|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 8, 2008 - 12:41pm.
Americans appreciate an uncomplicated narrative, so we find an immediate appeal in a simple storyline like "The surge is working." However, the surge may not be working all that well for the families of the 29 American soldiers who were killed there in June. The previous month "only" 19 Americans died. I suspect that nobody really knows which figure -- 19 or 29 -- is more accurately predictive of the future, but if we split the difference and project a bit, by the time of the inauguration next January, perhaps another 150 of our soldiers will have been killed in Iraq. If we're lucky, maybe 100. Then there's the local boy who came home alive from Iraq last week with broken feet, broken heels, broken tibia and fibula in both legs, two broken femurs, and a broken back. And the Iraqis? At least 546 died in June, a figure which, proportionate to the size of our population, would amount to more than 5,500 Americans. Still, deaths and bombings have declined from previous high rates and it feels almost unpatriotic to suggest the surge isn't a big success. And with gas prices going up and the economy going down, our attention is easily diverted. It's easy to dismiss our dilemma in Iraq with a simple narrative about success. But in our haste to embrace the idea that the surge is working, we may be giving too much credit to our modified military tactics. Many Iraqis have been forced to leave the country, and many of the ones who remain are segregated by massive concrete barriers. Our heavy military pressure may have placed a damper on some of the violence, but there's not much reason to be convinced that the decrease is permanent. In fact, many of the fundamental issues in Iraq and in the Middle East in general are nowhere close to resolution. In any case, lower death and bombing rates in Iraq are meaningless unless they continue to dwindle to close to zero. Even the strongest apologists for the surge have to admit that 29 or 19 American deaths per month, indefinitely, are still too many. Nevertheless, the monthly toll of Americans and Iraqis is likely to tally up relentlessly as long as we're in Iraq. No one has the energy or interest to impeach President George W. Bush for his malfeasance in office, and even his attention has turned away from Iraq and Afghanistan, where things are really falling apart. He shows more interest in Iran, where prudent Americans hope that he doesn't take any drastic, lame-duck actions. In short, Iraq has evolved into a holding pattern that's likely to continue to produce some level of casualties until we have a new president. What then? Sen. John McCain seems content to remain in Iraq more or less indefinitely, as long as no one is getting killed or hurt, a situation hard to envision. His comparisons to our extended presence in Germany, Japan, and Korea are inept and unrealistic, convincing only to Americans who are satisfied with a simple version of those situations. Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has campaigned on the promise to get us out of Iraq promptly. But he's showing signs of reconsideration. Should he get into office, it's hard to know what will happen when the general principles he's running on come up hard against the reality in Iraq. Because the reality in Iraq is the simplest story of all: a country's foreign policy is nearly always driven by its desire for resources, and the United States is no exception. In fact, the one thing that's clearly not in a holding pattern in Iraq right now is the effort to scale up oil production. And as long as our country depends on petroleum, a guiding principle of our foreign policy will involve some sort of active presence, military or otherwise, close to the source of the oil. But this is a story that we're reluctant to acknowledge, and both McCain and Obama will have an enormously difficult time changing our profound commitment to petroleum. Until this story begins to change, our presence in Iraq -- and the casualties it entails -- is inevitable.
(John M. Crisp teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. E-mail him at jcrisp(at)delmar.edu.)
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
Here I thought it was the
Submitted by woody188 on July 8, 2008 - 2:51pm.Here I thought it was the cease-fire brokered by the Iranians with al-Sadr and al-Maliki and not the surge that stopped most the violence at this time. Sadr's Mahdi Army embarrassed al Maliki and the US-trained Iraqi's (and the US Military in Najaf in 2004) by stopping their troops from taking out the Mahdi Army in Basra and Kut. But we are supposed to forget all this occurred and just credit the surge with reduced violence because that is what we are told to believe.
I looks like the Iraqis on
Submitted by Hoosier_CowBoy on July 8, 2008 - 2:55pm.I looks like the Iraqis on both sides have decided that the biggest priority is to get the US out of their country and settle their disputes amoung themselves.
If you are a pro-government Iraqi, you're just as likely to get yourself killed in this conflict by Blackwater or an irrant airstrike as you are by an insurgent. Best to clear the battlefield of the real lunatics that can hurt you before getting down to the real fight.
If you are an insurgent, you know that time is on your side, your can keep the opposition awake at night and tire him out without firing a shot. When the time is ready you'll be rested and ready to fight again. You only have to last one more day longer than your enemy.
The US is practically broke, it won't be long.
Lexie Homewood Of course we
Submitted by lexiedogmom on July 9, 2008 - 5:05pm.Lexie Homewood
Of course we went in after oil. I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the super-secret, totally anonymous energy policy meeting held by His Nastiness Dick Cheney. I don't doubt for a minute that he was telling all the Oil Fat Cats that in no time at all we would be in Iraq and have access to all that easy cheap oil. Inconveniently, 9/11 intervened and we had to make a side trip to Afghanistan. Still, eventually we got to Iraq after all.
Inconveniently, or how
Submitted by woody188 on July 9, 2008 - 5:34pm.Inconveniently, or how convenient! Amazing how we slid into Iraq as part of Bush's War on Terror. A little too convenient, IMHO.