President is also very confident that we are headed in the right direction:

I think we are going to succeed in Iraq, I think the evidence is overwhelming.

I am still hoping that the Administration will change course, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of wisdom. Here’s Senator Hagel with some advice:

"It’s important that we stop this talk about we’re not going to leave until we achieve victory," said Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

"We need some new thinking here," Hagel told ABC television.

We need to move beyond semantics and toward reasonable discourse and action.

There are two remarkable articles on The Washington Post website tonight. The juxtaposition of the two also is startling. There is an article by George Will titled "Bleakness In Baghdad" and another by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld titled "What We’ve Gained in 3 Years in Iraq". Their views of what is happening in Iraq could not be any more different.

George Will writes about the conditions on the ground:

Conditions in Iraq have worsened in the 94 days that have passed since Iraq’s elections in December. And there still is no Iraqi government that can govern. By many measures conditions are worse than they were a year ago, when they were worse than they had been the year before.

Secretary Rumsfeld writes about the conditions on the ground:

The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.

…

Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist’s accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces — not U.S. or coalition troops — that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq’s progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate.

George Will sums up the effort to bring democracy to Iraq:

Three years ago the administration had a theory: Democratic institutions do not just spring from a hospitable culture, they can also create such a culture. That theory has been a casualty of the war that began three years ago today.

Secretary Rumsfeld opines on the same effort:

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

What is going on here? Why such starkly different views of the same situation? Is the situation in Iraq much better than the vast majority of the media and punditry would lead us to believe? Or is the Administration refusing to face some very uncomfortable truths about the results of its policy? I am not on the ground in Iraq, I cannot say for certain. However, I can make a best guess based on the information available to me from the Administration and the various media outlets. The preponderance of evidence based on the Administration’s own assessments over the last three years and the information from the media leads me to believe, and I believe common sense suggests, that the situation in Iraq is not going well.

I suggested in two earlier posts today that in order for the Administration to salvage the situation, it needs to be more forthright with the American people. (You can read the posts here and here).

The first two paragraphs of Secretary Rumsfeld’s article are very telling:

Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side" and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."

Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates — who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years. [Emphasis added by me]

As long as this Administration continues to equate any views that do not correspond to theirs with the views of the terrorists, they cannot begin to have an honest discussion of the situation. In any situation, including a war, when one side is objectively losing, and it is clear to everyone, including the enemy, that one side is losing; it does not negate the objective truth of the loss. We may loathe the fact that we are losing, but it does not change that truth. Certainly, voicing the fact that we may be losing does not make the speaker, e.g., George Will, an agent of the enemy.

On this third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, I hope we reflect on where we are honestly and move forward positively. The American people are resilient and can handle the truth, regardless of where it might lie. It is time to level with the American people and regain their trust and support. I hope we have reached the bottom of the curve, and things do genuinely get better for us and the Iraqis from here on out. We have lit a powder keg, and my hope is that the very smart people within the Administration, including the Secretary of Defense, will find a way to contain the fallout.