They Love Me, They Love Me Not...

A few days ago, when I first heard about the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush during a press conference, I really wanted to post about the incident. I'd be lying if I didn't admit I got a big kick (no pun intended) out of it. I just had too many other things on my mind to delve into the subject. It's not like there is an overwhelming amount of news on the national political scene. Things have finally calmed down with the President-Elect. He's made most of his major cabinet appointments and is now busy filling the remaining slots, which include positions overseeing stuff like the White House bathrooms and tennis courts. Obama simply doesn't appear to be able to generate as much controversy as his predecessor (yet).

As far as Dubya is concerned, I'm forced to concede that I have developed the slightest hint of sympathy for the guy. This is inconvenient and even a bit painful, as he has been the figurehead overlooking eight years of almost unmitigated disaster. Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how safe he has kept the country over the last eight years. But to buy that premise you have to overlook 9-11, and believe that he could have done nothing to stop it. You also have to come to the conclusion that the War in Iraq has made the world (and thus the homefront) more secure. And you might even have to get over any qualms you have about how his administration has responded to domestic disasters.

Add to all of this the power his master Cheney has seized for his "unitary executive branch", and the terrible leadership he has extended over the economy, and I understand why anyone would be resistant to feeling sorry for Bush. Still I can't help it, and I suppose that the reason for that has something to do with the irrationality of feelings. I've always had an eye for the underdogs in life, and despite his natural advantages, George W. Bush has perpetually managed to force himself into that category. He's been a singular failure at every endeavor he's ever undertaken. That takes some mad determination, especially considering the family he was born into. His level of incompetence makes you want to cheer him on to a single victory.

But it seems all too clear that his redemption will not be forthcoming during his last month in office. Even Oliver Stone, with his reportedly sycophantic biopic and tradition of historical revisionism, couldn't rehabilitate this guy's reputation. Bush sits at favorable odds to be remembered as the worst president in US history... worse even than Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson. That's sordid company indeed. And now he wants to portray his adventurism in Iraq as a positive story, with a happy ending (a sadly fitting description, if you apply this term's more obscure meaning). However, he can't get everyone to play along. This isn't the Special Olympics, and he doesn't get points just for surviving his presidency.

If we want to properly place our warm sentiments, perhaps we should direct them at the hurler himself- journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who was employed by the Egypt-based al-Baghdadia television network. He even flung an accompanying insult, shouting "It is the farewell kiss, you dog." That, of course, referred to the soles of his footwear, which he certainly meant to come into contact with the President's smug face. While the meaning may be lost on some Americans, this gesture was the ultimate indictment, and an action conveying the deepest disrespect from an Arabian point-of-view. For his indiscretion, al -Zaidi now faces a likely two-year stint in an Iraqi prison for "insulting a foreign head of state"*. Yikes! No doubt Iraqis are enjoying their new "free society".

* al-Zaida also suffered a broken arm and several cracked ribs as a "result of the incident".

Bush and His Legacy: Incursions Into Syria.

As the election draws ever near, the words "October Surprise" linger on the periphery of the national consciousness. Of course, as the days pass by, the prospect of a game-changing external event becomes increasingly attractive to McCain supporters. Obviously those who back the frontrunner look upon that possibility with dread. While too transparent a move by the current president will draw widespread suspicions of a desire to change the outcome at the polls, subtle actions can have an effect that last a lot longer. Such is the case with George W. Bush's decision to cross the Iraqi-Syrian border to mount an attack on "foreign insurgents" who support opposition to the American occupation.

On Monday, the US military used helicopters and a small team of special forces soldiers to assault a "senior Al Qaeda operative" named Abu Ghadiyah. Apparently the operation was successful. Ghadiyah, who has been suspected of funnelling fighters, cash and weapons into Iraq, was reportedly killed. The Mosul native was thought to be an imprtant aide of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006. Seven other people also died during the raid on the village of Sukkariyeh, a mere five miles from the Iraqi border. Witnesses at the scene report that two additional men were taken into custody, and spirited away by air. Obviously this operation did nothing to further ongoing relations between the Syrian, Iraqi and American governments.

From what US authorities say, Syria is currently the only direction from which foreign support for the Iraqi resistance has been arriving (an odd assertion given the repeated accusations that Iran has been supporting the insurgency). They claim that such activities could only continue with the full knowledge of Syrian intelligence. Interior Minister Bassam Abdel Majeed denies such charges. Syrian leaders point out that they have their own difficulties with Baathist Sunni extremists, and are loathe to provoke enmity by backing "terrorists". But while Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem characterized the American operation as an act of "criminal and terrorist aggression", military retaliation is not expected.

What consequences could arise from this raid? Well, for one thing, some observers say that it will make Iran assume a more oppositional attitude toward cooperation between Baghdad and Washington. It may increase their hostility to an Iraqi-US Status of Forces Agreement that they believe gives American troops "free rein to stage military operations wherever and whenever they deem necessary, without consulting the Iraqi government." Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said "We actually condemn any attack which violates national sovereignty of countries and leads to the killing of innocent people. Such invasions are unacceptable". Meanwhile a spokesman for Nouri al-Maliki's government says that Iraq rejects the raid, even if the US claims it was legitimate.

Any agreement between the Bush Administration and the Iraqis could be forestalled by what much of the Middle East perceives as an aggressive action. The Iraqi Parliament is increasingly giving signals that there must be substantial change in the Status of Forces Agreement before it approves it. While it may make perfect sense for Bush to strike out against perceived enemies in the waning days of his presidency, his choices may indeed make his successor's job much more difficult come January. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is calling for a united Middle Eastern response to the strike, and suggesting that Bush intends to boost McCain in his election campaign. We can only wait and see how this develops.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 1.

Note: This post is the first in a series of three...

Last Thursday I heard an interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross that jarred me outside of the narrowing spectrum of presidential politics. Gross was interviewing former CIA agent Robert Baer, who has 21 years of experience working in the volatile Middle Eastern region. Baer was on air to promote his new book about Iran, which is entitled The Devil We Know. He shared some incredible and disturbing insights about this growing Shia nation that made me re-evaluate my thoughts about world politics and the United States' involvement in the Middle East. Like most of my fellow citizens, I rely heavily on media sources that have a diminishing journalistic presence abroad. This means that my understanding is limited to "conventional wisdom".

Baer's central message regarding Iran is decidedly different from what you are likely to hear about this key player in Bush's "Axis of Evil". It is his contention that this age-old Persian nation is actually the most stable and powerful player in the Middle East today. As a result, he believes that the trajectory of our involvement with this quintessential "rogue nation" will lead to one of two outcomes- either we will open negotiations with Iran, or we will find ourselves in a 30-year war with them. It should be clear to anyone with a sane assessment of our economic prospects that only one of these options remains viable. Iran can marshall a million soldiers for the battlefield immediately, and we are already pushed against our limits.

Of all powers in the Middle East, it is Iran that has most benefitted from our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Sunni contingent represented the most significant check on Persian power. The US attack on Hussein led to a democratically elected body that is overwhelmingly composed of Shi'ites.. The situation on the ground currently favors the Shia majority in Iraq, and Baghdad is now dominated by leaders of that sect. The New York Times reported in August that the Iraqi national government is in the process of rooting out the leaders of the Sunni Awakening, an organization that has been cooperating with the American military to quash violence in the Anbar Province. Meanwhile Iran has been instrumental in getting Shia militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr to stand down in the face of the Bush Administration's surge.

As far as Baer is concerned, Southern Iraq is already being managed by Tehran. He likens Iraq's relationship to Iran to that beteween Canada and the United States. Former Iraqi president, and current consultant to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is now a major player in the Iraqi oil market. Eventually, the Iranian leadership would like to see the United States leave Iraq peacefully, and cede its stabilization efforts to Iran. To that end Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been working with the American authorities to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. When this occurs, all pretense of Iraqi self-government will be called into question. But Baer insists that this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

The main objective of Iran is indeed to consolidate its influence over Iraq and to reign unchallenged over the Persian Gulf. Baer is not denying Iranian imperial ambitions. But he is questioning the ramifications of its growing regional power. While the consensus in the US seems to be that we should stop Iran at all costs, Baer suggests that we might be better off exploring a partnership instead. His decades-long observation of Iran leads him to believe that the nation may be a better associate in the Middle East than current US-ally Saudi Arabia. Indeed he makes the point that the Iranian extremists he has met are actually much more rational than their Saudi counterparts. And he is impressed by the maturing worldview of the Iranian leaders.

... TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2...

Who is Joe Biden?

I wasn't at all happy this weekend when it was announced that Barack Obama had chosen his running mate. Joe Biden?! I immediately thought to myself that our hero couldn't have chosen a more establishment candidate. It's not that I even knew much about the Senator from Delaware. But I was aware that he had mounted several unsuccessful campaigns for the presidential nomination in the past. There was nothing inspiring about those attempts. He came off as a fairly conservative functionary that has been in Washington way too long to affect any sort of change. And yet when people asked me how I felt about Obama's selection, I was hesitant to go into a lot of detail. I decided to do some research first.

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. is the son of a suburban car salesman from Wilmington, DE. Although the 66-year old Biden was born in Scranton, PA, he spent his childhood in New Castle County, Delaware. He got his law degree and was elected into the US Senate in 1972, at the age of 30 (he was the sixth youngest to be elected to that political body). Shortly after assuming office, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident. He was actually sworn in at the bedside of his sons, who had survived the tragedy. Instead of resigning his seat, he decided to commute to DC from Wilmington, which he still does to this day. His progeny have since found their way into politics.

Obama apparently thought long and hard about his choice for VP. Biden offers 36 years of intimate knowledge of Washington insider politics. He is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a long-standing member of the Committee on the Judiciary (he chaired it in '87 and '95) . He is also co-chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. It was in that capacity that he wrote the laws that established a national "Drug Czar". He has focused his efforts on reducing the use of ecstasy, ketamine, Rohypnol (the "date-rape" drug) and steroids. As Judiciary Chair he has been active in promoting measures to stem the tide of domestic violence, and to control the spread of violent crimes.

It is in the realm of foreign policy that Biden has a decidedly mixed record. He was very active in promoting a US military involvement in the Balkans during the mid-90's. After 9-11 he bought the administration line that Hussein was a major threat to American interests. He voted for the War on Iraq, and he has steadfastly supported every appropriations bill for that conflict. His major caveat is that he has continually insisted both on an increased troop presence and an internationalization of the conflict (sounds a lot like McCain, eh?). The major difference he has with the current strategy is that he is in favor of partitioning Iraq into separate regions for the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

One tidbit of info that reveals Biden's true nature is his behavior after being asked to be John Kerry's running mate in 2004. He urged the wannabe president to select Senator John McCain as a VP candidate, in order to heal the "vicious rift" dividing the nation. That lends a bit of irony to my earlier suggestion that Obama and McCain should consolidate on the same ticket. Anyway, after a bit of reading I'm a bit puzzled by the Obama/Biden partnership. While it's true that a moderate Democrat with legislative experience seems to round out Barack's strengths, I don't see this pick helping Obama's chances in the November elections. Biden had only garnered 1% of the votes during the primary, and Delaware is far from being an important battleground state.

I see this move as another in a long line of concessions to the business-as-usual mentality that is so endemic in our society. If Obama was really committed to change, you'd think he'd be more adventurous in his alignments.

Political Myth Busters.

There are some things that I hear repeated time and again that frustrate me to almost ridiculous lengths. I realize that I am setting myself up for this by choosing to listen to partisan hacks, but I think it's important to expose myself to perspectives and views that I find objectionable. The reality is that many people form their political beliefs by listening to pundits who consider themselves expert analysts. Generally the strategy is to utilize repetition until certain core assertions are accepted as fact regardless of how ludicrous they really are. We have certainly gotten our fill of this approach over the last seven plus years with the Bush administration. Their talking points have been well distributed and utilized.

So anyway, I've decided to mention a few of the more egregious ones. These are examples of claims that really get under my skin and annoy me to no end. They cause me to yell at the radio when there is no one else in the car with me. Sometimes they give me short bursts of energy that get me through an especially sluggish day.

1. The media is controlled by the Left.

Is there anyone who sincerely believes this chestnut nowadays? Simply put, the media is a corporate-run industry. The vast majority of media outlets are owned by huge multinationals who will ultimately manipulate the news to serve themselves. Naturally different sources skew their coverage to relative degrees. But I don't understand why anyone would still insist that the US has a "liberal media"- especially in an age when more people watch FOX News than the other networks, and when it's impossible to find a progressive voice on the radio. Our mainstream choices range from "moderate" to reactionary conservative.

2. The Democrats want to take away guns from lawfully-acting citizens.

This claim is particularly insidious in Western Pennsylvania, due to the high proportion of its inhabitants that are members of the National Rifle Association. Believe me when I tell you that there are a lot of people around here that will consistently vote Republican merely based on the false premise that the GOP will protect their rights to arm themselves with whatever weapons that they so desire. I don't remember the last national Democratic leader that seriously suggested that we curtail gun rights. Yes... once in awhile they will devise some proposal aimed at a half-hearted measure of regulation (usually having to do with assault rifles), but this is almost always lip service, and meant to appeal to an urban population that is legitimately worried about gang violence.

3. Republicans hate homosexuals and have deep convictions regarding social issues that are based in religious faith and family values.

If the conservative leadership truly wanted to outlaw gays and abortion it would have already happened. The GOP put together tremendous consolidated power in the wake of 9-11. They controlled all three branches of the federal government and the majority of the states. The Constitution has never before stopped them from doing things that curtail our civil rights. We are living in a time when our liberties are slowly being eroded. Faith-based conservatism is a sham. Abortion and gay marriage are only national issues because they can be used to manipulate the masses. They are used to muster voter turnout and increase divisiveness. If these issues were resolved, they would no longer be useful for the Republican leadership.

4. The Democrats are causing our reliance on foreign energy by blocking drilling in ANWAR.

This is another cynical smokescreen. Believe me- if we had significant oil resources left in America, we would have already tapped them. Anyone with any true power- the oil industry, energy companies, national politicians, foreign policy experts- knows that ANWAR would (at best) take care of our fuel needs for 3-6 months. It's not worth the investment. This is simply used as a distraction from the real problem- a dependence on fossil fuels, and the effect it has on our foreign policy. The discussion needs to go far beyond domestic expansion of drilling... we need to confront our government's destructive resistance to embracing a new energy paradigm. The only way to do this is to elect leaders that have little or no connection to the oil industry. Good luck with that.

5. George Bush's War in Iraq has been a failure.

This all depends upon your personal perspective. If you mean that the five plus years of occupation and invasion are an immense drain on the public resources, and a distraction from the truly pressing and urgent issues of our times- then you are entirely correct. But if you look at it from the point-of-view of Dubya and his cronies... well, it's worked out exactly as they have planned. The NeoCons have achieved their goal of having a radically-increased military presence in the Middle East for an indefinite period. The energy companies and military-industrial complex are reaping insane profits off of subsidies and no-bid contracts, and all of that money has been taxpayer dollars redistributed from social programs that the Far Right has been trying to eliminate for years. How is that not an unqualified success? Dubya has served his only true constituency in an exemplary fashion.

Jeremy Scahill, "Blackwater" (2007)

Advocates of widespread privatization seem to have triumphed in the US military. Prior to March 31, 2004, this was the Bush Administration's dirty little secret. It was on that date that the burnt remains of several private contractors were suspended on a bridge outside of Fallujah- an Iraqi city of 300,000 up the road from Baghdad. Technically these men had been civilians, but not in the eyes of the Sunnis that were unhappy with the American occupation of their city. The deceased had been escorting a convoy of flatbeds, on their way to pick up kitchen equipment. They wore wraparound Oakley sunglasses and drove in jeeps without armor. They could have been CIA agents, but they were actually employees of a company called Blackwater.

Blackwater was responsible for the protection of Paul Bremer (CPA head) and John Negroponte (US ambassador to Iraq). This certainly validated Blackwater executives' claims that they were a 'secret partner' of the US Government on the War on Terror. Regardless of the actual level of clandestine participation, there is no doubt that most Iraqis perceived these contractors as official representatives of the occupying forces. And thus whatever behaviors they displayed reflected not just on themselves, but on the entirety of the American people. Unfortunately for the US citizenry, Blackwater's soldiers-for-hire are cocky and often act as if they are above the law.

The fact is that (according to Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the Worlds Most Powerful Army, (2007)) these mercenaries are indeed beyond the reach of criminal prosecution. This was by decree of Paul Bremer himself. As Scahill notes in his extraordinarily informative work, "One of Bremer's last official acts was to issue a decree immunizing Blackwater and other contractors from prosecution for any potential crimes committed on Iraq (June 27, 2004)." That basically gave these mercenaries complete impunity... a license to kill and maim at will for any (or no) reason. The real consequences of their missteps were paid by the US Military, who were drawn into a rash campaign of revenge after the "Fallujah-Bridge" incident.

It doesn't necessarily matter that those doomed Blackwater agents were simply lost when they were ambushed and desecrated. They became a symbol of Bush's resolve in the war. At the same time, their company became super-wealthy with expanded government contracts after the grisly incident. Blackwater became the vanguard of the radical change in the role that private companies would have in the theater of war, and even flirted with actual combat. The story begins with the wealthy heir of a Christian Right fortune, and continues through the remarkable series of events that transformed a small arms shooting range facility into one of the most notorious private military contractors the nation has ever seen.

Scahill has obviously put a tremendous amount of research into this book. If it has any flaw, it is its almost overwhelming scope. Obviously this is an inordinately complex story. There are too many problematic aspects of the Blackwater phenomenon to present a comprehensive list here. Among the many things the American public should be concerned about most are: Erik Prince's ties to the radical Christian Right, private contractors overcharging on no-bid government contracts, private security companies siphoning off the best manpower from the armed forces, the lack of transparency in the activities of private military contractors, and the message that using mercenaries to fight the administration's battles sends to the rest of the world. This is a mind-bending and troubling work.

Where's our "Prince Harry"?

Normally I have little to no interest in the activities of royal family members in Europe. In fact my disinterest was highlighted the other night at a party, when a friend and I started exchanging trivia questions. It was my turn to come up with a query, and I asked him what category he would like. When he said that I should come up with something having to do with "kings and queens", I drew a complete blank. Although I do have a moderate desire to fill out my knowledge of European history, something deep inside me resists studying the lives of royalty. Perhaps it is the result of the decades of democratic propaganda I have been force-fed while growing up in the United States.

So I have to admit my surprise in being moved to write about a current Prince of England. Diane's kid Harry was recently withdrawn from the Afghanistan theater, after his presence in the English military there made headline news throughout the world. Since December he has been serving on the front lines as a forward air observer, directing missiles to key Taliban targets in the Helmand region. Keep in mind that this 23-year-old kid is third in line for the British throne. Apparently he initially trained to do battle in Iraq, but English authorities put the kibosh on that plan because they figured he would become a high profile target. Harry actually considered leaving the Army after that decision. Apparently he wanted to be treated just like anyone else in the armed forces.

The only way his commanders would deploy the Prince to Afganistan was if the British media agreed to keep his placement out of the public eye. The UK press has been extremely diligent in keeping their promise. Not a word was leaked about his involvement for three entire months. Wondering how the word got out to the rest of us? Apparently American conservative pundit Matt Drudge got his greasy hands on the story, and published it on his exploitation site on the worldwide web. He even went as far as to crow about the exclusive nature of "his reporting". Of course in the meantime he endangered the lives of the Prince, and every single soldier serving alongside of him. It's only common sense that Harry's head would make a notable trophy on the wall of some Taliban extremist. If Drudge had done the same thing to an American politician's son, there would certainly be accusations of treason coming from the Right (unless the malefactor was one of their own).

What's particularly notable about the entire situation is that there is no risk of such a thing happening in the good old United States. If an influential man's child actually ever serves time in uniform, it is in a highly protected position in the rear echelon. No one would rationally expect one among the Bush brood to actually put his/her life on the line for the policy that Dubya has carried out. The same can be said about everyone in his administration and the partisan hacks that still support him. I come into contact all the time with middle and upper-middle class youth that give good lip service to the idea of prosecuting a global war, yet I rarely find any among them that don't blanch at the idea of getting drafted. It is a sad fact that the vast majority of the pro-war faction consists of "chicken hawks".

I would absolutely resist any suggestion that my son go on to fight in a foreign war. But the difference is that I have been consistently against this type of war for the last twenty years. If we were invaded by the regular military of another nation, I would likely consider joining up myself. I see no reason to put my life on the line for a global strategy that only benefits the wealthiest of Americans. I say- let them fight their own damned battles. Instead they exploit the naive patriotism of the lower classes to provide fodder on the front lines. Unfortunately few of these youngsters ever have the opportunity to get the education necessary to understand what they are actually fighting for. I guess (unlike the young Dick Cheney) they just don't have "better things to do", so they might as well be infantry.

More Politics for Petraeus.

Given that the the Iraq War seems to have replaced fighting terrorism as our national obsession this 9-11, I figured I'd share another snippet of political "discussion" with you. Here's another quote that I felt compelled to respond to:

"For everyone who calls George W Bush a liar because no WMDs were found in Iraq - you must also call every senator and representative who voted to authorize the war a liar as well. That includes Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, both of whom said that Saddam had WMDs.

Now, to say that the invasion was a MISTAKE - due to incorrect intelligence - I can understand. But a LIE is a DELIBERATE statement you KNOW IS WRONG. Bush did not LIE. If you believe he did, then you should believe that our allies who joined the US in Iraq lied as well. Plus our esteemed leaders from both parties in the house and senate.

My 2 cents worth."

And here's my answer:

I realize that this is what you are being told to believe right now. That's the big dissimulation campaign that the GOP and pundits rolled out this week in anticipation of the criticism they knew would come in the wake of the Petraeus report. The "think tanks" like the American Enterprise Institute write this stuff, and the Bush administration disseminates it through their propaganda arm. Of course much of the supposedly "liberal" media is complicit, and parrot it unchallenged. I heard it on my local AM radio station on my way home from work. The echo chamber is eerie. I see from the post above [see this link] that they've actually resorted to using internet chain letters. That's pretty funny.

The thing is that it is at least significantly misleading, if not an outright lie. It tries to make Democrats share the responsibility for governmental actions that occurred while the Dems had NO political power.

Many of the quotes are actually from the 90's when the situation was radically different. Notice that there was suspicion back then of WMDs, but no outright statements that Hussein had them. There was a bunch of tough talk during Clinton's administration because Hussein had thrown the UN monitors out of the country, and it was thought that the expression of suspicion would compel the world (and thus Iraq) to allow the monitors back in. In fact the tactic worked, and there was no need for a military force. We found out in 2002-03 that the UN inspections were indeed working.

The quotes from post 9-11 Dems merely prove that the information Bush was passing on to Congress was effective enough to scare them out of opposing the war. They saw reports that were vetted by the White House first. That is the Commander-in-chief's privilege as head of the military and executive branch. It has been well documented that Cheney was actively pressuring the defense department and CIA to only present information consistent with a course of invasion. Michael Ledeen (neo-con and former Bush lackey) has been implicated in the Yellow Cake forgery. You can believe whatever you want, but the truth is out there.

Regardless, this is Bush's war as POTUS. He must shoulder the sole responsibility of leading us into this debacle. Even if the Democrats were too trusting of the Bush administration's doctored intelligence, I never thought there were WMDs... and there were plenty of others that doubted it too.


As you can tell, I get seriously worked up when the GOP actively attempts to shift the blame away. I find it completely remarkable that in the wake of the chaos and ruin- the Republican Noise Machine can still compel ordinary citizens (who presumably have not been paid off) to bleat out their talking points. Cue the Twilight Zone music here.

Petraeus and the Phantom Report.

Today is the day that General David Petraeus will release his report on Iraq to Congress (and by extension, the American media). I'm sure that somewhere, somehow there is someone waiting in intense anticipation. Meanwhile much of the United States is experiencing Iraqi War fatigue. They simply don't want to hear anymore abut it. Others are so jaded and cynical at this point that they will view anything Petraeus says with skepticism. Count me as part of the latter group. There is already so much indication that this event is merely another flaccid step in a drawn out campaign of perception management.

Initially, after the media first heard that Petraeus would be reporting on the success of the "troop surge" policy, some political observers thought that an accurate depiction of the condtions in Iraq was possible. For some reason many would have been willing to invest their trust and confidence in the military leader in charge of the operations over there. Surely he wouldn't lie to the people. What would his motivation be for deceit? Then we found out that the White House itself was going to ghost-write the report and presentation. Now it appears that Petraeus isn't even expected to deliver a written report to the president. Any interest I had in following this particular thread in the story quickly evaporated. In retrospect I believe it was naive for anyone to think that we could get an accurate representation of what's happening on the ground from anyone involved in this misadventure.

When Bush first proposed an increase in troop levels, both the political opposition and the American people expressed their extreme wariness over the idea. But in a misguided effort to "go along to get along", the funding was passed for the "new strategy". We already know the administration's perspective on the efficacy of the move. They keep shoving Anbar Province in our faces, as if it were demonstrative of actual progress happening all over Iraq. Of course that is untrue- if a wave of stability were sweeping over the besieged nation, then surely we would have an entire list of places... instead of just one. No, the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks that Dubya said he would hold them accountable for, and now there is talk of disbanding the entire Iraqi police contingent. There's even been low level whisperings of getting rid of Iraq's "democratically-elected" president. By now there were supposed to be 150,000 native security forces up and running in the country. Independent reports suggest that there are approximately 3000 well-trained men ready to do the job.

Not even Petraeus can make the claim that overall sectarian violence has been diminished by the surge. You won't hear him bragging about the condition of Baghdad. And there is no way he's going to say that we can start pulling American troops out. The most we could possibly expect would be 4000 troops out by December. That's a little more than 10% of the extra number we sent in a bit more than six months ago. But the intention of the Bush administration is especially problematic. The unspoken reality is that we can't maintain current troop levels after next spring. We just don't have the numbers. Are we going to institute a draft in a presidential election year?

There are in fact a lot of questions that will go unanswered this afternoon. Furthermore, there are too many questions not even being addressed by the media. We can start off with a simple one- "What the fuck is the point of any of this?" What is our objective ? A perpetual military presence? If not, then why are we even now constructing new permanent bases over there? Why are we doing that? Is it to protect the private corporations and military contractors that want to do business in Iraq? The American citizenry has every right to know the answer. But instead we are getting answers to questions that we never asked. I want to know what our longterm strategy is in the Middle East. I want to see a nationwide dialogue about the alternative directions we could take. Because the American people aren't getting anything out of the current policy. Because there are more terrorists for each day we stay in the region. Because we are handicapped by our reliance on fossil fuels from the Middle East. Because the Bush Administration is burdening us with an exorbitantly growing national debt. Just say it once without all the bullshit.