Lower violent death tolls in Iraq have little to do with "the surge", though the Shrubbery and the corporate media are spinning thusly. It is the result of:

• the US buying off Sunni leaders.
• al Sadr declaring a unilateral truce.

Neither is likely sustainable either. GTFU would be a very wise policy right now. the Iraqis might even throw flowers at the feet of our existing personnel.

Improving? We should be grateful for any decrease in the violence, but there is little cause for optimism in the near- or even long-term future. There is, among others, a plausible theory that some of the characters creating the violence in the past are making strategic but temporary retrenchments in their activities. Most important are serious fundamentals that are in place that have to be resolved before stability can be achieved. Think Progress has a piece on Generals' words of caution that McCain, Lieberman and many others appear to ignore.

I don't care what Pew says.

I say, "P.U."

There are 34 Dead American Kids in Iraq to date in November 2007. The toll in October 2007 was 38.

We "achieved" similar numbers in July 2006, March 2006. March 2005, June 2004, December 2003, October 2003, September 2003, August 2003, June 2003 and May 2003.

In February 2004, we held the carnage to 20 American dead.

One dead American, in this corrupt cause, is to many.

We can never make this fraudulent War right. Not by killing more or less.

America can only cleanse itself, by holding those, who lied and launched the War on a pretext, accountable for the harm and cost they caused.

IMPEACH THEM!

The ethnic cleansing has had its effect.

Hundreds of thousands dead. Millions of refugees have fled the country.

Does that get "fixed" overnight somehow, George?

We have won the hearts and minds of the American people, but not the democratic leadership, and that just may destroy the Democratic Party after the 2008 election. I have been a democrat for over forty years and will leave if Bush and Cheney are allowed to walk out of the WH and enjoy their blood money. All the democrats who refuse to call for impeachment must be defeated in 2008 or 2010. The only reason I stay in the Democratic Party in to cast two upcoming votes, one for Steve Novick, who has called for impeachment and the other to sign my own name for Blumenauer’s seat so that his bragging rights are diminished. He got 91% of the vote in the last primary, maybe just maybe this time it will be less and he will start listening to his constituents and not go along with the leadership of the party. There is no war in Iraq, we invaded-occupied and now are committing genocide--what are we going to win? We will hang our heads in shame for what we have done, it must stop now.

Jack, do you realize that there are some presidential candidates who would protest this bit of common sense?

The short-term improvement in the situation on the ground should give the United States an opportunity to withdraw the bulk of its forces under circumstances that give the Iraqi's their best chance to transition to some long-term accommodation among the Sunnis, Shia's and Kurds.

Of course it should be about more than partisanship. But I heard one of the Republican presidential candidates recently (forget which one) who said anyone who claimed ____ (forget the details) should be ashamed of themselves. Except I recognized one of the things he said was bad was something Brian Boquist said in that dynamite speech on the Iraq War HJM during the 2007 session. And I thought "put this guy in a room with Boquist for half an hour and see what happens".

As with many things, it may be less partisanship than people who are not veterans telling combat veterans that if they are truly patriotic, they will agree with the politician speaking. That is a very old story--goes back at least to WWI.

Oh the irony in reading this post today (Thursday, Nov. 29) when the headlines of the Oregonian and my local paper cry out that 35,000 of our National Guard are going to be backdoor drafted to the Middle East, the largest call up in Oregon since WWII. I thought the "surge" was working and than troops were going to be called down from Iraq.

If we miss this opportunity because we are partisans first and American second, it will be reprehensible.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties have made their partisanship and self-interest abundantly clear and that they have placed their own interests ahead of the nation's. Their enablers in both parties have demonstrated their tribal loyalty for business as usual; otherwise, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be walking away with the Democratic and Republican nominations, and Steve Novick would be the clear favorite to replace Gordon Smith.

The short-term improvement in the situation on the ground... And that is probably all that it is - short-term. This will be especially true if an unwarranted attack on Iran becomes imminent and Iran's fellow Shi'ites in Iraq decide to resume trouble for the United States.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

Let me first qualify myself, I was a Navy Cook! Nothing more.

I served from '77 to '83, and while I was in the service Ronnie the Chimpman was elected, and we almost immediately began the slippery slope down privatization of the military.

Why?, you might ask is that important in this forum?

I believe through the years of my personal experience in logisics in the military, and following closely as a vet that love his service that I have observed a change in our view of military service incrementally through the carefull efforts of corporate interests that decided that control of American governance would have to begin with the defense budget.

Privatization of the greatest military in the world after the cold war ended meant that for the past 20 years of Republicans with DINO's complicity, have maintained the same bloated defense contracts, priorities, and budget that the Iraqi Occupation, and Afghanistan War have shown to be obsolete.

We have witnessed, and approved through years of elections, government distortions, gradual errosion of the respect for the rule of law the breaking of the greatest military of all time, not to mention the sole super power left after the cold war. This process has made PROFITs for corporations the primary concern of the most expense part of government. $475 billion dollars.

We spend more money than all the worlds nations combined for our military that the Neo-Cons have managed to nearly break in a mere 7 years!!

This fighting a far inferior force on two fronts, without a draft, and with a all volunteer military with the newest shame of corporate mercenary armies have managed to do what no force on the battlefield could ever do, break our own military. For PROFITS for a few!

As a Democrat, an American Patriot, and most importantly as a Pragmatist I support a complete redeployment of US Forces, and the dissolution of all mercenary forces, and the end of all privatization of military logistics, or the military over all.

Happy Thoughts

Wishful thinking that Iraq won't be the major election year issue. This mess has tenrils into any other issue Americans take the time to concern themselves with. If the killing stops tomorrow the shadow will fall on anything you want to do in the policy arena here or abroad. I've learned a lot more about Iraq than I had intended to since 1990, they have a long history of resistance to invaders. They will kill us as long as we are there. This is already the Democrats war, if the play into the elections is to ignore or once again tell the faithful to just 'get over it' or 'move on' or some such bullshit you are not going to get folks to vote. I love the pipe dream that the last 7 years really didn't happen, but I wake up every day to this nightmare.

Amen, to Brother James.

Meanwhile, Dems really were operating in good faith on foreign policy issues, sacrificing their political capital to protect the President, even while he was using the war to tear them down.

Politicians and others with an interest in politics should never be operating on faith - good or any other kind - when the lives of others and the well-being of the nation are involved. Everyone should be highly skeptical of any national leaders promoting a war. Most wars have been entered on Trojan horses filled with lies, and for anyone paying attention in 2002 the odds were highly in favor of this war on Iraq being another unjustified war. There are very good reasons for believing that those who voted for the war did so for political expediency. How cynical and morally bankrupt can people be?

All politicians in Congress who voted for this war should have been thrown out a long time ago, and it is to the shame of the voters who vote them back in. Of course, many of these voters are just as guilty as the war criminals they support so they probably want their friends in high places.

What does it say about this nation when most of the front runners in both parties are pro-war? And, since this is a "Democratic" site, what does it say about Democrats when Hillary Clinton is considered the front runner among the Democratic candidates after her votes to begin the war and to sustain it?

I keep hoping that Mike Bloomberg, despite his own negatives, will run for president so I won't be faced with choosing between Hillary and Rudy. Has there ever been a worse choice in the history of this nation?

"To the larger point of this piece and in particular its headline, I think it is highly inaccurate to claim "we won" so now we can leave, though I think it is indeed crucial we do leave as quickly as possible and the sooner the better."

Yes, it is very difficult to gauge winning and losing when announced goals change so often and real goals go unannounced. The real goals of those who fomented this invasion and occupation would be well served by where the Shrubbery is headed: a failed Iraqi state unable to challenge US multinational control of Iraqi oil. Hence the palatial US embassy. Hence the huge permanent US military bases. Hence US insistence on a new oil law governing Iraqi reserves. Hence the lack of real rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure. And it looks as though Democratic leadership will not cry foul on this crime of historic proportion. After all, they are doing well at raising money from many of the same interests that backed Bush.

Sure, the Shrubbery would have preferred things easier and neater, but we will leave Iraq despoiled just as we left Vietnam despoiled. The US government and it's sponsors do not care about that.

There are so many people out here in the parking lot who are livid about the wishy washy DEM leadership we placed in office. Well crap, they convinced us to vote for them, can't they convince a few congressional laggers do what it takes to please We the People? GET OUT OF IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN. A simple and clear mandate from the majority. Last election, Iraq really wasn't even an issue until the public demanded that it be one! So I guess we shouldn't be surprised at their lack-luster performance.

At this point voters are so pissed off I don't think the DEMS should anticipate the kind of groundswell they had and abused since the last election. They haven't followed through. We've noticed. It's sort of like an employee showing you a great resume and then falling flat on their face once you've hired them.

I watched "Cheney's War" on OPB again the other evening...called any friends I thought might have missed it last time. My God, how can anyone see those FACTS laid out and not be convinced our government's been hijacked by greedy powermongering phony patriots, while ordinary Americans were watching so-called reality TV?

Impeach, indict, prosecute, convict, and sentence. Bush & Cheney. Nothing less will do.

We, the People.

Wow, that link is as removed from the topic of this thread as Bush is from being Lawrence Olivier in category of English oratory.

That link - We, the People - was a reference to the use of this phrase by WCT above and submitted so that he and others prone to using it might reconsider its use. It is, therefore, not only relevant to this thread but to the many others where it is used so carelessly.

Sorry Bilbo... but I think I will use We the People as often as I like, despite some moon-bat political blogger's anal retentive can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees plea that I not do so.

When any of us use We the People, everyone knows what we mean and that we are not being flippant, careless or disrespectful....unless we use in in a manner like, say...We the People wish you'd get over your big bad self. I wouldn't use it that way.

And for the record, I am not a He. Can we get back on topic? I really am interested in how others view this critical issue, and I really get rabid when I see folks getting bogged down in the dogma. Jeff writes a great blog.

And Kevin I still say GET OUT OF IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN. Neither are worthy wars, despite their differences. When it comes to interjecting American values into foreign religious wars, we cannot save the world, we cannot change the world....we can only throw ourselves into the abyss when we attempt to.

I think we may be failing to see that our attackers were not a singular country, and that our ememies from this point forward will not always come from a country with borders, nor represent the policies and beliefs of any particular nation(s).

Waging war "against terror" at this level (invading countries in the name of self defense, with little knowledge of their religion, culture, terrain, or tenacity) is like the British wearing red coats and marching European style into battle against the Zulu nation, which they knew nothing about and whom they fatally underestimated.

Religious zeal is not nationalistic, its misery crosses boundaries and breeds in unseen places, often in poverty, always with social dysfunction. There is no battle front and we are foolish to buy into the current administration's propaganda that either of these wars can be won. As for Afghanistan, well many have invaded, waged and lost bloody wars of attrition there....in recent history too. We learned nothing from the Russians, or the British before them.

And Iraq is the biggest, ugliest boondoggle the world has ever seen. You can't fight smoke, you can only try to dissipate it. These wars have to end, because at this point damage, on so many levels, to us is self-inflicted.

The world will always have it's share of madmen, and some of them will organize, and they do pose grave danger to society. But I check every night and there are no terroists under my bed, and that's not because the TSA is doing such a faultless job.

Afganistan never had the capability, and did not attack us. There is that issue of a pipeline route. I like that "We the People" thing. You have to wonder what the new America is going to look like, because we are not suceeding anywhere.

Americans had their blood up after the 9/11 attacks, enough so that we did not look beyond the obvious for the real motivations of our leaders. Invading Afghanistan was no less about petroleum than was invading Iraq. The Taliban were Shrub's darlings until they balked at an energy development deal The WTC was bombed right AFTER Bush-Taliban oil pipeline talks soured

Americans had their blood up after the 9/11 attacks, enough so that we did not look beyond the obvious for the real motivations of our leaders. Invading Afghanistan was no less about petroleum than was invading Iraq.

Well said, Tom. For most Americans invading Afghanistan had a certain appeal based in part on the education they received at the movies and on television. That was where the bad guys were so send the cavalry in to bring them to justice or kill 'em. This was good propaganda for the masses from the Bush Administration which was more interested in an oil pipeline than getting Osama bin Laden.

This is from a White House press conference on March 13, 2002:

"Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

"THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

"Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

"So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you."

Unfortunately, as in Iraq not enough attention was paid to the risks of going into Afghanistan which are now becoming painfully obvious. Iraq and Afghanistan. Two lessons from which those contemplating an invasion of Iran have learned nothing.

While I don't relish a Clinton vs. Giuliani campaign, sure there have been worse choices, in the sense that people worse than either of them won. Beginning (working backward) with our current president. Bush is definitely worse than Giuliani.

That said, the electoral choice does seem similar to that between Warren Harding & whoever the Dems nominated, to several late 19th c. elections, including Chester Arthur vs. whoever & Hayes vs. Tilden (1876), as well as to the 1856 election, perhaps van Buren vs. Polk (though maybe I'm not giving van Buren enough credit), and Millard Fillmore vs. whoever, Fillmore generally being accounted the worst president before Bush. All of these oppositions reflected corrupted and intellectually bankrupt politics in their day, as would a Clinton-Giuliani choice.

Jack Roberts has a point, particularly if we were to combine it with an anti-war position on responsibility to the Iraqis that I first heard articulated in a radio broadcast of a speech by Tom Hayden, though I think I've heard it elsewhere since.

Hayden's argument was that a U.S. exit could be coordinated with a peace-keeping role under U.N. auspices that would involve countries able to act as guarantors of sectarian security for different sections of the Iraqi people plus non-regional countries (western & otherwise) that did not support the U.S. aggression in 2003.

Such a configuration would have much better prospects of achieving what the escalation could not due in broad terms -- provide space that would bring in nationalist opponents of U.S. occupation into renewed Iraqi political settlement negotiations -- and failed to do in narrow terms -- provide space & motive for the parties in the current parliament to reach firmer settlement. I'd add that in my view the U.S. has major financial responsibilities to the Iraqi people for the many disastrous consequences of our several vicious policies since the Iraq-Iran war.

Personally I think that the financial costs of the war and the lost opportunities it represents are a much greater threat to U.S. security than terrorism. If we took 1/4 the annual cost of the war and put it toward a robust humanitarian foreign policy backing local initiatives that could compete with the social welfare programs of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, fully funding the HIV/AIDS, TB & Malaria initiative, and other initiatives we could drain the standing water in which the larvae of religious extremism grow.

I thought such a policy would be the best monument to the 9/11 victims, but there was bloodlust abroad in the land at the time. Quite far left intellectuals like Michael Walzer (editor of Dissent) supported the war against Afghanistan.

However, we also should recognize that the war in Afghanistan has changed as it morphed into an occupation in which the U.S. & Karzai government rely on warlords who backed the Taliban for local governance & some of whom are probably aiding the current Taliban resurgence.

"Bush is definitely worse than Giuliani."

Not true. Bush is the current figurehead for an interest group centered on the petroleum corporations, the military contractors, and the neo-cons. Giuliani is there anointed candidate for the 2008 election. That is why Rudi sounds as vacuous as Shrub. They must scrupulously avoid their true platform, which they do by spouting a stream of inanities.

US administrations follow the corporate model. The CEO can run things as long as the board of directors likes the results. Unfortunately, the board is neither Congress nor the American people, but a consortium of wealthy interests who avoid the limelight. Today, it is even unclear just who that CEO is, operationally speaking.

Giuliani may be more functional than Shrub, but he is clearly not of the stature to be an effective leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. His backers have no problem with that, because they do not desire a real leader, but a figurehead.

"Quite far left intellectuals like Michael Walzer (editor of Dissent) supported the war against Afghanistan."

Quite a few left intellectuals such as Michael Ignatieff, Samantha Power, and Christopher Hitchins supported the war against Iraq. They were as wrong as Walzer was on Afghanistan.

Afghanistan has become a quagmire for the same reason Iraq has. Invading these countries had little to do with establishing democracy and everything to do with securing petroleum. In both cases there were democratic and humanitarian reasons for wanting change. In both cases, relying on criminals to spread democracy and humanitarianism was the utmost foolishness.

While I don't relish a Clinton vs. Giuliani campaign, sure there have been worse choices, in the sense that people worse than either of them won.

Chris, your point and the examples you cited are valid in the sense of low moral and ethical characters, but the difference in power and weapons that presidents will have at their disposal now and in the future makes the likes of a Hillary or Rudy in the White House a cause for greater alarm. It is true as Tom indicated that the president will be more of a figurehead or front for the people driving policies - neocons, military-industrial-media-religion complex, etc. - but if we managed to elect some decent person we might have some braking effect. Not much hope there, though, as long as the people are failing in their responsibilities as citizens and the oligarchs in the parties are part of the corrupt system.

Tom,

The point I made badly about left intellectuals comes from discussions at the time on a DSA listserv, which represents the right wing of the socialist left, more or less, I suppose. There were quite a lot of people in that small hothouse universe who supported attacking Afghanistan essentially on retaliatory/self defense grounds, but who also said from pretty early on that it was clear that Iraq was in the Bushite's sites and that they wouldn't support that war. I don't imagine there were any left intellectuals who supported invading Iraq but opposed invading Afghanistan. There were plenty the other way around. Hitchens, Power & Ignatieff were in much smaller company over Iraq.

The point I suppose I'm really trying to make would be this: Afghanistan did not divide the so-called interventionist left, and was divisive among more usually anti-interventionist people, whereas Iraq had the inverse effect, dividing those who say had supported the bombing of Serbia while uniting anti-interventionists.

I pretty much accept an oil interest analysis of Iraq (provided it also acknowledges an autonomous aspect related to theories and practices of power-building).

But I am not persuaded that it has much to do with the invasion of Afghanistan. Even if it had been against the immediate interests of big oil (say the pipeline negotiations had gone the other way) I don't think Bush would have tried or been inclined to avoid overthrowing the Taliban, because it would have resulted in huge political backlash. I think the immediate aim was to use the crisis to consolidate presidential power under the spurious commander-in-chief doctrines & figure out how to use that power for specific interests later.

Nor does it seem that U.S. oil interests get much directly out of the Afghanistan occupation related to oil, certainly nothing remotely on the scale driving permanent occupation in Iraq. The Afghanistan benefit would be indirect: militarization under the aegis of their guys in the White House and consolidation of their power gives them more power to pursue their specific interests within the Republican milieu while their guys are at the center.

Can you point me to evidence that Giuliani is backed by the same groupings as Bush? I'm not saying he's not, this is a genuine request, but on the face of it, it's not obvious. Also, again seriously, Bush's backing by particular sectors of capital seems unusually narrow, and prima facie I would expect Giuliani to represent a wider range of corporate interests. Thoughts about why that might be wrong would be welcome.

Chris,

You are correct that left/liberal support for invading Afghanistan was greater than for invading Iraq. As to Shrub's motivation and behavior, I suggest that the timeline involved was not incidental, but causal. That is, overthrowing the Taliban had more to do with rejection of that deal than with the 9/11 attacks, which were not tied to the Taliban and who, by the way, signaled that were not adverse to bin Laden facing justice.

At the time the estimate of Caspian Basin energy reserves were much greater than is now believed available. Also, Russia has secured pipelines that that US multinationals wished to control. So, yes, there is little to be gained today in Afghanistan. That was not the belief in 2001.

Here's a few links on the Bush/Giuliani connection:

Giuliani Building Network of Donors

More Neo-Cons for Giuliani

Giuliani follows hard-liners' script

Jeb Bush, Jr. Endorses Giuliani

Thanks Tom. I do remember the Taliban "signals" that you mention. And I do also recall being surprised that initial retaliation say by air strike actually wasn't quicker, which would support your view anecdotally I guess.

But the term "face justice" was also part of what was at stake back here. Bush had to win a fight that this was a war issue requiring a "war on terror" & not a crime issue requiring justice, in order to achieve the standpoint for asserting unlimited commander-in-chief power that he wanted. It wasn't a huge fight, but there was a fight.

Power motive's not mutually exclusive with your argument, of course, esp. if we look at purposes to which the power has been exercised.

It's the counterfactual that's harder for me. Suppose the Taliban had stuck to what Bush wanted (why didn't they?) ... would Bush have been able to decide to just treat Bin Laden as a criminal? Wouldn't he have faced great pressure both from popular anger & from the Neo-Cons? Would his oil interests have overridden his power interests; or perhaps it's, would his short term smaller Afghani oil interests have overridden his longer term power interests that would enable gambits to control major oil centers directly, as in fact they did?

While the USA PATRIOT Act probably would have passed anyway, the pushback on civil liberties would have been a lot quicker & had stronger political footing if we were not "at war," but instead pursuing legal "justice" -- which would have strengthened rule of law arguments and weakened spurious arguments from wartime "necessity." At least, that's how it looks to me.

But in the event, I suppose tension between oil and power motives wasn't really a problem Bush faced.

Bill, o.k., I see what you're saying & agree, at least internationally, esp. over idiotic bellicosity toward Iran. Although the pre-Civil War sclerosis proved remarkably dangerous and destructive ... But it will be a rotten choice if that's what we face.

The BBC and others reported significant bombing in Kabul the evening of Sept. 11 2001. The Taliban asked for proof of Bin laden involvement with what had occured in New York. No body has any love for the Taliban, but Al Quada as existed in Afganistan should have been crushed. The failure is that nothing meaninful has come from our response to 911. Bin Ladin, the Taliban, and Al quada get to haunt us forever and god forebid any of us count the dead. Katie Couric was off by 10 tonight on the U.S. death toll this month...what the hell is that. Oh and Karsii(spl?) was a Unical exec.

The Taliban asked for evidence that bin Laden was guilty in the 9/11 attacks. This would be required by any nation before extradition, particularly here since there was no extradition treaty in place.

Compare this to US behavior toward Pakistan, which has said it would refuse to arrest bin Laden if he causes no trouble there. We bombed and invaded Afghanistan, which asked for evidence. We support Pakistan with copious military aid. Unless there is a five year statute of limitation on terrorism, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course, no democrat of humanitarian should have any love for the Taliban, a nasty bunch indeed. But the Shrubbery had no problem in offering them a "blanket of gold" if they played along with the oil companies.

<h2>I think Chris is correct that establishing the "war on terror" was part of the Shrubbery's motivation. Nothing in geopolitics is simple. Every decision is based on a balance of interests.</h2>