• commentary
  • SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 2 2006 6:00 PM

Pentagon at Odds with Bush Administration

Unlike its political masters, who can repeatedly assert victory even in the face of obvious defeat, the Pentagon often needs to take more realistic, honest assessments of military situations, since it has to actually deal with people on the ground. The newest report on Iraq from the Pentagon does just that, in stark contrast with trite phrases like "we're turning a corner" and showy displays of purple thumbs somehow indicative of legislative success, even the military administration now admits that Iraq may be heading inevitably towards civil war.

Executions, kidnappings and other sectarian attacks targeting Iraqi civilians have soared over the past three months, contributing to a 51 percent rise in casualties among the population and Iraqi security forces, the report said. More than 3,000 Iraqis are killed or wounded each month, and by July, 2,000 of the casualties were the result of sectarian incidents, it showed.
[...]
In a grim revelation, the report cited the Baghdad coroner's office stating that it received 1,600 bodies in June and more than 1,800 in July, of which 90 percent were assessed to be the result of executions.

Moreover, the report said, the revenge killings perpetrated by Sunni and Shiite death squads are spreading outside the Iraqi capital into the far reaches of the country, from Basra in the south to Mosul and Kirkuk in the north. Iran and Syria are actively supporting forces fueling the unrest among religious factions, it said.

"Sustained ethno-sectarian violence is the greatest threat to security and stability in Iraq," the report said. "Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq," it said, while maintaining that civil war can still be prevented. "Coalition forces and the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] are responding by increased targeting of both Sunni and Shi'a death squads."


None of this is news to anyone who's turned on CNN once in the last six months; the daily death tolls from bombings, kidnappings and murders is enough to give any thinking person reason to doubt the administration's endless whitewashing. Regardless, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice still have their heads in the sand as they insist that all criticism of the war in Iraq equates to moral vacillation and that we Americans have some uncontestable duty to "stay the course" in Iraq.

Bush's stance is even more ludicrous.

the president is giving a series of speeches, meant to boost support for a war that public opinion polls say a majority of Americans now believe was a mistake.

Mr. Bush continued that push in his weekly radio address, saying the war in Iraq is more than a military conflict. He says it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century.

“On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation - the right of all people to speak, worship and live in liberty. On the other side are those driven by tyranny and extremism - the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest,”


One could quite easily say the same thing about the Bush administration; which has been foisting its extremist views on the rest of the country (and even the world) ever since it was empowered by the 9/11 attacks.

What's significant about this report is that it's the first major official acknowledgement of what a gigantic clusterfuck Iraq has become. And thus far, there has been no official response from the report; maybe they're hoping that if they pretend nothing's there people will forget about it (which they probably will, unfortunately, if it doesn't garner any more media coverage.) And it gives valuable ammunition to Bush's political opponents, who no longer automatically assume the label of "liberal extremists" when criticizing Bush's Iraq debacle, as they're only echoing the sentiments already made by the military administration. Maybe some actual progress could be made if Bush and co. admitted some of the problems going on sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending not to hear the reality of what's happening in Iraq. But then again, that wouldn't be very politically expedient, and this entire exercise has never been about anything but politics.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
sparaz

sparaz

Lompoc, CA
November 2002

SEP 02, 2006 06:30 PM

fuck bush. period.

NinjaTech

NinjaTech

Minneapolis, MN
November 2003

SEP 02, 2006 06:40 PM

"On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation - the right of all people to speak, worship and live in liberty. On the other side are those driven by tyranny and extremism - the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest,"



Does he ever break out in laughter in the middle of delivering this tripe? I find it hard to fathom that even Bush fails to see the cynical irony of this all.

YAWG

YAWG

Victoria, BC
November 2003

SEP 02, 2006 06:40 PM

Sticking fingers in the ears indeed.

Curious to know if the White House Administration has the authority to replace Pentagon officials or does that require House an/or Senate approval? Just asking because I recall Harper's magazine examining what the possibilty of a millitary coup would be.
Not that this by itself would trigger one but things do have a way of building up.

CheshireCat

CheshireCat

Los Angeles, CA
January 2004

SEP 02, 2006 06:50 PM

occupatons never succeed .

MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

SEP 02, 2006 06:53 PM

...even the military administration now admits that Iraq may be heading inevitably towards civil war.


MAY BE heading for civil war? What the Hell is Iraq at now, a lover's spat?

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

SEP 02, 2006 07:00 PM

I think a Religious civil war is probably the best way to explain it.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

SEP 02, 2006 07:25 PM

MschfMayhemSoap said:

...even the military administration now admits that Iraq may be heading inevitably towards civil war.


MAY BE heading for civil war? What the Hell is Iraq at now, a lover's spat?



+3

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

SEP 02, 2006 07:25 PM

the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest



Who is he talking about here? Them, or us?

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

SEP 02, 2006 07:26 PM


More than 3,000 Iraqis are killed or wounded each month, and by July, 2,000 of the casualties were the result of sectarian incidents, it showed.



During the American Civil War we were frequently killing 3, 4, 5 thousand a DAY !

3000 a month ,

pffft whatever

Iraqis are lazy.

SignalNoise

SignalNoise

USA
February 2004

SEP 02, 2006 07:28 PM

KUNGFOO said:
I think a Religious civil war is probably the best way to explain it.



i was wondering about this today - i think there's a great piece of work to be done on just *what* happened in iraq. the original explanation for the violence was a mix of nationalists and pissed off dismissed baathists i believe? and now the violence clearly has a religious tone. i just wonder if this was two separate "movements" in the violence, if one morphed into the other, or if the former are using the latter (or vice versa i guess). or maybe folks already know? i know i'm just not 100% clear on the process of the breakdown.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

SEP 02, 2006 07:30 PM

NickFaust said:

the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest



Who is he talking about here? Them, or us?



I think he's talking about the 'Islamofascists,' which is ironic, 'cause it sound like he's talking about himself.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

SEP 02, 2006 07:31 PM

chainlink said:

More than 3,000 Iraqis are killed or wounded each month, and by July, 2,000 of the casualties were the result of sectarian incidents, it showed.



During the American Civil War we were frequently killing 3, 4, 5 thousand a DAY !

3000 a month ,

pffft whatever

Iraqis are lazy.



Dude, give 'em a break. They're just getting started. I am sure they won't disappoint in the end.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

SEP 02, 2006 07:33 PM

SignalNoise said:

KUNGFOO said:
I think a Religious civil war is probably the best way to explain it.



i was wondering about this today - i think there's a great piece of work to be done on just *what* happened in iraq. the original explanation for the violence was a mix of nationalists and pissed off dismissed baathists i believe? and now the violence clearly has a religious tone. i just wonder if this was two separate "movements" in the violence, if one morphed into the other, or if the former are using the latter (or vice versa i guess). or maybe folks already know? i know i'm just not 100% clear on the process of the breakdown.



The Baath party is primarily Sunni. So it's sort of correct. But now that the Baath party is no longer existent (in Iraq anyway). It's taken the form of a religious conflict.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

SEP 02, 2006 07:33 PM

SignalNoise said:

KUNGFOO said:
I think a Religious civil war is probably the best way to explain it.



i was wondering about this today - i think there's a great piece of work to be done on just *what* happened in iraq. the original explanation for the violence was a mix of nationalists and pissed off dismissed baathists i believe? and now the violence clearly has a religious tone. i just wonder if this was two separate "movements" in the violence, if one morphed into the other, or if the former are using the latter (or vice versa i guess). or maybe folks already know? i know i'm just not 100% clear on the process of the breakdown.



In many ways the American Civil war was religious civil war. In fact many civil wars have had religious overtones. There is nothing new in this. Religion is something through which people can differentiate themselves from other people that they look, act and talk exactly like.

Great stuff that religion. Eh?

SignalNoise

SignalNoise

USA
February 2004

SEP 02, 2006 07:36 PM

NickFaust said:
In many ways the American Civil war was religious civil war. In fact many civil wars have had religious overtones. There is nothing new in this. Religion is something through which people can differentiate themselves from other people that they look, act and talk exactly like.

Great stuff that religion. Eh?



i'm not sure i would call the american civil war a religious war... more really a war of industrialization IMHO.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next