you first, brian

From the Columbian online:

Baird advises facing realities

As lawmakers digest Monday’s testimony from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said he wants people to consider “two realities.”

“Regardless of their testimony, those who want an immediate withdrawal or want to stop funding don’t have the votes to override a presidential veto,” Baird said.

“By the same token, it is possible that they may persuade some members of Congress and members of the general public that things are different - that while there are significant challenges, there is some good news in Iraq - and that can move people,” the Vancouver Democrat said.

Baird, a lonely voice on his side of the aisle for continuing support of military operations, said he watched the testimony on a television in his office. After he spent an hour and a half with Petraeus and Crocker last month, Monday’s presentations went pretty much as Baird expected and hoped.

“Both were very direct about progress that has been made and the challenges that remain. That’s what I hoped they would do, and I hope the American people listened to them,” Baird said. “These are good men, professionals who are putting their lives on the line for our country, and telling people as best as they can what they think the situation is and what we can do.”

Rep. Baird, with all due respect, please face these realities:

• You’ve been punked. Petraeus showed you what he wanted you to see, played on your sympathies and even used the old con-man’s trick of self-deprecation* to gain your confidence. From ThinkProgress:

The Washington Post reported this weekend that the White House political office and Gen. David Petraeus’ unit have been “hard-wired” together, working jointly to “map out ways of selling the surge.”

The White House has used Petraeus as a PR flack over and over again to sustain its failing Iraq strategy. Last month, Petraeus kicked his political activities into overdrive. He hosted over 38 congressional members inside the Green Zone, and he gave numerous radio, print and TV interviews.

ThinkProgress has compiled a report of Gen. Petraeus’ public activities in August which show that the top general in Iraq spent at least half the month flacking for Bush’s escalation.

[links and emphasis in original.]

• Every quantitative report on Iraq shows the situation deteriorating, with more violence not less, and with less political cohesion, not more.

• Nearly 60% of Iraqis think attacks on Americans are fully justified, and 70% of Iraqis want us to leave now.

• Anyone with a moderately functioning frontal lobe understands that unless we’re willing to reinstate the draft and pour another 300,000 troops into Iraq, we will continue to engage in this giant game of Whack-a-Mole, tamping down insurgency and factional violence in Baghdad or Anbar only to have it crop up in Basra or Ramadi. Lather, rinse, repeat until the U.S. military is completely broken.

• Speaking of Basra, have you noticed its devolution into Lord of the Flies, with the British hiding out, barracaded at the Basra airbase?

Rep. Baird, I know you want to limit the damage from this illegal war. But it can’t be done - especially not by American troops, the ultimate source of the chaos and carnage.

Yes, for a time, things will get worse in Iraq after U.S. troops withdraw. But they will get worse regardless of whether we stay another 6 months or 6 years. We will have to leave eventually, and what will happen after we’ve gone will happen regardless of how long we stay. Those bent on civil war will simply bide their time. And they have the advantage of time, as do all peoples under military occupation.

Please face reality: it’s time to bring our soldiers home.

*Baird said he was “impressed” by Petraeus’s “admission” that the surge was not wholly responsible for the reduction in violence in Anbar Province, and that this admission was largely the reason for his trust of Petraeus.

Last 2 posts in Baird, Brian

the theme of the meeting is "what's on your mind" - June 26th, 2008
they just keep wanking away, and hope we won't notice - June 24th, 2008

Last 2 posts in Iraq

Is Obama Selling Us Out or Simply Selling Himself to the Media? - June 30th, 2008
more wisdom from the mustache of understanding - June 25th, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

6 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

Let me put this into terms that political activists here in Washington can understand. How many Precinct Committee Officers of the various political groups exist in Iraq?

Crazy question? I don’t think so. Thom Hartmann just said it out loud. Democracy is a journey, not a destination. What leads to peaceful democracy is democratic processes, not military occupations. We’re not going to solve the political problems in Iraq until we push political solutions. That means empowering the people of Iraq in political institutions that they develop themselves.

I want to go back to principles: Engage, Educate and Empower. What we have done in Iraq is to engage them in a military conflict, their institutions of learning are under fire because they are in a military conflict, and their own source of empowerment is picking up a gun and fighting in that military conflict.

The Iraqi people don’t trust their neighbors. Or if they do, it’s because they’ve gone around and pushed out anyone they don’t want to try and trust. That kind of segregation of society has a parallel in US History. It’s called the South after the Civil War.

If it’s not time to bring our troops home, it’s at least time to teach them how to speak Arabic and Parsi, and put them to work rebuilding the institutions of governance instead of continuing to solve problems by pointing guns in people’s faces.

[Reply]

1. Above comment written by Chad Lupkes on September 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Slim and Chad, thanks for the great posts.

Chad, While I agree with what you think we should be doing in Iraq, would you not agree our real agenda is to secure a Middle East stronghold and seize control of Middle East oil all the while enriching the military-industrial complex?

If these are the underlying motives of our presence in their country, do you think they will ever trust us enough to allow us to help them? Why should they? How could they?

It is pretty difficult to assist people you are harming at the same time.

[Reply]

2. Above comment written by bushtool on September 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Baird “speaks of victory”. Rob Kall has an answer for him in this article, “Time to Confront the Desperate Losers Who Speak of Victory in Iraq” but IMO confronting is not going to make a difference. Only a groundswell of opposition to the leaders who want to continue the occupation (one of which is now Brian Baird) will make a difference.

[Reply]

3. Above comment written by bushtool on September 12th, 2007 at 5:42 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
That may be Bush’s agenda, but if it’s the true agenda of the American People, then we deserve what we get.

If the Iraqi Parliament votes to ask us to leave, we should leave. I’ll agree with that. And I’d help organize the political infrastructure in Iraq to put the grassroots pressure to bear on those legislatures to make that happen if the people of Iraq want it. However, I don’t speak Arabic.

[Reply]

4. Above comment written by Chad Lupkes on September 12th, 2007 at 7:15 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
[quote post="829"]That may be Bush’s agenda, but if it’s the true agenda of the American People, then we deserve what we get.[/quote]

I think it is the true agenda of the American government and transnational corporate interests. And they are the ones running things. As to the American people, almost no one in power is really listening to them nor do they care.

As to the Iraqi Parliament, a government set up by and being controlled by us or at the very least you have to say extremely influenced by us since we are occupying their country is not going to tell us to leave nor would it make any difference if they did.

The latest poll again says 79% of the Iraqi people want us to leave. That is all that should matter in our decision since the Iraqi government is by definition biased.

It’s ironic that we want us out and they want us out but we will continue to “stay the course” until “victory”.

Sorry if I sound cynical but that is about all I have left regarding these matters.

[Reply]

5. Above comment written by bushtool on September 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
I stongly agree with Brian Baird that the mess in Iraq is directly related to some of the worse actions ever by our government. I agree that we need to take responsibility to repair that damage as much as we can. Ongoing military involvement is not going to do that. We need to step back and out militarily, see what develops, and do all we can to help the resulting situation in peaceful, non-military ways.

There is going to be a lot more missery before this is over. I think some of our problems in the US will be more personalized and intense than just effects on our “military industrial complex.” Still, those problems will be small compared to those that will ravage the people of Iraq and their neighbors.

Remember too that the war on terror will have to be refocused and will continue for years. Iraq has set that war back in many ways by lending credence to the idea that this is a war of crusaders against the muslims.

[Reply]

6. Above comment written by Pat Campbell on September 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

Moderation Active: Comments are open on this post and will be moderated (i.e. the post will not appear immediately, please don't submit twice !)