Radical Chic

We should transition from being nation-builders
to nation-defenders.
But the nation we should be defending is our own
--Bob Beckel

I’ve had enough of watching
scenes of schizophrenic, egocentric
paranoic, prima donnas.
All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth
--All I Want is the Truth, John Lennon
___________

Top U.S. commander in Iraq General David Petraeus said last Thursday that Iraqi leaders have not made sufficient progress towards internal reconciliation. This downtick in enthusiasm was in contrast to his February report (Iraqi Leaders Not Making Sufficient Progress.)

Then, following the passage of laws on the budget, provincial elections and an amnesty for certain detainees, Petraeus had said, "(T)he passage of the three laws today showed that the Iraqi leaders are now taking advantage of the opportunity that coalition and Iraqi troopers fought so hard to provide."

General Petraeus should be advised that the passage of a law in Iraq is as meaningless as a mandate to love in a massage parlor. A law that can not be enforced is falderol.

In addition, the U.S. should be asking who benefits from these wondrous laws? Is it the American taxpayers picking up the tab and/or dying for this fiction?

"Petraeus credited both the mainly Sunni neighborhood patrols known as the Awakening and a cease-fire called by Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr with helping to bring down violence. The Awakening fighters include former insurgents who say they have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq, a largely homegrown Sunni group that Petraeus said is in communication with al-Qaeda leaders abroad. The United States is now paying 88,000 members of the Awakening $300 a month to take part in the neighborhood patrols."

So al-Sadr's not quite so radical now that it appears he is benefiting U.S. interests. He even gets strokes from the good General. This re-branding is a joke. In fact, this cleric owns the country; Petraeus is but a breeze blowing across the palace balcony.

Another joke: the U.S. bribing paying militiamen -- former Sunni insurgents -- $26.4 million a month to tote AK's on city streets. [Meanwhile, we can't figure if our own 200+ year old Constitution allows U.S. citizens to bear arms.]

Texas tea:

"Sunni fighters in the western province of Anbar who have joined the Awakening 'are waiting for the next opportunity,' not the next war, Petraeus asserted. 'What they want to do is get more closely linked with Baghdad so they can continue to benefit from the enormous oil revenue wealth which is pouring into this country.'"

Can I link with Baghdad for a cut? While their oil revenue flows, our tax dollars continue to foot their bills. This is like being on a really bad date, for there will be no quid pro quo; she just wants to eat dinner and be gone.

Meanwhile, no one is staunching our bleeding as a result of the petro price-gouging. For one example of the trickle-down effect, the average grocery tab rose 5% in 2007 and is expected to increase by a higher percentage in 2008. No one is remunerating me for being on the Awakening Council to this fact.

Who is drawing the connection between the real costs of this war and the suffering of the average American? There is no cause for joy at a bottomless bucket of handouts for Iraqis while the economic thumbscrews are tightened on hardworking taxpayers daily. My life is not a whit better for George W. Bush's Holy Land crusade; in fact, it is much the worse.

The U.S. is rupturing at the seams, and there are people who care about Baghdad? The chickenhawk crew opposes "handouts" to the neediest U.S. citizens yet has no problem putting Iraq on a 100-yr. dole. The flow of dollars continues and democracy with an iron fist flourishes, everywhere except into our wallets.

Who is fighting for the average American struggling to get through the month?

Not Exactly God and Country. . .

One of the myths of the Vietnam War was that the montagnards fought with the U.S. Special Forces because they loved the Green Berets and the love was reciprocal. The montagnards were primitive, but they weren't stupid. The French played the very same game, then left the "yards" holding the bag.

The montagnards fought not for love of the SF or the Republic of Vietnam. They fought because the SF provided training at the battalion level with corresponding weaponry. They were in effect planning for their eventual battle to free themselves from Vietnamese control, both North and South. This freedom movement was called FULRO and was actively and passively aided by SF actions.

Fast-forward 36 years to a military and a press which fails to grasp that military gains are meaningless unless the Iraqis form a true national consensus. Such a hoped-for consensus was the entire rationale behind the Surge. Our military was to cut slack so that the Iraqis could consolidate politically.

Barring that cohesion, our military can gain ground 'til the cows come home, but that won't effect a stable, effective legitimate government in Iraq. We are told that U.S. forces are fighting them left and right -- against both Sunni and Shiite extremists -- and are "making strides," but what is the nature of these strides? "Waging successful battles" is not a yardstick of success.

Credited with the reduction in Iraqi violence over the past six months were "an influx of thousands of U.S. troops, and the formation of mostly Sunni groups of paid volunteers who agreed to battle al-Qaida for the United States military." "Paid volunteers" is code for mercenaries.

So our newest battlefield asset is not a technological one, but a conventional one. These Sunni mercenaries are a centerpiece of our current COIN operations. The Sunnis effectively have been co-opted as a U.S.-controlled militia.

However, this militia, like the that of the montagnards before them, has no loyalty to or concept of a national government. The Sunni volunteers are there to get training, arms, body armor, commo gear and vehicles. This puts them outside the control of the Iraqi government, and the U.S. gladly obliges.

That the Sunnis are fighting "for the U.S. military" is not a hopeful sign for Iraqi national consensus, nor does it indicate any loyalty to the government of Iraq. They are actually fighting for themselves and their own unique tribal objectives.

The Sunnis are fighting al-Qaida in Mesopotamia simply because it is in their interests to do so. It is not because they have come around to the side of the U.S., nor because they are wedded to the concept of a united Iraq, contrary to the proclamations of George W. Bush.. Euphemistically, we would call this pragmatic behavior.