Hostages in Iraq

Apparently, Senate Democrats and Republicans are fighting back and forth about how to word (or whether to pass) their non-binding resolution saying... something vague. It certainly doesn't say that we should bring the Iraq "war" to an end. It doesn't even say that we should reduce troop levels, or perhaps shift our priorities back to Afghanistan. I think it's supposed to say something about how a troop increase would be vaguely "inconsistent with" something good, with enough subclauses and exceptions to render even that meaningless.

Still, for all of its milquetoast wishy-washiness, Republicans are convinced that it would be bad form for Congress to say anything unpleasant about anything that the Bush administration wants to do. Never mind that Bush, Cheney, and everybody on the White House payroll has stated again and again that they intend to ignore any Congressional resolutions purporting to limit their freedom of action, binding or non-binding; and wouldn't that make for a constitutional crisis of epic proportions!

The strong argument, which even many Democrats have fallen prey to, is that any attempt to limit, cut or otherwise put any kind of restrictions on the free flow of cash from Washington to Baghdad to Cheney's stock portfolio, would be equivalent to leaving our brave soldiers stranded in a foreign land without supplies or equipment. The reason that such a connection seems so plausible to so many reveals the true crisis that we should be talking about: it is clear the Bush & co. would gladly maintain or even increase troop levels in Iraq even if the funding did not exist to support their activities. Everyone, both Republicans and Democrats, know that any "power of the purse" action to curtail Iraqi funding could not be guaranteed to lead to a drawdown. Bush might just as likely leave our soldiers out there, starving and undersupplied, while pointing his bony finger at Congress all the while and blaming them for creating the situation.

In other words, our troops in Iraq are being held hostage.

We are forced to pay, year after year, billions upon billions of dollars to maintain them, "or else." Or else they'll start dying in far greater numbers. Or else they'll be cut off and starving. This administration will never willingly return them to us because they are the best bargaining chip they could hope to have. If our troops came home, the money flow would naturally stop. But as long as they're kept in harm's way, we are forced to keep paying.

This is, of course, all a big construct of big lies. What we in general, and Congress in particular need to realize, is we do have the power to stop him. The very fact that they repeat at every opportunity that we don't is the most telling point: as long as we believe them, they're right. Congress can easily put a stop to this, inject some common sense, and resolve this hostage situation by bringing our soldiers home.

They just have to realize that they have this power and exercise it..

The Rove Doctrine

In all of the discussion regarding the stupidity of escalating the conflict in Iraq, one thing that seems to be slipping through the cracks, and which would be highly instructive on the idea's merits, is just where such a plan came from.

It certainly didn't come from the Iraq Study Group.

It most definitely didn't come from the voters in November

Nor did it come from either the old or new Congress.

We also know that it didn't come from Bush's (most recent crop of ex-) generals, whom he famously consulted on his "listening tour" across town.

But if all of the informed parties that Bush went to for advice were against escalating troop levels, then how could he have possibly come to such a decision? As Sherlock Holmes said, "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."

Thus, we are left with one option: Karl Rove. The "new strategy for Iraq" is not (as it might appear) actually a new strategy for fighting the conflict in Iraq, but rather a new strategy for fighting the politics of the Iraq issue. This is the only light in which escalation makes any sense, and it has the advantage of being consistent with the behavior of the Bush administration since its inception.

It's consistent with Bush's repeated framing of any issue in terms of what "message" it "sends." It's consistent with formulating governmental policy as whatever is most damaging to your political enemies. This administration habitually equates criticism of such policies as warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and torture, with refusal to conduct terrorist surveillance. He publicly and repeatedly stated last Fall that voting for Democrats equated to voting for terrorists.

It has been long pointed out that this administration, unlike any to previously occupy the White House, does not "do" policy. Rather, policy decisions are routinely framed as political decisions. What best plays to the base? What's most damaging to the other party? What "sends the right message?" That's the Rove Doctrine, in one phrase.

This is how you get to escalation in spite of every informed opinion on the subject of Iraq: It's not about Iraq at all, and it never was. It's about us.

We Are Not At War

Now that England has openly admitted it, I feel a little less alone in speaking the unspeakable out loud:

We are not at war.

It's a hard thing to say. This is the dirty little secret that every American, from the most flag-waving right-winger to the most hand-wringing left-winger, carries around in the deepest chambers of their hearts, afraid to even think it, much less say it out loud. We spend all day in public spaces discussing the ramifications of our current war, how to resolve the war, why we went to war, and so forth. But when we're alone, in the quiet spaces of our mind, that fleeting thought lurks at the corners of our perception: this is not a war after all. And we know it to be true.

But, we think, what about the terrorists? If we don't wage war with them, then won't they get us? Won't they blow us up? The answer to that is, perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps they'll blow us up anyways. But starting wars in other countries won't stop them from doing whatever they plan to do. Starting real wars with real armies and real guns in order to stop those who use espionage methods against us is sort of like trying to kill bacteria with a baseball bat: not only won't it work at all, but you'll probably smash up a lot of your apartment trying.

Terrorists are stopped by police. Terrorists are stopped by intelligence agencies. Terrorists are stopped by the international cooperation that comes from an unwavering commitment to real diplomacy. Read any Tom Clancy or John LeCarre novel if you don't believe me. Nobody ever caught a terrorist by throwing an army at them.

The terrorists want us to think this is a war. In their minds, they are soldiers in a legitimate confrontation. 9/11 was a provocative act. It was specifically intended to provoke us into thinking we were at war. But that doesn't make it so. By buying into their claim that this is a war, by following their lead, we have lent legitimacy to their narrative. We support the story that they sell to their recruits. We prop them up even as we assail them. It doesn't matter how many terrorists we kill when in so doing we breed them at a greater rate. But there's no scoreboard, no number of dead terrorists after which we get to say we won. In order to stop terrorism, we have to stop the flow of terrorists. We have to defeat their narrative that this confrontation is valid. We have to stop fighting them on their own terms, in an arena of their choosing. Because if this is not a war, then they are not soldiers. If this is not a war, then they are nothing more than criminals, mere murderers.

This is not a war.

Congress did not declare war. In fact, it's been so long ago that Congress actually passed a declaration of war, and we've thrown armies into open-ended conflicts so often, that to speak of war hardly makes sense any more. The President declared it to be so, and shouts it to us often. He wants to be a "wartime president." In fact, he desperately needs to be a "wartime president" in order to make any kind of sense out of his own actions. But the Constitution quite explicitly states otherwise. A real war requires a hard, deliberative choice made by us, not by the President, nor by those who would pick a fight with us in order to magnify their own sense of importance. We decide. They don't decide for us. Besides, the President said it himself, long ago: "Major combat operations have ceased."

We are not at war. In fact, we never were.

This truth is the principal source of unease in our gut. It's the shaky feeling of vertigo we get as some part of us becomes aware that this overriding issue, this single framework that rules over every single aspect of our politics today - has no legs. It makes us uneasy when our leaders speak of "victory," when we don't know what "victory" means. What would it look like? Will one of our generals sit down at a table with the grand poobah of all terrorist groups and make him sign a declaration of surrender? Will the CIA prove that the last terrorist has now been caught or killed? If so, how could they prove such a thing? Will there be a tickertape parade and we'll get all our freedoms back?

How do we win a war that doesn't exist?

It's OK, America. We are not at war. Really, it's OK. Everything can be OK. We don't have to fight any more. We can do our best to stop terrorist plots and catch terrorists without having to send our children to fight and die halfway across the world in the wrong country. We can begin to secure our ports and our transportation systems and our water supplies, like we always should have. We can work with other countries instead of against them, to help convince their people that we really don't want to kill them, and to help actually catch anyone who tries to kill us. We don't have to fight anyone. They can't make us. And it's not too late to stop fighing. It's never too late.

We are not at war. This is not a war.

It's just a mistake.

A Modest Proposal for Iraq

(With thanks and apologies to Jonathan Swift)

It is a sad state of affairs to those who walk through Baghdad or watch the evening news to see the streets of such a great and ancient nation awash in garbage and murder, seemingly without end. The citizenry, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are virtual prisoners in their own homes, subject to unpredictable power outages as well as random searches and seizures by any one of a number of factions. As their youth become inured to such circumstance, they inevitably turn to the insurgency for employment, or else sell themselves to the militias and death squads. These insurgents, militias, and American soldiers each strike at one another whenever they gain the least opportunity, thus sustaining the violence which keeps so many honest Iraqis trapped beneath an unceasing crossfire.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this violence, unpredictable and random as it is, is in the present deplorable state of the country a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of bringing any form of order to Iraq would deserve so well of the public as to get his own cable TV show.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the disaffected youth of Iraq; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the entirety of the present conflict in the Middle East, as well as America's tarnished image upon the world stage.

As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for some years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, for example, consist entirely of halfway measures and belated suggestions for which the appropriate time has long since passed. Calls to either increase troop levels or withdraw entirely are likewise too simplistic to retain any real goal of stability. Beggaring all sense, some people currently call for both of these "solutions" at once! Although "outside the box" thinking is most certainly required here, taking simultaneous contradictory actions at once is perhaps a bit too far out.

The key to the problem is that the stability of the government and economy of Iraq cannot be established without infrastructure; and that infrastructure cannot be rebuilt without peace. In turn, without the stability of government and economy which enforces and maintains peace, the various factions involved will continue to require the blood of one or another in order to assuage their sense of purpose and duty.

A straightforward approach begins with the statistics. By looking at the magnitude of the problem itself, we can best see how to mitigate it in service of our ultimate stated goal of bringing order and stability to Iraq.

The number of American soldiers present in Iraq being usually reckoned one hundred forty thousand, of these it is calculated that twenty-eight thousand have died in the forty-five months since our army first set foot upon their soil. By dividing one into the other, I find that on the average, 63 Americans die in Iraq per month, only slightly over 2 per day. In addition, twenty-one and a half thousand Americans have been wounded in the same period. That amounts to 477 per month, or approximately 15 per day.

During this amount of time, the United States has spent an estimated three hundred and forty billion of its dollars directly on this effort, which amounts to seven and a half billion dollars per month, or nearly two hundred and fifty million dollars per day. This figure certainly does not include the much higher sum being siphoned to various contractors hired to repair the infrastructure of Iraq, as their people and equipment sit idle, drawing wages and lease payments while unable to complete their mission due to the random violence which continues in that country.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

A cease-fire between all parties involved in such a confrontation is the only possible first step. However, it could be negotiated provided only that the ends which all of these parties seek are met. The Americans require order and stability. The insurgents and militias require the death of their foes, whether they be one another or American soldiers. All of these ends must be guaranteed in any sustainable cease-fire agreement.

In addition, many Arab nations find that public execution is a most excellent method of keeping the civic peace. It is furthermore commonly known that all Muslims desire the death of Americans, and that this alone may assuage their inevitable bloodlust, which might otherwise lead to terrorist atrocities taking place upon our own shores. To quote our illustrious President, "we fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here."

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that we immediately negotiate a cease-fire with the insurgents and militias, with the contingency that one American soldier shall be offered up each day for public execution in a convenient outdoor square of Baghdad. This step alone will cut our flow of casualties almost exactly by half in one fell swoop (if you will pardon the pun). Furthermore, those Iraqis who desire to witness the death of Americans need only stroll downtown in safety to confirm that their ends have been met before their very eyes, no longer needing to subject themselves to any personal risk of life and limb to do so.

The American to die each day may be chosen by lot, perhaps by employing a system similar to that used to determine draftees during the Vietnam conflict. These soldiers may then be informed of their selection by the quaint but traditional means of being handed a piece of paper containing only a black spot upon it. They will then be removed by Military Police and placed in holding to prepare for the following day's sport.

A variety of common and entertaining methods of execution may be employed in order to maximize the degree of fulfillment which swells the Muslim breast upon witnessing American blood spilt upon their soil. On one day, the American sacrifice may be beheaded, on another stoned. Upon the next, two Americans may be chosen and forced to fight one another to the death, with the survivor earning a discharge home. The mighty power of Democracy may be employed here by polling the populace as to which methods of execution they might prefer to see next. A wide variety of options are available, including drowning by waterboard, asphyxiation brought on by forced stress positions, and the simple but satisfying method of beating one of our own soldiers to death while they are tied to a chair.

Perhaps contests could be held by which a lucky native may be allowed to administer the execution personally. A regular lottery or auction would not only increase the entertainment value of this sport, but also go far towards mitigating the costs of the occupation.

I have too long digressed, and therefore shall return to my subject. I think the advantages by the proposal which I have made are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, and most urgently, it would greatly lessen the concern weighing upon our politicians today that fluctuations in the level of violence in Iraq might be employed by those enemies in order to influence our own elections at home. This grave worry that our own casualties might be employed to subvert Democracy itself clearly rests heavy upon the furrowed brows of our leaders and pundits, as it forms the body of many of their speeches today. With this solution, the number of American dead in any given month will be fixed at a predictable rate, allowing our political strategists to rest easy knowing that no suprises from abroad might spoil their skillfully crafted calculations.

Secondly, once the American populace becomes accustomed to this procedure, it will no longer be newsworthy at all. Our pundits and news organizations will no longer need to report to us the number of Americans who died in Iraq on a given day, as it will always be exactly one! The mere fulfillment of a predictable policy hardly constitutes news. This will lessen the worry of the average American citizen, since we will no longer need to be presented with the details of this war. As such, we will be free to turn our national attention towards more pressing domestic issues, such as abortion, immigration, flag burning and gay marriage.

Thirdly, since this would be drawn randomly from a selection of all the soldiers stationed in Iraq, one's chances of actually dying there would remain at a tolerably low level at all times, improving morale. Regardless of a given soldier's activities or orders, on any given day they would still have the same less than one-half percent chance of dying! These are excellent odds for the survival of any soldier in wartime, and our troops should be given to appreciate how very, very lucky they are compared with the soldiery of any other war in human history.

Fourthly, by broadcasting the executions towards outlying areas of Iraq, we can pacify those regions as well. This will in turn further facilitate the demand for rebuilding the power grid and communications networks throughout the country. Laying cable TV lines to a given area will be seen as a security priority rather than merely an unneccessary luxury for the native folk.

Fifthly, the general peace in the area will free our contractors to complete their work in rebuilding the basic infrastructure of Iraq. Consistent power may be restored, garbage may be collected, and police trained in relative peace. Most importantly, this will allow our contractors to realize greater profits, by reducing those costs related to security concerns.

Sixthly, by killing only one American soldier per day, no soldiers at all need suffer any wounds or debilitating injuries! This alone will save our Veterans Administration untold billions of dollars over the future lifetime of those soldiers who might have otherwise needlessly burdened our society. It bears mentioning again that this expedient also reduces our casualties fully by half, saving greatly on funeral-related expenses.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. Aftermarket DVD sales of executions could bring further income to the families that our sacrificed soldiers leave behind. Broadcasts to other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iran could bring yet more peace and good will between Arabs and Americans everywhere. Given current world opinion, a broader worldwide market of supplying Americans for execution would certainly be developed as a result, which would bring years of entertainment and pleasure to people of every creed across the globe. Finally, we presently have such a supply of soldiers in Iraq that we could stably sustain the occupation in this manner for over three hundred and eighty years!

A small portion of the proceeds from related lotteries and gambling collected in Iraq, in addition to the vast savings to be realized in contracted work could then be paid to the doomed soldier's family. This sum would certainly be a much higher amount than they could hope to receive from the Department of Defense alone for the sacrifice of their child to the noble goal of expanding freedom throughout the Middle East. In fact, even ten million dollars per American soldier sacrificed would be little more than an afterthought, given the vast opportunities for savings brought about by this plan. Such a sum would surely be a great benefit to that soldier's family, at once raising them to a future life of luxury and plenty. By paying out such amounts we will also purchase further peace at home, as those family members will be less likely to raise protests or otherwise annoy our leaders with unreasonable questions and demands.

I can think of no one objection that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged that the number of American soldiers stationed in Iraq will be thereby much lessened. This I freely own, and it was indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. Moderate politicians in both of our parties claim to desire the reduction of our troop levels there, but only within a cautiously extended time frame, and certainly not with any appearance of defeat. By employing this simple measure, we can actually draw down our forces without suffering the ignominity of retreating from the country! Therefore let no one talk to me of other expedients: of crafting a set of rationally achievable goals and meeting them one by one; of setting a reasonable timetable connecting withdrawal levels to the achievement of those goals, and keeping to it; of reaching out to other regional powers to assist in maintaining the political stability of their neighbor; of employing local and regional workers to assist with the rebuilding effort rather than contracting those jobs to American companies; of learning to view Iraqis, as well as Arabs and Muslims in general as human beings rather than as a problem to be solved. Lastly, of crafting foreign policy in terms of our permanent American principles rather than in terms of passing "American interests," as if we were nothing more than another in the long line of mercantile empires to trample Arab soil in pursuit of mere profit.

Therefore I repeat, let no one talk to me of these and the like expedients, until there is at least some glimpse of hope that there will ever be a hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as for myself, having been wearied out for these last three-and-a-quarter years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal which, as it is wholly new, so it also has something solid and real, of no expense and little trouble, full in our own power, and from which we can incur no danger of either escalated casualties or ignoble retreat. For by converting our casualties into a manageable commodity, we thus bring the most effective hallmarks of American capitalism to bear upon our current problem: ingenuity, control and profit.

After all, I am not so thoroughly bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by others, which shall be found equally entertaining, profitable and effective. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will maturely consider two points. First, as things now stand, how can any politician or party bear the ignominity of going down in history as having either lost or greatly escalated this war? And secondly, how otherwise may we achieve our aims and thus declare "victory" when the work crews required to provide the requisite stability face certain death the moment they set out to work? I desire of those politicians who dislike my overture, and who may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of our slain American soldiers whether they would not think it better that their child had died to meet any concrete goal at all, be it a single completed power transformer or reconstructed sewer line, rather than having died to achieve no purpose whatsoever?

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing the aims of our coalition, providing for stable Democracy in the Middle East, relieving the violence, and giving some pleasure to the humble citizenry of Iraq. I myself have no children who might be sent to Iraq by which I can propose to get a single penny, my only being nine years old, and myself well past draft age.

Iraq and a Hard Place

To me, this is mixed news. Bush has received a four-point "victory study" from the Iraq Study Group, which specifies actual goals for what constitutes "victory." To say that it's about time would be a gross understatement. If we had done this, say, three years ago we might have actually met some actual goals by now. And such goals as remain might also not have to be quite as modest as they've become.

What's been really driving me nuts is that Bush & co. have been saying since the start that they won't leave until they "win," or achieve "victory." At the same time, they constantly refuse to define what those words actually mean. Other than our President, I know of no other employee of any kind who has ever gotten away with the argument that benchmarks on his job performance are to be avoided on the grounds that they will harm his job performance. Such breathtaking chutzpah as this would get you fired like a shot from any burger joint in the world. And yet Bush & co. roll on.

At this point, I'm generally inclined to believe that anything the Iraq Study Group says is a relatively good idea, compared to the other options available to us at this late date. Even if we were to begin withdrawal now, we would hypothetically want defined goals for what to achieve on the way out. But since we're already in the quagmire, we might as well listen to some actual foreign policy professionals who know how to define goals and meet them.

Here's what they want Bush to do:


1. Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq

Setting aside the blood pressure spike I feel on reading this, it's simply a stupid idea. Escalating troop levels, like not having invaded Iraq at all, is an idea that's well past its time. If we had started the occupation with more troops initially, we might have done somewhat better than we have. Nevertheless, its far too late to fix everything merely by increasing forces on the ground by less than 15 percent. That's too little, too late to turn things around in Iraq. Yet at the same time, it's more than enough to further inflame the electorate in America. So McCain is an idiot for suggesting the same thing, especially if he thinks he's got a shot at 2008 after caving on torture. As if this conflict didn't fit the Vietnam profile enough as it is (and does anybody else remember them insisting "this won't be another Vietnam" over and over again?) troop escalation fits even further. The only thing (short of Bush putting on a Nixon mask) that would make this look exactly like 1970 would be to reinstate the draft - and I wouldn't put that past him at this point.


2. Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia

This is a good one. Contrary to the Bush policy regarding pre-invasion Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and the whole damn United Nations, it is never too late to conduct diplomacy. Only regional networks can provide long-term stability to fragmented areas (see Kosovo). And maybe this will actually push Bush into at least talking with Iran and Syria, rather than the usual policy of rattling sabres at them. That would be nice.


3. Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others

Well, duh. I wasn't actually aware that we'd actually stopped any specific "process," but this explains a lot. The Iraqi government's gradual polarization into competing death squads has always seemed to me to be something that was completely avoidable from the start. As it turns out, it was.


4. Increase resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces

And here's where we come to the tough choice. The last thing the newly Democratic Congress needs is to bend over the way that the Republicans have for the last six years. However, using the "power of the purse" to starve the war effort is only going to hurt troops, which is the last thing that anybody wants to do. Bush has already demonstrated a willingness to put soldiers into harm's way without sufficient equipment, and he's not likely to change his spots this late in the game. But Dems will get the blame if they don't continue to pony up. The smart thing for the Democratic legislature to do would be to attach amendments to any Iraq appropriations bills rolling back such foul stains as the provisions of PATRIOT Act and the Military Commisions Act. That puts Bush in the position of either allowing Congress to repair the Constitution or to take responsibility himself for overextending the existing military budget.

In drafting this document, the Iraq Study Group also pretty much threw out insistence on maintaining "Western-style" democracy (whatever that means), and that's a good thing. Democracy can't be imposed from without, by definition. Whatever Iraq becomes, for us to try to change it again would naturally be undemocratic. But then, every time a right-winger refers to "freedom" or "liberty" these days (and they do it a lot) I am reminded of this quote from the movie The Princess Bride: "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It's going to be a long, hard two years with Bush continuing to fight for his "war" to the very end. He fights against Iraq, against the world, and against America. Even fighting against common sense, he stubbornly continues to refuse to withdraw from the endless progression of fights that he picks.

It's time that America at least started fighting back.