On and On

 Some will win, some will lose,
some are born to sing the blues
While the movie never ends,
it goes on and on and on and on 
--Don't Stop Believin', 
Journey 

I know nothing stays the same
But if you're willing to play the game
It's coming around again 
--Coming Around Again,
Carly Simon

If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
they don’t have to worry about answers 
--Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
________________

What a delicate madness.

For the folks who now think arming the Sunnis in some pastiche of "elite Iraqi units" might be a good idea (as does NYT editorial board), RAW would kindly point you in the direction of  Mr. Saddam Hussein (1937-2006), he of blessed memory, who led what passed for an "elite bunch of Sunnis" back in the day.

This is not to knock The Times editorial board, as that would be a sucker punch, and we do not do ad hominem's at Ranger, anyway. No, this is simply to recognize the idiocy and irrationality of the much too many who believe this would be a good idea.

Welcome to the Mobius strip world. Whatever you just saw go by will be coming around again, if you just stay wired for a little bit. And this endless loop will not present a good thing, but something made to sow discord and distress in the viewer.

For those who check into the evening news broadcasts, they will see a revolving cast of characters who gain and lose favor with an appalling speed. An eternal return, that is, until you get bored, begin asking the right questions, and decide to check out of the net:

 "The best chance of quickly responding to the Islamic State would be to get weapons and training directly into the hands of Sunni tribal fighters in Anbar.  ... Given the urgent threat, the Americans should consider working more directly with the Sunni tribes if Baghdad continues to refuse."

"Now, under the new threat of ISIS, the politically dysfunctional state is under more strain, and may be in greater danger than ever of splitting apart into Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni sectors. That would make defeating Islamic State forces even harder."

"That would make defeating Islamic State forces even harder."  Are we "tarded", as the film Idiocracy might say? To quote the late Freddie Prinze's character Chico, "Ees not my job, man!" It is not the United State's job to reinforce the created state of Iraq, after so foolishly deposing its leader. 

Iraq might split into three (or multiple) regions? Welcome to 2003. Anyway, as we say in the South, "That dog won't hunt for you," so let it split, baby.

We have our own country to maintain, and this extends beyond the interests of the military and its contractors.

We should let the war gravy train dry up.

The Fallujah Fallacy

--2004 cartoon on what went unseen 

It is a popular delusion that the government
wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth.
Enormous effort and elaborate planning
are required to waste this much money
-- P.J. O'Rourke
___________________

Fallujah was neither won, nor lost, despite the shocked news headlines. The violence in Fallujah was not warfare then, nor is it now. It is sectarian violence packaged as warfare to serve the cynical needs of a invading nation. This godforsaken city served the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) template well, and according to the mainstream media, it's the gift that keeps on giving (for the puppeteers behind the scenes.)

Fallujah is a symbolic terrain, a body over which the warring tribes of Sunnis and Shias continue to fight for governmental power. It is not a rogue band of al Qaeda fighters causing mayhem but the citizens themselves. The Sunnis may be "al Qaeda affiliates", but if they do affiliate with this terrorist group it is out of sheer pragmatism and necessity as their goals do not extend beyond securing their city.

No democracy, liberty, freedom or women's rights are being sought; it is just a 1,300-year power struggle played out now with U.S. taxpayer dollars supplying both sides of the fight. What did the killing achieve at any level, and did we ever have a realistic policy in Iraq? The obvious conclusion (from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, et. al.) is that U.S. combat power does not build nations.

Saddam had controlled the violence in Iraq and The U.S. invasion unleashed unbridled violence, and the killing today is simply a continuance of the U.S. set-up. The U.S. gave much to Iraq, but the upshot is a continuing spiral of violence.

When Fallujah was recently wrested from Iraqi Shia control, this was not an al Qaeda success -- this was the Fallujans voting with their guns. The money has run out to bribe the "Sunni Awakening", and so all parties return to their tribal status quo.

As one Marine who fought there wrote in the Guardian (UK) last week:

The Iraqi government's recent actions in Falluja turned the non-violent movement violent. When the protest camp in Falluja was cleared, many of the protestors picked up arms and began fighting to expel the state security forces from their city. It was local, tribal people - people not affiliated with transnational jihadist movements - who have taken the lead in this fight against the Iraqi government (I Helped Destroy Falluja in 2004. I Won't Be Complicit Again.)

In addition, the press is loathe to recognize the role of Saudi Arabia in providing weapons, training and fighters to stoke the instability in Iraq. "Saudi Arabia" may be fungible with "al Qaeda fighters", but our "friendship" disallows such considerations.

Fallujah's fall is no surprise. It's "securing" was smoke and mirrors.

To RangerAgainstWar's mantra: Killing people in a war on terror is foolish if they can be replaced the next day. That is not warfare, but a simple cycle of violence.