The Surge Worked. The War is over. We won. Get Over it.
That is pretty much the Republican party line these days. And there are not using the words “won” and “over” metaphorically. They really think we won.
So it makes me wonder how candidates like Mike Castle (who try to portray themselves as being somewhat in touch with reality) are going to contend with that?
I don’t wonder too much though, because if the GOP cleaves to that line of argumentation through the primaries and picks McCain – there are only going to be about 10 Republicans left in Congress anyway.
Oh sure, great success.
Discontent Surging In Iraq
HAMZA HENDAWI | January 19, 2008 04:16 PM EST | AP
BAGHDAD — In the depths of a strangely cold winter in the Middle East, Iraqis complain that the lights are not on, the kerosene heaters are without fuel and the water doesn’t flow _ and they blame the government.
And with the war nearing its fifth anniversary, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is feeling the discontent as well from the most powerful political centers in the majority Shiite community.
It’s a pincer movement of domestic anger that yet again could threaten al-Maliki’s hold on his Green Zone office.
“Where’s the kerosene and the water?” asked Amjad Kazim, a 56-year-old Shiite who lives in eastern Baghdad. “We hear a lot of promises but we see nothing.”
Little kerosene is available on the state-run market at the subsidized price of $0.52 a gallon. But the fuel can be found on the black market, where it goes for more than $3.79 a gallon.
Overnight temperatures since the first of the year have routinely fallen below freezing when normally they only dip into the upper 30s Fahrenheit.
An average household needs at least 1.32 gallons a day to stay warm, which translates into a monthly expense of $150, or half what an average Iraqi earns.
“I have had no electricity for a week, and I cannot afford to buy it from neighborhood generators,” said Hamdiyah Subeih, a 42-year-old homemaker from Baghdad’s Shiite Baladiyat district. “I would rather live in Saddam Hussein’s hell than the paradise of these new leaders.”
Even during the shortages of last summer’s heat, most Iraqi’s were counting on electricity for air conditioners, fans and refrigeration about half the day. Now it’s off for days at a stretch in many areas and on only a few hours daily on average, residents say.
“My children are so happy when the power comes back on they dance,” said Marwan Ouni, a 34-year-old college teacher from Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown north of Baghdad. “For me, the nonstop power cuts have made my life tedious. It’s depressing.”
That’s the view from below, despite a considerable reduction in violence across the country. The view among those who hold power here is growing equally bilious.
Stinging criticism late last week from Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of parliament’s largest Shiite bloc, was a stark break with the past. And a threat by Muqtada al-Sadr, the maverick Shiite cleric who once supported al-Maliki, not to renew an expiring six-month cease-fire he imposed on his feared militia could upend recent security progress.
In admonishing tones, al-Hakim called on the government and parliament not to be “entirely focused on political rivalries at the expense of the everyday problems faced by Iraqis.” He also demanded that lawmakers quickly adopt key legislation divvying up the country’s oil wealth and setting the rules for provincial elections to be held later this year.
He spoke of administrative and financial corruption, saying Iraqis were now forced to pay bribes to get business done with ministries and government agencies.
“It makes one’s heart bleed … it’s a violation of man’s freedom and dignity,” he told tens of thousands of supporters in Baghdad on Friday.
Al-Hakim’s harsh words carry considerable weight because his party, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, is al-Maliki’s most important backer after al-Sadr pulled ministers loyal to him from the Cabinet last year and took his 30 lawmakers out of the Shiite bloc.
Al-Hakim’s focus on the daily hardships of most Iraqis finds a ready audience among those struggling to keep warm through one of the coldest winters in years _ it snowed across Baghdad for the first time in living memory on Jan. 11. And al-Sadr’s huge following among more radical Shiites could close the pincer on al-Maliki.
Won the battle, losing the war of ideals is more like it….
With all due respect Tyler, you can write the same story and substitute post WWII Naples for Baghdad.
As for the post, the ball might still be on our side of the 50, but we at least have the ball. Maybe we can get a first down and keep it for a while…sometimes you can make something out of nothing and score.
Why knock the effort at this point Jason? Our team has the ball, your supposed to make noise when the other side has it.
Not sure if you noticed or not, but I was also making some noise same time last year along with you.
Give it a break for a minute, so you don’t have one up on Castle in this area, is he more important than our troops?
Really, John? They didn’t have heat or electricity in most of post-war Europe in 1950?
Honestly I find any comparison to WWII of this illegal go-it-alone invasion and botched occupation (not to mention all of the positively-disgusting profiteering and plunder therefrom) to be beyond laughable into just plain sad.
Saddam Hussein wasn’t Hitler. He wasn’t even Mussolini.
Bush damn sure is no FDR or Truman (as he likes to compare himself).
Betraeus goddamn sure is no George C. Marshall.
TIME TO COME HOME AND TAKE CARE OF AMERICA FIRST.
There is alot wrong with your comment John. I’ll just mention the comparison to football and the suggestion that I don’t support our “team.”
I don’t think the sports analogies are much good right now. They don’t really give a clear picuture of the depth and breadth of our screw up.
But if you are going to use football, I would say that we don’t have the ball on our side of the 50. We have it in a glass case and are looking at it with child-like optimism while our team is 3,000 miles away on a football field with no real mission other than trying not to get blown up.
As for not supporting our troops. On second thought, I’m not going to adress that discredited BS.
Excuse me .. “Petraeus”
Damn liberals getting into my head…
Jason
I’m not saying you don’t support the troops. I thought I was careful and purposely did not say that.
-5 Tyler.
For anyone who assumes violence in Iraq is winding down for good – I’ve got some real big “Mission Accomplished” banners to sell you.
George W. Bush, apparently prodded by intellectually superior neo-conservative idiologues, believed that once Saddam and his apparatus were removed, the Iraquis would cheer like Kansas republicans. And then a huge ground swell for democracy would occur in the Arab middle east.
Then – the story said – W. would be hailed as a great man of Biblical proportions, a man who would later say that he was called on by God to destroy evil in the world.
Well, that was a childish fantasy, no matter how quickly the congress and the press put on their knee pads and joined it. And it was a fantasy that has cost many thousands of human lives, while NOT weakening, and probably strengthening, the Islamic extremists who are, in fact, attached to the idea that God would delight in the slaughter of all human beings who’ve had the insolence not to be born muslim (and especially those who’ve had the insolence to be born Americans).
But here is the rub (or one of them): I think we should be careful not to take too lightly the apparent benefits of this surge. It is probably true that the reductions in violence are due to other things in addition to the increase in troop strength (the adoption of counter-insurgency tactics by American troops; the disgust of many Iraqis with the influx of foreign, Al Qaeda type killers). But reductions in violence ARE welcome news. Right?
Importantly, whatever the errors of our invasion of Iraq, it is not clear that a quick departure by our military would make things better there, and it may make things a good deal worse. Nor is it clear that most Iraqies believe our departure would make things better. In fact recent polling data seems to suggest a majority would like us to leave….later, not now (sorry; no link – this comment is based on a guy interviewed on NPR last week).
It’s strange to argue in one breath, that this war was based on stupid ideas and souless vanity – and than, in the next breath, to say that having dismantled this country, we owe it to it’s people to try to rebuild it, no matter how morally ambiguous that task might seem. But I think that’s what I have to argue.
Classic comment. One missing item. No matter what happens, the “stabbed in the back” narrative is in place and ready to paralyze Democrats with fear and protect right wingers from having to accept bitter reality. It is all – in the long run – the Democrats fault.
Welcome back Pzzlr
Jason
I think the “stabbed in the back” reference is to Viet Naam. I’m sorry if I sound that conservative cliche.
But what we do in Iraq really isn’t only about our November elections. There are longer term bigger issues here – like other peoples’ lives.
Whatever the electorate and our new government decides – and whatever political propoganda is made of it, what I’m saying may be true – true, not in the sense of which party wins in the next couple of election cycles, but true in the sense of how the historians see it much later.
I can’t prove how that will come out. But the reproof that my argument helps the wrong idiots win elections is not strong.