Gość: sp;lit
IP: *.ipt.aol.com
25.09.04, 01:02
Moze sie nawet podpiszesz ,...
uklony
=============================================================================
Eclipsed in Iraq
By William Greider, The Nation. Posted September 18, 2004.
The United States is losing in Iraq – literally losing territory and
population to the other side. But who is going to tell the American voters?
The presidential pageant has now risen full in the sky and is blocking out
the sun. Until November, we dwell in a weird half-light, stumbling into
spooky shadows but shielded from the harsh glare of the nation's actual
circumstances. Down is up, fiction is truth, momentous realities are made to
disappear from the public mind. The 2004 spectacle is not the first to
mislead grossly and exploit emotional weaknesses in the national character.
But this time the consequences will be especially grim.
The United States is "losing" in Iraq, literally losing territory and
population to the other side. Careful readers of the leading newspapers may
know this, but I doubt most voters do. How could they, given the martial self-
congratulations of the President and relative restraint from his opponent?
High-minded pundits tell us not to dwell on the long-ago past. But the cruel
irony of 2004 is that Vietnam is the story. The arrogance and deceit – the
utter waste of human life, ours and theirs – play before us once again. A
frank discussion will have to wait until after the election.
Several Sundays ago, an ominous article appeared in the opinion section of
the New York Times : "One by One, Iraqi Cities Become No-Go Zones." Falluja,
Samarra, Ramadi, Karbala, the Sadr City slums of Baghdad – these and other
population centers are now controlled by various insurgencies and essentially
ceded by US forces. This situation would make a joke of the national
elections planned for January. Yet, if U.S. troops try to recapture the lost
cities, the bombing and urban fighting would produce massive killing and
destruction, further poisoning politics for the U.S. occupation and its
puppet government in Saigon – sorry, Baghdad.
Three days later, the story hit page one when anonymous Pentagon officials
confirmed the reality. Not to worry, they said: The United States is training
and expanding the infant Iraqi army so it can do the fighting for us. That's
the ticket – Vietnamization. I remember how well General Westmoreland
articulated the strategy back in the 1960s, when war's progress was measured
by official "body counts" and reports on "new" fighting forces on the way.
But this time Washington decided the United States couldn't wait
for "Iraqization," a strategy that might sound limp-wristed to American
voters. The U.S. bombing and assaults quickly resumed. The Bush White House
is thus picking targets and second-guessing field commanders, just as Lyndon
Johnson did forty years ago in Indochina. Bush is haunted by the mordant
remark a US combat officer once made in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the
village in order to save it."
Meanwhile, Bush's war is destroying the U.S. Army, just as LBJ's war did.
After Vietnam, military leaders and Richard Nixon wisely abolished the draft
and opted for an all-volunteer force. When this war ends, the volunteer army
will be in ruins and a limited draft lottery may be required to fill out the
ranks. After Iraq, men and women will get out of uniform in large numbers,
especially as they grasp the futility of their sacrifices. Yet Bush's on-the-
cheap warmaking against a weak opponent demonstrates that a larger force
structure is needed to sustain his policy of pre-emptive war. Kerry says he
wants 40,000 more troops, just in case. Old generals doubt Congress would pay
for it, given the deficits.
Iraq is Vietnam standing in the mirror. John Kerry, if he had it in him,
could lead a national teach-in – re-educate those who have forgotten or
prettified their memories but especially inform younger voters who weren't
around for the national shame a generation ago. Kerry could describe in plain
English what's unfolding now in Iraq and what must be done to find a way out
with honor. In other words, be a truth-teller while holding Bush accountable.
Kerry won't go there, probably couldn't without enduring still greater anger.
His war-hero campaign biography inadvertently engendered slanderous attacks
and still-smoldering resentments. Kerry, like other establishment Dems,
originally calculated that the party should be as pro-war as Bush, thus
freeing him to run on other issues. That gross miscalculation leaves him
proffering a lame "solution" – persuading France, Germany and others to send
their troops into this quagmire. Not bloody likely, as the Brits say.
Bush can't go near the truth for obvious reasons. If elected, he faces only
bad choices – bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq, as Nixon bombed Vietnam and
Cambodia, or bug out under the cover of artful lies. The one thing Bush's
famous "resolve" cannot achieve is success at war. Never mind, he aims to win
the election instead.
So this presidential contest resembles a grotesque, media-focused war in
which two sides skirmish for the attention of ill-informed voters. Bush won
big back when he got Iraq off the front pages and evening news with his phony
hand-off of sovereignty and his chest-thumping convention. But then his
opponents – the hostile insurgents in Iraq – struck back brilliantly and
managed to put the war story back in the lead on the news (might we expect
from them an "October surprise" of deadlier proportions?). In this fight,
Kerry is like a bystander who might benefit from bad news but can't wish for
it. Most combat correspondents, with brave exceptions, hesitate to step back
from daily facts and tell the larger truth. Maybe they are afraid to sound
partial.
The timing of events in Iraq does not fit propitiously with the election
calendar. A majority has already concluded that it was a mistake to fight
this war, but public credulity is not yet destroyed. A majority still wants
to believe the strategy may yet succeed, that Iraq won't become another dark
stain in our history books. During Vietnam, the process of giving up on such
wishful thinking took many years. The breaking point came in 1968, when a
majority turned against the war. LBJ withdrew from running for re-election.
Nixon won that year with his "secret plan" to win the peace. The war
continued for another five years. US casualties doubled.
This time, public opinion has moved much faster against the war, but perhaps
not fast enough. People naturally are reluctant to conclude that their
country did the wrong thing, that young people died for a pointless cause. If
the war story does stay hot and high on front pages, a collapse of faith
might occur in time for this election, but more likely it will come later.
Nixon won a landslide re-election in 1972 with his election-eve announcement
that peace was at hand, the troops were coming home. In the hands of skilled
manipulators, horrendous defeat can be turned into honorable victory.
Temporarily at least. When the enemy eventually triumphed in Indochina, Nixon
was already gone, driven out for other crimes.
