What Does the Number 3,600 Look Like?

The 60 x 60 grid below gives you a quick mental image of the number 3,600. As of June 2007, 3,550 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. The real images of 3,600 dead soldiers are far more gruesome than this sterile image.



The image below represents 3,000 dead US soldiers.



The image below is the Bush Mosaic in Death:


Originally Posted at GDAEman.blogspot.com

There's more: "What Does the Number 3,600 Look Like?" >>

Trouble for the Brits in Basra?

The following report by Reuters puts the lie to British Prime Minister Tony Bair's pronouncments about progress in Iraq:

Britain is moving most civilian staff from its consulate in the southern Iraqi city of Basra to the airport because of safety concerns due to the threat of mortar attacks, the foreign office said on Monday.

This old news (2006) compliments Socratic Gadfly's post.

Sources:

Originally posted on GDAEman.blogspot.com

Reuters Security developments in Iraq, Oct 30, 2006 LINK

There's more: "Trouble for the Brits in Basra?" >>

Lessons from Vietnam on Getting Out of Iraq

This is a re-post of something from my website. I found it insightful, despite it's imperfections.

A comparison of the Iraq and Vietnam War time lines might provide some insights on how to expedite the process getting out of Iraq.
Conventional wisdom is that the Iraq war is evolving more rapidly than the Vietnam war. This might be based on a perception of more rapid growth in public opposition to the Iraq war. However, the US has been at war with Iraq since about 1990, with military actions occurring before the October 2002 Joint Iraq Resolution. (See References to Iraq No Fly Zone). The Vietnam conflict involved a similar period of covert US intervention prior to formal escalation.

For purposes of comparing time lines, the October 2002 Joint Iraq Resolution is analogous to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution of the Vietnam War. Significant numbers of US troops entered Iraq in March 2003, Marines entered Vietnam in 1965; the time lines match.

In 1966, veterans of past wars were staging protests in New York City and burning their discharge papers. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) issues a report claiming that the US military draft places "a heavy discriminatory burden on minority groups and the poor." The group also calls for a withdrawal of all US troops from Vietnam. Just a year into the escalated war.

In 1968 the Americans become aware of the Mai Lai Massacre. The timing is similar to Americans becoming aware of the massacre in Haditha, and other atrocities, in 2006.

It was about four years after the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that the 1969 Policy of "Vietnamization" was announced. Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird described a policy of shifting the military burden onto the South Vietnamese Army and away from the United States. It will have been about four years to reach a similar milestone of Iraqization of the war (Oct. 2002 to Jan. 2007*).

The time lines are actually quite similar. The number of casualties is not. In Vietnam, by 1969 about 47,000 US lives were lost. In Iraq, the number will be about 3,000 (original post written in December 2006).

Now what happens? (Analogous Iraq dates are in parentheses).

In 1969 (2007), concurrent with the "Vietnamization Policy," massive demonstrations occurred in Washington, DC. (Good idea) Secret bombing of Cambodia initiated by Nixon.

In 1970 (2008), troop levels were significantly reduced. (A pre-election gesture?)

In 1972 (2010), Nixon cut troop levels in Vietnam and escalated bombing.

In 1973 (2011), cease-fire is signed in Paris. Last troops supposedly leave Vietnam.

In 1975 (2013), Americans evacuate the US Embassy.

One year after announcing the Vietnamization Policy US troops were reduced. It took three years from that point to reach a cease-fire. Two more years and the US was completely out of Vietnam. That translates to six-years from the January 2007 announcement of the Iraqization Policy to come.

Noam Chomsky says the Iraq war is NOT like the Vietnam war in significant ways. US plutocratic objectives were achieved by crushing Vietnam and leaving it a wreck. Wrecking Iraq won't achieve US plutocratic goals in Iraq. If he's right, the US will NOT be out of Iraq in six years, but will stay as Bush says, like Korea.

Notes and Sources:

* Military commanders who met on December 12 2006 with Bush sought more advisers to train the Iraqis, not more U.S. combat troops in Iraq. They also urged the administration to pour significantly more funding into equipment for Iraqi security forces, according to a defense specialist familiar with the meetings. (Iraqization policy to be formally announced in January, 2007). Web LINK

Al-Maleki Take Note:

1963, Diem Overthrown, Murdered. It doesn't fit with the parallel time line laid out above, but...... With tacit approval of the United States, operatives within the South Vietnamese military overthrow Diem. He and his brother Nhu are shot and killed in the aftermath. About a year before, Johnson had visited Diem, assuring him that he was crucial to US objectives in Vietnam, calling him "the Churchill of Asia."

Text from the Vietnam Time line used liberally above.

There's more: "Lessons from Vietnam on Getting Out of Iraq" >>

Bloomberg bubble — hold the phone on Iraq

Via TPM Election Central, it appears Big Mike does NOT favor an immediate or a full pullout from Iraq.
At a speech at Google HQ Monday:

“We are in trouble overseas. There’s obviously an unpopular war, but a war that has no easy answers. The people that say, ‘let’s just automatically pull troops out,’ I don't think have really looked at the consequences of destabilizing the world, and the genocide that may or may not occur, depending on who you believe.”

The only other quotes TPM EC has about Bloomberg’s position are pre-invasion; any further information about his stance between then and now, to flesh out the picture, is welcome.

In any case, the first picture of him on Iraq is that he won’t be more progressive than any Democrat to the left of JoeMentum Lieberman (whom Bloomberg endorsed over Ned Lamont).

So, contrary to somebody like M.L. Rosenberg over at TPM, right now, I personally don’t have a hankering for Bloomberg, and, unless he changes positions on Iraq, Corpus Juris is probably right that he’ll draw more from Republicans, should he jump in.

Also, and something I missed, Bloomberg’s been ginning up speculation for a month, even to the point of a possible VP to run with him.

Only days after Bloomberg’s [mid-May] Houston appearance, maverick Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) hinted broadly that he was considering joining forces with the billionaire mayor to run for the White House as independents.

So, his Hamlet-like demeanor will wear thin soon enough.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Watching Those We Choose.

There's more: "Bloomberg bubble — hold the phone on Iraq" >>

U.S. already active in British portion of Iraq?

So it would seem, if we’re down near Basra:

In what appeared to be a separate operation deep in the south near the Iranian border, a ferocious battle between American troops and Shiite militants left at least 20 people dead and wounded scores more, Iraqi and American officials said.

The clashes, in Amara and Majjar al-Kabir, a pair of mostly Shiite towns just north of Basra, started early Monday. They were sparked by raids on what American officials described as a secret network involved in transporting “lethal aid” from Iran to Iraq, particularly deadly roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators, or E.F.P.’s.

Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, an American military spokesman in Iraq, said American troops have intensified their focus on finding and dismantling places where those weapons are built, like the towns raided Monday, because the weapons were especially hard to stop at the border. “It’s hard to catch because they are shipped as components, not completed weapons,” he said.

According to officials aligned with the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr in Basra, the fighting involved members of Mr. Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia. The battle appeared to be the largest clash with Mr. Sadr’s loosely affiliated gunmen since the start of the new American security plan in February.

In addition to the 20 dead, six suspects were wounded and one was detained, officials said. A hospital official said that at least 60 people were wounded.

So, is British control slipping? Is the heat picking up in the south? And, if soon-to-be British PM Gordon Brown does go through with a British drawdown, how do we fill the gap?

Gen. Petraeus ain’t talking about this one, at least not in public.

I would say it would necessitate a minimum of 20,000 additional troops.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Watching Those We Choose.

There's more: "U.S. already active in British portion of Iraq?" >>

Petraeus: September is no policy deadline date — he has no deadlines at all

Gen. David Petraeus says September is a report deadline and nothing more, one of several insights in a British interview.

“That is a deadline for a report not a deadline for a change in policy, at least not that I am aware of. Ambassador Crocker and I intend to go back and provide a snapshot at that time, however focused the photograph is at that time and begin to describe what has been achieved and what has not been achieved and also to provide some sense of implications of courses of action. Neither of us is under any illusion.”

Really? Wonder if Dems will smell more coffee on the next Iraq supplemental?

And, he doesn’t expect “total victory”:

Will [the surge] be enough to restore security?

“You are never going to eliminate sensational attacks in Baghdad. That cannot be your metric of success. What we have to do is reduce their number and their impact. We had done quite well until the attack yesterday that killed a number of innocent civilians.”

And, apropos of the headline, he’s very open-ended about deadlines:

Would you like the surge to continue indefinitely?

“It depends on what the sense is for the prospects of achieving Iraq’s constitution. I hope that we can put time back on the Washington clock. Al-Qaeda is keenly aware of the Washington clock. They are obviously going to have a surge of their own.

And, he continues to “pump up the volume” about the importance of Iraq:

What about the leadership in Iraq?

"It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror, and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not.

So, in a nutshell, the top brass in Iraq wants an open-ended commitment and claims we have to fight al-Qaeda there. He goes on to claim Iran has a high degree of backing for rogue elements of the Mahdi Army (I wouldn’t doubt some backing, but question the degree) and that the still-unpassed draft oil law is a key to political reconciliation.

Well, general, if you believe that, you could be waiting a long time.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

There's more: "Petraeus: September is no policy deadline date — he has no deadlines at all" >>

Maliki government looking more shaky

Samarra bombing leads to top resignation, again bringing its viability into question.

Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, a senior Shiite politician often mentioned as a potential prime minister, tendered his resignation last week in a move that reflects deepening frustration inside the Iraqi government with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Other senior Iraqi officials have considered resigning in recent weeks over the failures of their government to make progress after more than a year in power, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials.

Abdul Mahdi said he was provoked by the second bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra on June 13, in which he said corrupt police abetted Sunni insurgents. “The two minarets were as important to us as September 11, and we should be accountable to the people,” Abdul Mahdi said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “We should be doing more to move in a positive direction — on corruption, accountability and defending the important sites.” …

Maliki’s political benefactor, radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, has again withdrawn his followers in parliament in the wake of the Samarra bombing. The leader of Sadr’s legislative bloc, Nasar al-Rubaie, said that “the Maliki government will surely collapse if the situation continues as it is right now.”

I don’t think it’s a question of “if” the center can hold any more, but “how long.”

From the BushCo point of view, Maliki continues to dilly-dally on things like the draft oil law. Now, he’s president, not a prime minister, but especially with his veep just resigning, don’t doubt that Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Ambassador Ryan Crocker aren’t sniffing around for some way to not only fill Mahdi’s vacancy but “lean on” Maliki at the same time — or perhaps even trying to run the table with a “two-fer.”

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Watching Those We Choose.

There's more: "Maliki government looking more shaky" >>

Iraq Moratorium Day: September 21

Update: Wednesday June 20, 2007 10:15 AM

Dennis O'Neil and Iraq Moratorium have joined the Out Of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

Please bear with Dennis if it takes them a day or two to get the Blogroll up on their site. They are in some pretty frenetic activity getting organized...

Please join me in welcoming them!
..................................

Thanks to Lauritz for stopping in at the OOIBC yesterday to leave a comment announcing this. The website: Iraq Moratorium Day went live yesterday, June 18.

A Moratorium Wired to Stop the War
Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith, The Nation, June 18, 2007

Refitting an idea from the Vietnam era to the age of the Internet, organizers of the Iraq Moratorium Day are inviting ordinary Americans to demand an end to the war in targeted activities in their local communities and viral activities online. The goal is a "monthly expression of determination to end the war."

The initiators, a handful of individuals from different corners of the antiwar movement, are asking people to make a simple pledge:

• "I hereby make a commitment that on Friday, September 21, 2007, and the third Friday of every subsequent month I will break my daily routine and take some action, by myself or with others, to end the War in Iraq."

US Labor Against the War and Progressive Democrats of America have already signed on to the Moratorium effort. Individual supporters include some of the usual suspects in the antiwar movement--Susan Sarandon, Howard Zinn, Anne Wright, Tom Hayden and Eve Ensler, as well as Edwidge Danticat, Danny Glover and Gold Star dad Fernando Suarez de Solar. But the movement is also tapping unusual suspects like Adam Neiman, CEO of the fair-trade fashion house No Sweat, actress Mercedes Ruehl and the antiwar Freeway Blogger.

"We felt that it was critical to move beyond the periodic national demonstrations in Washington, DC, New York and/or San Francisco, and instead develop and advance an approach that encourages increasingly massive local actions that suggests, more than anything else, no more business-as-usual," said Bill Fletcher Jr., a Moratorium organizer who is former president of TransAfrica Forum. "The Iraq Moratorium will allow local actions integrally connected at a national level such that each effort is understood and felt to be part of a national movement without at the same time creating a new organization or coalition."

Moratorium activities will range from wearing black armbands to not buying gas; from writing letters to politicians and the media to vigils, rallies and teach-ins; from special religious services to music, art and cultural events; from film showings and lectures to student-initiated alternative classes.

Organizers will work with netroots activists to post video of Moratorium activities on the site and on YouTube and similar sites. Poetry about the war will be solicited, and website visitors will be asked to help choose the best to be included in an anthology. Working groups have been formed to spread the word in the blogosphere.

There's more: "Iraq Moratorium Day: September 21" >>

Big Three Democratic candidates all OK with partial pullout from Iraq

Speaking to AFSCME, Clinton, Edwards and Obama all, in various ways, talked about a partial pullout from Iraq, not a complete one.

Hmm, what’s going to happen when a new “timelines” bill comes up in the Senate, for Obama and Clinton? And, how will Edwards challenge them to vote without getting his own stance challenged?

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly.

There's more: "Big Three Democratic candidates all OK with partial pullout from Iraq" >>

Reuters Fact Box: An Eye-Opener

If you want to get a glimpse of the scope of how badly Iraq is unraveling, just google "Factbox Iraq" and a Date; it's an eye-opener. Below is the Factbox tally for a typical day in Iraq:

* MAKHMOUR - Fifty people were killed and 70 wounded when a suicide truck bomb exploded near the local office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in Makhmour, near Arbil, 350 km (220 miles) north of Baghdad, Governor Duraid Kashmula of Nineveh province said.

* BAGHDAD - A car bomb killed four people and wounded 10 others near al-Wathba square in central Baghdad, police said. Another police source said the cause of the blast was a roadside bomb.

* MAHMUDIYA - Gunmen killed six people and wounded eight others in Mahmudiya, about 30 km (20 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

* BASRA - Iraqi and British forces detained six people and discovered a weapons cache during a raid in Basra, 550 km (340 miles) south of Baghdad, the British military said. One militia member was shot during the operation.

* KIRKUK - One person was killed and another wounded in a rocket attack in Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

* BAGHDAD - U.S. forces detained 35 suspected insurgents during raids targeting al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leadership in Baghdad, Falluja and Tarmiya, the U.S. military said.

* SUWAYRA: A translator working for multinational forces was shot and killed at Suwayra near Madaen, 45 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

* WAHDA - Two people were killed and two wounded when a gunman opened fire in a market in Wahda, 25 km (15 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - The bullet-riddled bodies of 17 people were found in different districts of Baghdad on Saturday, police said.

MAHMUDIYA - Gunmen attacked a flour mill, killing five workers and wounding four in the town of Mahmudiya, about 30 km (20 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

NAJAF - A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol wounded four policemen at midnight in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

MOSUL - Gunmen killed a doctor near his clinic on Saturday in the northern city of Mosul, police said.

Sources:

Factbox: Security Developments in Iraq, Reuters, May 13, 2007.

Crossposted by GDAEman

There's more: "Reuters Fact Box: An Eye-Opener" >>

Molly and Joe: Bush is an Idiot

... We return to our regularly scheduled program:

Joe: Sheeez, Bush, the cancer, is a frigg'n idiot.

Molly: No he's not. Bush, the cancer, has gotten his friends rich, and is about to corner Iraq's oil for them too. He's even gotten the damn Dismalcrats to spew his talking points: "Iraqi's have to meet benchmarks...".

Joe: Like signing a petroleum law...

Molly: ... that gives two-thirds of the Iraqi people's oil to foreign corporations. And, "We can't cut off funds to the troops."


Joe: OK, so, he's a corrupt idiot.

Molly: ... and the Dismalcrats are letting him get away with it. "Steaming pile of vulture droppings," maybe, but not an "idiot."

Joe: It's too hot out for vulture shit to steam.

Molly: You're missing my point.

Joe: No. I get it. Bush, the cancer, is an idiot.

Cross posted at GDAEman

There's more: "Molly and Joe: Bush is an Idiot" >>

Democratic Leadership: "End the Iraq Debacle To Avoid An Electoral Debacle In 2008"

The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullshit and is completely and irrefutably debunked.

How the Peace Movement Can Win
Lawrence S. Wittner | April 26, 2007

One explanation for the weakness of the U.S. peace movement, often expressed by cynics about human nature, is that demagogues spouting patriotic propaganda easily hoodwink people.
...
Another explanation, expressed by Green Party supporters and assorted leftists, is that the Democratic Party is a sort of reactionary vampire that schemes, successfully, to drain the blood of the peace movement and other progressive forces. First it seduces them, and then it abandons them--or so the argument goes.

But this explanation begs the issue. After all, if the peace movement were strong enough, would the Democratic Party dare to abandon it?

What the Peace Movement Should Do Now
Robin Hahnel, Michael Foley, and Matt Meyer | June 6, 2007

An overwhelming majority of the American public wants the war in Iraq ended and the troops brought home now. If anyone believed the Democrats in Congress were going to end the fiasco without massive pressure from the peace movement, that illusion just flew out the window with the Democrats acquiescing in funding the war without even any deadlines for withdrawal. Whether one thinks of it as making more Democratic lawmakers afraid to anger the peace movement, or showing sympathetic Democrats that the peace movement can cover their backs when Republicans try to pin the disaster on any who vote to cut off funding, is of little practical importance. The overwhelming antiwar sentiment that already exists must be mobilized.

It has to be in the fall of 2007 because spring 2008 is too late. First, most Americans understand that every month that passes is more American and Iraqi lives lost for absolutely nothing. Second, the Democrats in Congress will face important choices in September, so that is when the pressure needs to be applied. And third, by spring 2008 too many supporters and activists in the peace movement will be drawn into primary campaigns. Unless we have made ourselves vocal and visible as an oppositional movement, the pressure to subordinate peace politics to the strategies of the candidates will be overwhelming.

There's more: "Democratic Leadership: "End the Iraq Debacle To Avoid An Electoral Debacle In 2008"" >>

Defunding Iraq: 96% In Favor: The Poll Continues As More Register Support Everyday

>>> GO VOTE THE POLL.

The Bush Administration, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress alike, repeat almost daily that they will not defund the troops, with both sides vying for public support with the same bullshit.

It's the biggest load of crap there is.

The Democratic Leadership apparently is afraid of not funding the Iraq occupation either because they are afraid of being attacked by Bush and the GOP for not funding the troops, or because they want to continue the occupation.

Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies

The continuous whine that "we don't have the votes" is part of the big lie.

If the Democrats stand up NOW and announce that they will no longer fund the occupation and that there will be no more emergency supplementals introduced when the current one runs out, the situation will become one of NO votes needed to NOT pass a bill. The ball will be in Bush's court.

The Democrats have absolute power in this debate. What good is it and why should voters let them retain it next year if they are too weak kneed to use it to end the Debacle? If they will not, then by default they proclaim their complicity with Bush.

The argument that 'defunding endangers the troops' is utter bullshit and is completely and irrefutably debunked. Let the rethugs try to accuse Democrats of it. Democrats will win that political argument, but ONLY if they have the cohones to do what they know is the right thing.

As John Freelund wrote on May 27 at TPMCafe:

Pin Bush and Gates Down

At the next presidential press conference, I'd suggest question 1-5 be the following:

"Are you Mr. President, and Mr. Secretary, prepared to leave troops in Iraq without adequate supplies?"

Watch them squirm, watch them dance. They will not be able to say "yes." This is what the media and the Democrats should have been asking, over and over again, to frame this debate properly.

If the Democrats don't want to do the right thing... it becomes obvious that they want to continue the occupation.

For what? Cheap gasoline? Or the neocon vision of world domination?

What has been needed all along and is needed now is for the Democrats to show that they have some balls and display A Measure of Morality in Congress:

If you could secretly tell a magic genie "Yes" and suffer horribly and die but save the lives of a million people you've never met, would you say No? This one they don't even ask in philosophy school, much less Congress. But let's think about it for a minute. What's the worst fate a Congress Member could face as a result of voting against funding the war? For most it must be the loss of their seat. How horrible is that? Some of these congress members are freshmen, first elected last November campaigning on promises to end the war. Now they're prepared to vote $100 billion for the war in hopes of getting elected again in 2008. What in the hell did they want to get elected for in the first place? What district is going to receive less money if we end the war and redirect our spending to useful projects than if we continue the war but fund special pieces of pork here and there?

What the Peace Movement Should Do Now
Foreign Policy In Focus, June 06, 2007
Robin Hahnel:

While it is important for supporters, activists, and leaders of the peace movement to engage in some thoughtful soul searching over program and strategy, I am concerned that the most urgent activity the peace movement should be organizing is going neglected. We need a massive showing of anti-war sentiment in the fall of 2007, and this can only happen if the major peace organizations launch the initiative now.

An overwhelming majority of the American public wants the war in Iraq ended and the troops brought home now. If anyone believed the Democrats in Congress were going to end the fiasco without massive pressure from the peace movement, that illusion just flew out the window with the Democrats acquiescing in funding the war without even any deadlines for withdrawal. Whether one thinks of it as making more Democratic lawmakers afraid to anger the peace movement, or showing sympathetic Democrats that the peace movement can cover their backs when Republicans try to pin the disaster on any who vote to cut off funding, is of little practical importance. The overwhelming antiwar sentiment that already exists must be mobilized.

It has to be in the fall of 2007 because spring 2008 is too late. First, most Americans understand that every month that passes is more American and Iraqi lives lost for absolutely nothing. Second, the Democrats in Congress will face important choices in September, so that is when the pressure needs to be applied. And third, by spring 2008 too many supporters and activists in the peace movement will be drawn into primary campaigns. Unless we have made ourselves vocal and visible as an oppositional movement, the pressure to subordinate peace politics to the strategies of the candidates will be overwhelming.

Defunding Iraq: Misperceptions, Disinformation And Lies
The updated story is here and with 96% In Favor: Polling Continues....

Would you support the Congress' setting a binding withdrawal date of March 31, 2008 by announcing that after March 31, 2008 (or an earlier date), it will not fund the Iraq War?

** END THE IRAQ DEBACLE TO AVOID A DEMOCRATIC ELECTORAL DEBACLE IN 2008 **

>>> GO VOTE THE POLL.

There's more: "Defunding Iraq: 96% In Favor: The Poll Continues As More Register Support Everyday" >>