This week is the "anniversary" of political thief President Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished." Instead of writing up (or push through current versions of) articles of impeachment, Congress thought it would be better to tease Bush and remind everyone that he's not the world's greatest prognosticator. The White House, having the opportunity to be honest with something connected to this fiasco, did no better: instead of owning up to their obvious photo-op, they gave yet another excuse.
Well, in this week alone, the following war-related things have occured:
- Bill O'Reilly made the outlandish claim that the US did not invade Iraq.
- Despite the surge, White House cheerleading and Congress' wishes to change things, GI deaths in Iraq hit a seven-month high.
- Bush attacks the Democratically-controlled Congress and blames them (not OPEC or his own neo-conservative cabal) for the high oil prices.
- The inablility of the Bush Administration to adapt to a new century or warfare is futher exposed in Pfc. Monica Brown, a woman who's been awarded the Silver Star yet is barred from combat.
- Dana Perino stumbles, bumbles and mumbles her way to covering her ass over the Pentagon Propaganda Project (then runs like a bat outta hell):
- "Two suicide bombers attacked a wedding convoy as it passed through a busy market area in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, killing at least 35 people and wounding at least 65, police said."
- As questions are being raised about whether whether or not federal workers are getting proper care, the Pentagon is changing applications so veterans don't have to worry about (or document) anything relating to possible post-traumatic stress.
- The Washington Post (and John McCain) try to deny their lovefest during "Mission Accomplished."
Instead of integrating these events (and others) with the list, it seems that the game has become "Let's Embarass George Out of Office." That's not going to work. (And equating Bush to McCain is only going to work to a certain extent. Just like Sen. Clinton's decision to attack Sen. Obama instead of promoting her own accomplishments, attacking McCain without also stressing the strengths of the Democratic nominee will eventually fall on deaf ears.) Bush will only leave before Janaury 2009 if he is removed, and no low poll number, or body count or snarky remark from Congress will change that.
And quite frankly, I would hope that warfare would invoke a level of seriousness in all of our elected officials. That fact that Iraq is being used as a political football is bad enough.
Last time I brought up the topic of our government's celebratory approach to war, I asked the following questions:
Why isn't the same level of intensity being given to the political aspect of helping Iraq? Is it just me, or did we stop getting updates after the "purple finger" election? It was like, one more election and than two years later the next thing I know the Iraqi government is going on vacation...most outside of their own country (how many American Congresscritters leave the country for their vacation?). Is it because Bush knows that in reality he doesn't have the influence of the Iraqi officials that he has over the American generals, people who have to support their Commander in Chief regardless of how hair-brained his ideas are? Is it because Bush knows that that politics makes strange bedfellows, and that eventually al-Maliki will have to make deals with some of the very people Bush says we have to destroy?
What is victory for the US military? Is it the complete surrender of "Al Qaeda in Iraq?" It is a truce between all of the Iraqi-born factions? Is it a video of bin Laden waving a white flag? Is it an oil contract between al-Maliki and Exxon-Mobil?
Why is success measured by levels of violence? Who was shot versus who was blown up. Five deaths versus fifty. An Iraqi versus an American soldier versus a foreign contractor. What happened to things like schools, a police force, cities that are self-suficient, and consistent plumbing and lighting? You know...infastructure? I don't expect Petraeus to be giving some of these reports, but I have expected Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to say something (other than that Iraq won't meet the "demand requirements" for electricity until 2016).
While there's been nothing official, I'm afraid that I finally have answers:
- The United States no longer controls the political destiny of Iraq and Afganistan. Al Qaida in Afganistan has gotten stronger over time, and for all intents and purposes, we are at a stalmate with them. In Iraq, the situation on the ground amounts to the Middle Eastern version of a mob war; Iraqi officials have decided that it's more beneficial to meet with their Iranian counterparts for the dimplomatic issues and let our soldiers worry about the fighting.
- There is no definition for victory in Iraq. It's one reason why my Q1 has taken so long to answer, and why (after thinking about it some) Q3 even exists. When Bush tried to give one, it was so provisional and pretentious it would take McCain's 100 years to accomplish. Of course, we have to remember that the reasons given for going in the first place have also changed dramatically.
- Violence is the only tangible measurement they have, and apparently counting deaths is not abhorrent to them. If violence goes up, that means we're winning ("the enemy is on the run"). If the violence goes down, that means we're winning ("the enemy is getting desperate"). In other words: as long as the occupation of Iraq, battle in Afganistan and threat of war in Iran remains politically and finacially profitable (to certain people), a death is a death is a death. Of course, when you have a president who made fun of a woman on death row, a(n ex-)defense secretary who used a machine to sign "We Regret To Inform You..." Letters, and Administration who handled the flooding of a major city like it was a flooded basement, I can't be surprised that the deaths of countless Iraqi citizens doesn't really phase them.
Happy Anniversary.