Dems Defeated in Iraq War Vote. Again. Its Time to Turn Off the Funding Spigot. Now.

Once again, the Dems failed to get to the magic number of 60. That's how many votes are needed to invoke cloture and quash any filibuster attempt.

Lindsay Graham summed up the Reep position thusly:

The idea of winning the war in Iraq is beginning to get a second look,"

That's effin' crazy talk. Winning; did he really say winning? What is winning? Some years back it was the dominoes of democracy throughout the Middle East. These days, its staving off the Al Quaeda lunatics from destroying the rest of the free world. My the goalposts have moved, eh?

Can we afford to trust the buffoons and war pigs who led us in this mess and now are forcing us to wallow in this misery called Iraq? They have been wrong each and every time since they started beating the war drums. Now, they expect us - no, check that; they are daring us - to trust them again this time. Sorry, the kool-aid is packed away, folks.

There is a way for the Dems to finally snatch victory from the vastly unpopular BushCo cretins, and to salvage some small amount of credibility with the American people (the latest poll I saw put congressional approval at 11%).

How? Simply stop funding the damn war. Its really that simple. The threat of de-funding the surge and Blackwater mercs will have BushCo crawling and groveling to the Dems finally promising bipartisanship on the war effort, after all.

Oh sure, the war pigs will fulminate and rage at first. But they will come around - if the Dems grow a spine.

War pigs win another round

No Sifting These Tea Leaves: Greenspan Knows Iraq War All About the Oil

Its the oil, stupid. Color me NOT surprised.

Greenspan speaks

A Review of Recent US Death Trends in Iraq

Most people know that more US soldiers are dying than at any previous time in the Iraq war/occupation. 2007 was the deadliest February, March and May, and the second deadliest January and April. June will surely be another grim record-setting month.

542 troops have already died in 2007. In 2006, the 542nd troop died in October. That's one surge no one wants - even the NeoCons. ICCC

This got me thinking about the causes of US deaths. My expectation was that, given the surge, we would see a lot more troops dying in combat operations as they take the fight directly to the enemies. This is what the military has had us expect.

Unfortunately, this presumption doesn't hold up to the facts on the ground. The Brookings Institute tracks the cause of US deaths into broad groups - IEDs, mortars/rockets, RPGs, helicopter losses, other hostile fire (which I presume be to mainly from enemy rifles and guns) and non-hostile causes.

Breaking this down, non-hostile deaths have generally numbered between 5 and 10 per month recently. Mortars/rockets, RPGs, and helicopter losses are very small contributors - one percent or less of total troop losses. (Note that deaths from each of these categories have come way down over time.)

This leaves two categories - IEDs and other hostile fire. Here's the breakdown for the entire war and for the time period from March 1 through June 10.

Percent of US troop fatalities from:

IEDs: Entire War = 39%; March-June 10, 2007: 63%
Other hostile fire: Entire War = 31%; March-June 10, 2007: 28% Brookings

Even through the percent of deaths from non hostile file is slightly down recently, more soldiers are dying from this cause because, well, more soldiers are dying, period. I presume these soldiers are mostly dying fighting the enemy - a point the military brass have been making. I never want to say any death is acceptable, but the point is merely made that these men and women are dying fighting.

On the other hand, the huge increase in IED fatalities is simply unacceptable to me. These soldiers are simply sitting ducks, dying as the drive the roads of Iraq. This is an incredibly tragic outgrowth of the occupation, and I presume, the surge. And it is yet another example of why the surge is failing.

Hopes for a Political Solution in Iraq Continue to Fade

From the esteemed Juan Cole today:

There is also heavy fighting between Mahdi Army forces and Iraqi government troops in Nasiriya in the south, with British troops allegedly giving some support to the government side. Typically the 'Iraqi government' forces are actually drawn from the Badr Corps and so this is in a way two Shiite militias fighting one another. These clashes have reinforced the determination of the Sadr Movement MPs to suspend their participation in the parliament, which probably therefore lacks a quorum for the rest of the summer. The Sadrists say an agreement has been reached with the governor of Nasiriyah to end the fighing.

At what point do the warmongers say, enough? When does it get so bad to them that the current situation is worse than what the fear might happen?

Two Stories in The Battle for Iraq

Two articles on the battle for Iraq - one from Baquba, the other from the Emerald City. Both are troubling.

1. From the NYT on new tactics being deployed to stop the insurgents - AKA Operation No More Whack-a-Mole:

In more than four years in Iraq, American forces have been confounded by insurgents who have often slipped away only to fight another day. The war in Iraq has been likened to the arcade game of whack-a-mole, where as soon as you knock down one mole another pops up. ...

So the planners of this latest operation are attempting to plug the holes that have allowed the insurgents to escape in the past. The goal is not merely to reclaim western Baquba from insurgent control, but to capture or kill the estimated 300 fighters to 500 fighters who are believed to be based in that part of the city. ...

The problem of collaring the Qaeda fighters is challenging in several respects. Unlike Falluja, where most of the population fled in advance of the battle, thousands of civilians remain in the western section of the city.

I'm no military planner, but waging a pitched battle with civilians present seems to me a recipe for disaster. But I will say, the military is at least trying something different here.

2. The second is a report on the near-daily attacks on the Emerald City. The problem is these attacks are coming from mobile launchers from residential neighborhoods. Security forces are stymied in trying to stop these attacks.

The U.S. military acknowledged ``an increasing pattern of attacks'' against the Green Zone, a day after a mortar barrage against the heavily fortified area sent soldiers and contractors scrambling for cover. ...

Rear Adm. Mark Fox, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, declined to provide details on the number of attacks against the Green Zone, which is also known as the International Zone, but said they were increasing.

``It's clear that there is an attempt to get lucky shots, and there is unquestionably an increasing pattern of attacks here against the International Zone. There's no doubt about that,'' Fox said at a joint news conference with Iraqi military spokesman Qassim al-Moussawi.

Well, Admiral Fox, those "lucky" shots are occurring nearly every day, forcing everyone to run around with flack jackets and helmets. Doesn't seem like things are going particularly well at all

Iraq: We Aren't Number One Failed State

That dubious honor belongs to the Sudan. Iraq is the number two failed state. FP

There's a Surge in Baghdad Plus a Curfew

But mortars still explode in the Emerald City. here

The Bees are Back Plus Other Odds and Ends

The bees are back in my yard - big time. They seem a happy lot, too, buzzing all about and doing that pollinating voodoo they do. Its nice, except for the sting my boy got. Here's hoping the bees are back everywhere else, too.

Am I the only person really irritated by Drudge's continued use of the term 'global warming?' Can't he just say 'climate change?' No, that wouldn't be pejorative.

What's it with BushCo and their spokeshead Dubya? I mean, does everything they do automatically have to turn to a wet mushy turd wedged into the sole of your work boots? The latest huge loss for BushCo was on the immigration compromise. Instead of trying elevate the debate, BushCo went and swift-boated their own. The conservatives acted in a way I wish the Dems would do more often - they dug in and returned fusillade for fusillade. (Note to Dems: This is how you fight back. Take a note of it, and try it sometime after recovering from the spinal replacement surgery.)

If its Iraq, then its more mayhem and destruction. Aside from the grisly murders and horrific jihaddi bombers (I am so sick of these fucking nihilists), the insurgents continue their tactics of death to USA by a thousand cuts. Another bridge was taken out. Sadly, three US troops died in the attack. RIP. Anyone else ready to put down the kool-aid and admit the Surge ain't working?

Behind the charismatic veneer, I knew that Mike Huckabee was just another right wing wacko. His comment that most prisoners would prefer to be in Gitmo capped it. Yeah Mikey, I'll just bet these guys just can't wait for some more enhanced interrogation techniques. Plus, the great medical care. Makes their day.

Maybe the Polls Might Help the Dems Grow a Spine

From a recent WaPo/ABC national survey, as reported by Mystery Pollster on Pollster.com:

35% approve of the way President Bush is handling his job; 62% disapprove.

39% approve of the way Congress is doing its job; 53% disapprove.

Approval of the Democrats in Congress has dropped from 54% to 44% since April -- "with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War."

From the poll results (formatted for readability):

[Do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

Worth Fighting
Strongly - 24
Somewhat - 12

Not Worth Fighting
Somewhat - 12
Strongly - 50

Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be (increased), (decreased), or kept about the same?

Increased - 19
Decreased - All/Immediately - 15
Decreased - Not All/Not Immediately - 40
Kept About the Same - 23

Do you think the United States is or is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq?

Is - 32
Is Not - 64

Do you think [the recent] increase of U.S. forces [to Iraq] will or will not improve the security situation there over the next few months?

Will - 39
Will not - 58

Do you think (the United States must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success), or do you think (the war on terrorism can be a success without the United States winning the war in Iraq?)

US must win war in Iraq - 37
Can be a success without US winning war in Iraq - 56

Overall, do you feel that you can or cannot trust the Bush administration to honestly and accurately report intelligence about security threats facing the United States?

Can - 38
Cannot - 60

How is the Baghdad Surge Doing - Three Months In?

Not well. IHT

[An internal] American [military] assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to "protect the population" and "maintain physical influence over" only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face "resistance," according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

At what point does accountability get factored into the occupation equation?

Iraq Today: Over Four Million Displaced

This is an amazingly depressing statistic - the UN estimates that over four million Iraqis have been displaced since the US invasion - two million within Iraq, and an even greater number to neighboring states. Even despicable and depraved Saddam Hussein could only bring about a fraction of this carnage. At what point does BushCo finally give in to their pride and admit the cure is worse than the disease? United Nations

According to government figures, some 1.4 million Iraqis are now displaced in Syria, up to 750,000 in Jordan, 80,000 in Egypt and some 200,000 in the Gulf region. Syria alone receives a minimum of 30,000 Iraqis a month.

If you are wondering how many displaced Iraqis the US is bringing in, the answer is not much (around 7,000).

WaPo

The Way Back Quote Machine Goes to .... November 2006

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki:

I can say that Iraqi forces will be ready, fully ready to receive this command and to command its own forces, and I can tell you that by next June [2007] our forces will be ready[.]

Right out of the BushCo playbook. Make a statement, and figure no one is going to look back and hold your to it.

Joe Lieberman Goes Shopping in Baghdad

He bought some sunglasses and is dressed to kill. Think Progress

A New War to Peace in Iraq

It seems to me the US has been largely beating its head against a brick wall when it comes to Iraq. The only solution has been to add troops, step up security. Many have seen the folly and have advocated withdrawals of US troops - either from the front lines, or from Iraq altogether. No proposed solution has seemed satisfactory.

So, how about a cease fire? Seems like a good idea to me.

U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease- fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he has authorized commanders to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals.

"We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.

Its a brief article, but surely the US must be offering things in return - like not conducting operations in insurgent strongholds. I'm merely speculating.

However, this does provide the opportunity for some breathing space, an chance for ordinary Iraqis to go about their daily lives. Significantly, it also provides a new opportunity for a national reconciliation.

Will the cease-fire work? Who knows, probably not. But, I'm giving a big thumbs up to giving a try at something new, something that involves less killing.

Is Turkey About to Invade Iraq?

Fears of a regional war could be coming true. I expect BushCo to blame Bill Clinton for this mess.

Turkey has sent large contingents of reinforcement soldiers, tanks and armored personnel carriers to its border with Iraq as debate heated up over whether to stage a cross-border offensive to hit Kurdish rebel bases.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday urged the United States and Iraq to destroy bases of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, in northern Iraq as Turkish military deployed more tanks and soldiers on the border.

A New Job for Wolfowitz?

Freedom Fries Congressman suggests Wolfie become the new mayor of Baghdad. I think its a boffo idea.

Note that Walter Jones has recanted his past support for the War on Iraq, and was one of only two Reep congressmen to vote in favor of the Dem proposal to bring home our troops by September 2008.

Bush's Alternate Reality

Dan Froomkin has a great synopsis on Dubya's weird point-of-view on Iraq:

I often wonder why more news stories don't start: "President Bush yesterday again denied reality. . . . "

And then along comes this delightful surprise from Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press: "Confronted with strong opposition to his Iraq policies, President Bush decides to interpret public opinion his own way. Actually, he says, people agree with him.

"Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. ...

"The president says Democrats have it all wrong: the public doesn't want the troops pulled out -- they want to give the military more support in its mission.

"'Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq,' he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats over their desire to legislation a troop withdrawal timeline. 'I listened. Today, General David Petraeus is carrying out a strategy that is dramatically different from our previous course.'

"Increasingly isolated on a war that is going badly, Bush has presented his alternative reality in other ways, too. He expresses understanding for the public's dismay over the unrelenting sectarian violence and American losses that have passed 3,400, but then asserts that the public's solution matches his.

"'A lot of Americans want to know, you know, when?' he said at a Rose Garden news conference Thursday. 'When are you going to win?'

"Also in that session, Bush said: 'I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, "Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave." I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well.'

"In fact, polls show Americans do not disagree, and that leaving -- not winning -- is their main goal. . . .

"Bush aides say poll questions are asked so many ways, and often so imprecisely, that it is impossible to conclude that most Americans really want to get out. Failure, Bush says, is not what the public wants -- they just don't fully understand that that is just what they will get if troops are pulled out before the Iraqi government is capable of keeping the country stable on its own. . . .

"Independent pollster Andrew Kohut said of the White House view: 'I don't see what they're talking about.'"

Cindy Sheehan: You Will Be Missed

Cindy Sheehan is hanging up her peace signs and retiring from the peace movement. I can't even begin to imagine the emotional baggage she carries over losing her son and then becoming the national face of the US peace movement - along with the right-wing smear campaign against her. Cindy is human, and therefore not without fault. However, America - and the world - owes Cindy Sheehan a huge debt of gratitude.

The Bloom is off the Surge

A new U.S. public opinion survey shows a deepening pessimism over the situation in Iraq. I believe this is noteworthy because opinion polls from two months ago showed a significant uptick in optimism over the occupation efforts. That was because the much-ballyhooed Surge + PR campaign made some people think that things were changing for the better in Iraq. Gotcha! Again!

I wonder how many times folks will be fooled again on Iraq. After the first round of elections, then the second, things would get better. Once we offed the dead-enders, things would get better. After the insurgents would finally realize their tactics wouldn't work over the long term, and (my favorite) the situation will really turn around in the next six months.

Its been a steady spiral downwards, with a couple of dead-cat bounces along the way. I believe a major reason why there is such pessimism over Iraq is the gap between the obvious realities in Iraq just don't jive with what BushCo, the NeoCons, Fox News and Pentagon are saying. We are all used to the lies from public officials; its rarer to have those lies be so obviously and outrageously exposed on a weekly and even daily basis.

This brings us to the key September report from Pope, er, General Petraeus. A lot of lefties in the blogosphere see hand-writing in the wall where the Good General reports progress, the conventional wisdom says give us another Freidman, and the cycle of insanity continues. Its a very plausible scenario.

I'm not buying into that - at least not yet. A sunny speech from General Petraeus won't mean anything without some huge initiative on our part or from the Iraqis themselves. I don't see that happening. The Iraqi government is in full-on disarray. I see dissolution of the government as far more likely than any meaningful reconciliation.

On the US front, the Reeps are slowly realizing they could go the way of the Whigs if the status quo continues. The Dems are craven and cowardly for sure, but the Reeps are most certainly walking the plank. There's also another surge, though this time without the PR campaign, going on right now that is stretching the troops even more.

This new surge won't matter, either. The policy has completely failed. The end is near to the status quo; a presidential election is coming up. Change is in the air and enough sensually-challenged Reeps smell it.

Oh yes, some will accuse of wanting the US to lose, that we hate America, and all that. We you know what? Those idiots can take a flying fuck to the moon. These villians don't even need to be responded to in any meaningful way, other than to be slapped in the face. They are thoroughly corrupted and evil. Not standing up to them means more will die, more children suffer. The NeoCons and the liars are on the run. The folly of Iraq should keep them on their heels for a generation - once this has reached its bitter conclusion. Its a bitter-sweet conclusion - the death of NeoConjobism.

Back to the near-term, I believe that when September comes, the US will begin the exit in earnest. That's no reason for optimism as 500 troops will probably die between now end then. That's just the reality of the situation - it won't be politically expedient to get our young soldiers out of harm's way before then.

(For anyone interested, I've made a number of references without citations - too little time for that right now. Drop a comment on any comment and I will gladly provide a reference in a day or so.)

Who is in the Axis of Evil Club?

Dubya's Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran, North Korea

Sadr's Evil Trio: US, Britain, Israel