[Marxism] A sobering assessment

[Louis Proyect]

Rightwing radio and TV news shows have been gloating over the fact that 
two "opponents" of the war in Iraq recently wrote an op-ed piece in the 
NY Times claiming that the surge was working.

July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK

Washington

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American 
and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in 
Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost 
essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in 
part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are 
finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two 
analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable 
handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the 
potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable 
stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in 
Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often 
found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the 
wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their 
lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that 
they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are 
confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they 
have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html

---

It turns out that these idiots were not opponents at all. Here's one of 
the better reports on their background. To read the whole thing, you 
have to put up with reading one of salon.com's stupid 5 second ads, but 
it is worth it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
Monday July 30, 2007 08:30 EST
The really smart, serious, credible Iraq experts O'Hanlon and Pollack

What is the most vivid and compelling evidence of how broken our 
political system is? It is that the exact same people who urged us into 
the war in Iraq, were wrong in everything they said, and issued one 
false assurance after the next as the war failed, continue to be the 
same people held up as our Serious Iraq Experts. The exact "experts" to 
whom we listened in 2002 and 2003 are the same exact establishment 
"experts" now.

Hence, today we have yet another Op-Ed declaring that We Really Are 
Winning in Iraq This Time -- this one in the NYT from "liberal" 
Brookings Institution "scholars" Ken Pollack and Mike O'Hanlon. They 
accuse war critics of being "unaware of the significant changes taking 
place," proclaim that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at 
least in military terms," and the piece is entitled "A War we Might Just 
Win."

The Op-Ed is an exercise in rank deceit from the start. To lavish 
themselves with credibility -- as though they are war skeptics whom you 
can trust -- they identify themselves at the beginning "as two analysts 
who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling 
of Iraq." In reality, they were not only among the biggest cheerleaders 
for the war, but repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and 
continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among 
the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster.

---

Meanwhile, here's the bad news for imperialism straight from the horse's 
mouth:

Joint Chiefs Nominee Notes Toll on Military, Need to Plan for Iraq Drawdown

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 1, 2007; A02

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush's nominee to head the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday that the war in Iraq is 
taking a heavy toll on the U.S. military, warning that American forces 
are "not unbreakable" and stressing the need to "plan for an eventual 
drawdown" of troops.

Appearing in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Mullen, 60, acknowledged that the increase in U.S. forces 
cannot continue past April 2008 under the military's current force 
structure. He also cautioned that Iraqi political reconciliation is not 
keeping pace with security improvements.

Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the "breathing space" 
that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, "no amount of troops in no 
amount of time will make much of a difference."

Testifying alongside Mullen was Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, 57, the 
nominee to become vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He heads the U.S. 
Strategic Command.

In written responses to committee questions, Mullen warned that "there 
is no purely military solution in Iraq" and that the country's 
politicians "need to view politics and democracy as more than just 
majority rule, winner-take-all, or a zero-sum game." Absent that, he 
said, the United States will be forced to reevaluate its strategy.

Mullen and Cartwright were nominated in June to succeed Marine Gen. 
Peter Pace, the current Joint Chiefs chairman, and Adm. Edmund P. 
Giambastiani Jr., the vice chairman, respectively. Defense Secretary 
Robert M. Gates said at the time that he decided not to nominate Pace 
again out of concern that the confirmation hearings would prove a 
"divisive ordeal" for the nation. Pace's two-year term will end on Sept. 30.

At the end of more than three hours of testimony, Sen. Carl M. Levin 
(D-Mich.), the committee chairman, praised Mullen's candor and indicated 
that both nominees are likely to win confirmation.

Mullen, who is the chief of naval operations, told the panel that the 
U.S. troop increase in Iraq "is giving our operational commanders the 
forces they needed to execute more effective tactics and improve 
security." He added, "Security is better; not great, but better."

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), noting Mullen's commitment to capping tours of 
duty in Iraq at no more than 15 months, asked if the Pentagon faces a de 
facto timetable for ending the buildup by April "because we simply will 
not be able to put manpower on the ground unless we extend rotations."

Mullen replied, "Yes, sir, that's fair." In his written responses, he 
pledged to take an active role in any contingency planning for a 
withdrawal but warned that "U.S. vital interests in the region and in 
Iraq require a pragmatic, long-term commitment that will be measured in 
years, not months."

Levin expressed skepticism that Iraqi politicians can take steps toward 
political reconciliation. They "remain frozen by their history," he 
said. Levin added that the Iraqi parliament is "at a standstill," with 
nearly every session since November adjourning because too few 
legislators showed up.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) asked Cartwright about the effect on U.S. 
troops of risking their lives while the government of Prime Minister 
Nouri al-Maliki "is absolutely failing." The Marine general replied: 
"They believe in their mission . . . but there comes a point at which 
they're going to look at that and say, 'How much longer and for what 
price?' if progress isn't seen."

Asked by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) about the U.S. prospects for 
"winning" in Iraq, Mullen said: "Based on the lack of political 
reconciliation at the government level . . . I would be concerned about 
whether we'd be winning or not."

Mullen also highlighted the "increasingly hostile role played by Iran" 
as a challenge to U.S. interests. "I find their support for terrorism 
and their nuclear ambitions deeply troubling." He noted that the Shiite 
government in Tehran is supporting its former enemy, the radical Sunni 
Taliban movement in Afghanistan.

That shift "is a big deal," he said, emphasizing that the Iranian 
technology used in Iraq to create powerful roadside bombs "is now making 
its way into Afghanistan" and killing U.S. troops and their allies.

In his written responses to committee questions, Mullen listed seven of 
"the most significant mistakes" made by the United States in Iraq. Among 
them, he cited Washington's failure to "fully integrate all elements of 
U.S. national power in Iraq," the failure to "establish an early and 
significant dialogue with neighboring countries," the U.S. attempt to 
occupy the country with "an insufficient force," the disbanding of the 
Iraqi army shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion, and the pursuit of a 
de-Baathification process that "proved more divisive than helpful."