Good Morning, VietNam

[tw]

Reports from VietNam were so negative that Henry Luce of Time Magazine had them rewritten in NYC and Washington. Charlie Rose periodically interviews reporters in Iraq who are pressured by their editor for good news. Reporters have complained for months that good news is difficult to find.

A reporter from The Economist could have been reporting from VietNam over 30 years ago.

When deadly force bumps into hearts and minds from The Economist of 1 Jan 2005
The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: "Keep 50 meters or deadly force will be applied". In Ramadi, ... the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: "If anyone gets too close to us we fucking waste them", says a bullish lieutenant. "It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people."

And not all of them were in cars. Since discovering that roadside bombs, ... can be triggered by mobile telephones, marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed. Sometimes, the marines say they hide near the body of a dead insurgent and kill whoever comes to collect it. According to the marine lieutenant: "It gets to a point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody... It gets to a point where you don't mind the bad stuff you do."

Since September 1st, when the battalion's 800 men were deployed to Ramadi, they have killed 400-500 people, according to one of their senior officers. A more precise estimate is impossible, because the marines rarely see their attackers. When fired upon, they retaliate by blitzing whichever buildings they think the fire is coming from: charred shells now line Ramadi's main streets. "Sometimes it works in the insurgents' favour", admits Rick Sims, a chief warrant officer. "Because by the time we've shot up the neighbourhood, then the guys have torn up a few houses, they're four blocks away, and we just end up pissing off the locals."

Those estimates of 20,000 insurgents is now at about 40,000 full time insurgents and about 160,000 part time insurgents. Increases also seen in VietNam.

Mosul demonstrates the problem. When he could not get support from the Bremmer bureaucracy, the 101st Airborne General started a program much like the British. His soldiers went out to find and work with the people. They all but stole money from the Bremmer 'we are the experts' bureaucracy (George Jr's chosen one) to get reconstruction going. Money from Bremmer's people was all but non-existent. Bremmer's people never even bothered to put staff in Mosul. Relations in Mosul were some of the best. Now even Mosul is a center of the insurgency. Once the 101st left, then intelligent cooperation left with it. George Jr's people were in charge. When insurgents from Fallujah arrived in Mosul, the 500 man Iraqi Army Battalion and 6,000 policemen disappeared. Just like the S Vietnamese Army - a coincidence?

Some expressions in Iraq. FISH - Fighting In Someone's House. IOW first throw in a grenade. Then learn who you have harmed - civilian or insurgent. Muj - short for mugahideen. This was previously called Charlie, VC, or gook. The language tells us how this war is progressing. In a previous war, "We burned the village to save it." We also saved Fallujah?

More from The Economist of 1 Jan 2005:
In November, one in four American supply convoys was ambushed. Three months ago, American officials overseeing reconstruction in Mosul were lobbied by 30 Iraqi contractors in an average day; now, they struggle to find even one brave enough to accept their dollars. A low helicopter flight over the Kirkuk oilfield, Iraq's second-biggest, presented a scene from the Book of Revelation: each of seven oil wells was marked by a tower of orange flame, meeting in a canopy of dense black smoke.

Where progress is being made - once we ask for honest news reports.

Confirmed recently was another fact. Phase Four planning must be fully in progress if not completed when combat starts. But Phase Four plans never appeared until seven months after the president declared "Mission Accomplished". That was four months too late according to American military leaders in Iraq. Phase Four only has 90 days show results. Rumsfeld is still denying the looting even occurred - or at least he will not admit to it. The honeymoon is long over.

Another expression in VietNam - light at the end of a tunnel. Where is the light at the end of this Iraqi tunnel? Look into George Jr's mind or Rush Limbaugh's propaganda. Its the only place that Iraq is getting better. Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told us this over a year ago when he said the administration had screwed it up. Billy Kristol is a founding member of the Project for New American Century.

Iraqi elections must go forward. Why? No matter how bad things are today, we know this to be fact: it is only going to get worse. Better to have elections when violence is less.

Thus harried, American commanders have abandoned the pretence of winning the love of Iraqis ahead of the scheduled vote. "Our broad intent is to keep pressure on the insurgents as we head into elections", says General Casey. "This is not about winning hearts and minds; we're not going to do that here in Iraq. It's about giving Iraqis the opportunity to govern themselves."

Both the numbers and troop language say same thing: Good Morning, VietNam.

[Roosta]

'Morning.

[tw]

Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft were National Security Advisors for Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. They recently defined what to prepare for in Iraq. Gen Scowcroft's comments are especially interesting since he is also a closest friend and trusted advisor to Bush Sr.

What will it take to end the problems of Iraq?

Gen. Brent Scowcroft:
With Iraq, we clearly have a tiger by the tail. And the elections are turning out to be less about a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict. Indeed we may be seeing an incipient civil war at the present time.

What kind of Iraq are we after? We're after an Iraq that fundamentally is stable, that has a cooperative outlook towards its neighbors in the region. And with a government that is concerned about minority rights in such a way that these minorities come to support that government. And a military that is both disciplined, and effective, and that owes its allegiance to that government.

Now that's a tall order and if we put a time limit on it of anything less, of say a decade, we are not likely to get there in much shorter time. We need to think about where we're going to go from here. Getting in, getting out -- are fundamental issues and they're issues that portend deeply for the region itself.

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
A great deal of what is happening thus far in American Foreign Policy has been influenced by the ongoing conflict in Iraq. Now I would like to say very briefly that in my view, that war which was a war of choice is already a serious moral set back to the United States. A moral set back both in how we start, how it was justified, and because of some of the egregious incidents that have accompanied this proceeding. The moral costs to the United States are high. It's a political setback, The United States has never been involved in an intervention in its entire history like it is today. It is also a military set back. "Mission Accomplished" are words that many in this administration want to forget.

While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we will never achieve democracy and stability without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war compensation. As a society, we are not prepared to do that. It does tell you something. The Soviet Union could have won the war in Afghanistan too had it been prepared to do its equivalent of what I just mentioned. But even the Soviet Union was not prepared to do that because there comes a point in the life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified.

Dr Brzezinski has probably defined the best we can hope for.

And therefore in my own judgment, the best we can obtain is probably some Iraqi state that is not a really integral state but haven fallen apart into three different sections and is dominated by a Shiite theocracy. Now this is not the same as the Iranian theocracy but it is certainly not going to be what we would normally call a democracy.

That would get America out of Iraq. A resulting Civil War could then could be blamed on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it is how to get out and claim what follows is not America's fault.

Even if Sunni's do not vote, then Shi'ites can write the Constitution, Shi'ites can dominate the government, and Americans can leave. It is probably the best that America can hope for considering how badly the war is currently being fought and how much worse it will get. To hope for anything more would only turn more Iraqis into insurgents and make it only harder for America to leave. The alternative is demonstrated by how troops are now fighting this war.

[richlevy]

I agree with their assessment. At $120-150 billion per year, we could looking at $1 trillion dollars if we spend most of a decade in Iraq and factor in additional stateside costs like pensions and rehabilition for 10 to 20 thousand wounded. The US spent about $15.8 in foreign aid in 2003. If we want to see the Iraq war as an exercise in foreign aid, than the program is costing 7 times the amount of aid going to the rest of the world and will continue to do so each year, while actually costing us goodwill instead of promoting it.

The next US president is probably going to have to clean this up and he had better start by finding a diplomatic way to say that Bush screwed up. Any attempt by the next adminstration to help Bush paint Iraq in the 'win' column will damage or destroy credibility. Everyone except the most partisan or clueless individual realizes that we screwed up. Any attempt to deny that would make us look like "Baghdad Bob".

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The next US president is probably going to have to clean this up and he had better start by finding a diplomatic way to say that Bush screwed up. Any attempt by the next adminstration to help Bush paint Iraq in the 'win' column will damage or destroy credibility. Everyone except the most partisan or clueless individual realizes that we screwed up.

Presidents never say things bad about their predecessors. It is an unwritten rule of the office - much like the Senate. However there is no good exit strategy. Anyone who thinks America is going to fix this country is playing fiction games. Best we can hope to do is warn the Iraqi for our exit in a hope that they will make plans among themselves to avoid a Civil War. IOW up front we must define the exit date - and then let the chips fall where they may.

Those who think somehow we are going to stay and fix things really have no exit strategy other than a solution based upon more status quo. This was the Vietnam reasoning. Obviously this will only be a lose lose strategy - just like Nam. Are they ready to commit 300,000 or 1/2million troops? Unfortunately those who advocate the status quo will not commit to troop numbers and years. Status quo is a no win strategy. Few are even willing (yet) to publically admit to what these former National Security Advisors are saying. Brzezinski and Scowcroft are both well respected for their pragmatic and honest approach to analysis. Neither comes with a political agenda. But what they say will be politically difficult for any politician to endorse. Its not a winning strategy. But it does get America out.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

Unfortunately those who advocate the status quo will not commit to troop numbers and years. Status quo is a no win strategy. Few are even willing (yet) to publically admit to what these former National Security Advisors are saying.

Of course not. Anyone here who does programming knows the kind of specifications that went into Iraq. "I know what everyone has been saying, but I'm sure we can do it in half the estimated time, with half the estimated resources. I doubt that anyone will have to put in any overtime, either. If you do, you must have done something wrong and we didn't budget for the overtime because there shouldn't be any so don't ask."

If Iraq had been a programming project, 3/4 of the staff would have had their resumes out. Unfortunately, it's not a programming project, the staff are getting killed, and they're finding that once they signed on they can't get out, even if their contract expires.

History will not be kind to GWB, and even the best efforts of the next guy in line will not keep us from finding out what really went on, unless they intend to intern the entire white house staff on an island like in The Prisoner .

Plot Summary for
"The Prisoner" (1967)
A man who drives a 60's lotus sports car around London, resigns from a Top secret job. We next see him packing for a holiday at home, and a credit appears ... "The Prisoner". He is gassed, falls asleep and then wakes up in "The Village". Everyone in "The Village" is a number, and is there for security reasons (people to dangerous and who hold too much information to just let go). The series spends all it's time trying to get the "information" out of No.6 about why he resigned. Plus it spends quite a while chasing him with a weather balloon :-) A strange cult UK TV series.

You know, this just might explain why Colin Powell never resigned after he figured out that GWB would never take his advice.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

Even if Sunni's do not vote, then Shi'ites can write the Constitution, Shi'ites can dominate the government, and Americans can leave. It is probably the best that America can hope for considering how badly the war is currently being fought and how much worse it will get. To hope for anything more would only turn more Iraqis into insurgents and make it only harder for America to leave. The alternative is demonstrated by how troops are now fighting this war.

The beautiful part is we will call it a victory for democracy and the networks will turn off the cameras soon after we pull out. The resultant turmoil will not be on the American voter's radar screen. The next administration will easily sell us the same story with different players and Marines will continue to die for reasons unrelated to defending America.

[richlevy]

WASHINGTON — With the war in Iraq (news - web sites) steadily claiming American lives and the world in mourning over the tsunami disaster, planners of the 55th presidential inauguration face an awkward challenge: how to throw the traditional four-day celebration without appearing to have too much fun.

A few critics — including a Republican Texas billionaire — have called for cancellation of everything but the swearing-in because they find it unseemly to spend $40 million on shrimp, spirits, floats and frivolity while American soldiers must scrape together money for phone cards to call home.

But supporters of President Bush (news - web sites) are presenting the quadrennial pageant as an opportunity to salute American troops.

The theme is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service." And the result will be a spectacle that pays greater homage to the armed forces than any inaugural in recent memory.

I remember seeing The Outsider (1961), a movie about Ira Hayes, one of the men who raised the flag at Iwo Jima. In the movie he goes on the bond tour and sits at a table where the guests are being served ice cream statues of Ira and his buddies raising the flag.

At the White House, President Truman told Ira, "You are an American hero." But Ira didn't feel pride. As he later lamented, "How could I feel like a hero when only five men in my platoon of 45 survived, when only 27 men in my company of 250 managed to escape death or injury?"

The Bond Tour was an ordeal for Ira. He couldn't understand or accept the adulation . . . "It was supposed to be soft duty, but I couldn't take it. Everywhere we went people shoved drinks in our hands and said 'You're a Hero!' We knew we hadn't done that much but you couldn't tell them that."

Maybe it's me, but if it were Clinton's second inauguration under the same circumstances, I think it would be much more low key. For one thing, liberals are always under attack from the "patriots" on the right and would be more sensitive. Only a great warrior-king would have the confidence to celebrate while his troops were in the field.

I'm sure the guys in Iraq eating sand with their meals in mess tents guarded by MPs will be comforted by all of the food and drinks being passed around in Washington to honor them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good tickets to the swearing in are available for only $4800.

[richlevy]

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

You heard it here first folks. %51 of the vote means no accountability for Iraq. How many Americans who voted for Bush would have done so if they knew that they were signing a 'stay out of jail free' card for everyone associated with the decision to go to war and it's management.

BTW, I agree that the two sentences quoted do not mean what the first paragraph states. I need to find the rest of the interview to see where they draw their conclusion.

If they are true, it can only mean one of two things.
1) GWB has finally learned how to flat out lie.
2) GWB has completely abandoned reality to listen to his advisors, and is ignoring any implication that the public caved in to socially conservative fear-mongering to elect him and that his approval for the war is below %40, not the %51 he got in the vote, and that even %51 is not enough to sweep aside issues of how this cluster-f*** of a war has been handled.

[Troubleshooter]

I'm still trying to figure out how a decision based on less than a 1 in 3 vote can be considered a mandate.

[Griff]

We are talking about the same folks who did the interpeting on the weapons of mass destruction related programs, are we not?

[Troubleshooter]

I'm still a proponent of killing off all of the politicians and starting over. They just piss me off.

Think of it as cancer surgery as opposed to the chemo we're going through right now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

I'm still trying to figure out how a decision based on less than a 1 in 3 vote can be considered a mandate.

Same may be a problem in Iraq. The insurgents and Sunni clerics are saying not to vote. Just recently, the Iraqi tribal leaders also told their people not to vote. How can an election where most voters don't vote be considered a mandate? Voting probably will not happen in 4 of Iraq's 18 proviences. But these 4 proviences are a substantial minority of Iraq's people. The White House forgets to mention that part.

Again how does that election become a mandate for a new Iraqi government? Interesting to see how this all plays out in two weeks.

That is suppose to be a government for 11 months. This temporary government is suppose to write the Constitution. How do they have a mandate when the majority of Iraqis don't even vote for that government?

[xoxoxoBruce]

1 Iraqui voter + US Marines = mandate.