Maybe the gang really can shove 1,800 dead American troops down the fucking memory hole and declare Victory in Iraq Day. Who’s going to stop them? CNN?
Back to Main
August 3, 2005
WB: Bring ‘Em On
Comments
We are watching the begining of the military end game. According to the Times, the 7 marines killed day before yesterday in an ambush were set up by days of insurgent preparation. The destruction of the amphibious vehicle that killed the 14 marines yesterday required a powerful well-timed bomb put together in a safe location.
What does this add up to? It means that the Iraqi resistance has got their command and control together in a way our military cannot touch. That is obvious. They know what we are doing, but we don’t know what they are doing. It was the same in Vietnam. That we have lost the war has been evident to many of us for two years, but it is only in the past month or so that the general public has started to see it happening.
The big unknown at this point is how the administration will react to growing signs of military defeat. This is unknown territory for all of us.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell | Aug 3 2005 19:25 utc | 1
Maybe the gang really can shove 1,800 dead American troops down the fucking memory hole and declare Victory in Iraq Day. Who’s going to stop them?
Get ready, Billmon, because I think that’s exactly what will happen. Bush and Cheney will be declaring victory in Iraq (and anything bad that happens after that will be the Iraqis fault, of course), and the Democrats will be left holding their dicks as the only pro-war party amid an electorate that yearns for peace. Meanwhile, the lapdog media will continue experiencing mass amnesia and forget anything that happened in the past. And the war probably won’t even be a factor in either the ’06 or ’08 elections.
I’ve come to one of two conclusions: The Cheney Bush crowd is the smartest bunch of politicians ever, or the last five years have proved that Americans really don’t deserve democracy.
Posted by: Phil from New York | Aug 3 2005 19:27 utc | 2
Is it really a war yet–for Americans? Wouldn’t it take a draft and a decade of casualties at the six-figure level before it really became a “war”? Or something similarly serious? For the moment, I suppose, it’s nothing more than a “police action” (a term that was used, if memory serves, fo the American-sponsored U.N. activities in Korea–up to a certain point, anyway, after which the “police action” morphed into a “war,” that point having been reached, I’d guess, when the Chinese crossed the Yalu River, in December of 1950).
Posted by: alabama | Aug 3 2005 19:40 utc | 3
As a Canadian, I hate to say” I told you so”…… but you got your war folks. Your problem not ours!
Posted by: NPS | Aug 3 2005 19:56 utc | 5
“Is it really a war yet–for Americans?”
Absolutely not. There has to be at least two sides in a war. Who exactly is the enemy? If the administration could get that clear, maybe the people could relate. “War on Terror”? Who’s fooling whom? The seeds of failure in this fake war were there from the start and the people were never destined to believe in this corporate playtime as a real war. Besides, they are so lost in their TV screens that reality is in another dimension all together and I can’t imagine when it will return. Maybe when this country is attacked and occupied.
The volunteer military is the crux. It’s natural for people not to relate if it doesn’t affect them personally. A draft and 60,000 dead in Nam hit a little closer. And the fact that there was battle between the NORTH and SOUTH. That got through. This fabrication is surrounded by fog. 14 dead soldiers doesn’t connect in any way at all to most of these hapless lost souls who are being governed by illusion. Morbid fantasy has taken over the picture making part of the collective brain. Operation Iraqi Freedom was always a Cecil B. DeMille extravaganza. But now it has become boring to the public. The bombs aren’t real, and even 911 is being lost to memory.
14 dead soldiers is not nearly enough to arouse them.
Posted by: jm | Aug 3 2005 20:05 utc | 6
Perhaps Bush has a plan to unveil “Intelligent Death” and is just using our soldiers in the template.
+++
War? Victory or defeat?
If the US is chased helter-skelter out of Iraq, it will be clear to everyone that it was a lost war.
Everybody involved in the actual fighting and their friends and relatives will know it anyway. Don’t forget them.
Posted by: ab | Aug 3 2005 20:59 utc | 8
People interpret the news of unfamiliar places by likening it to places and things they know.
Iraq outside of the Green Zone is analogous to an extensive slum area. The ordinary dotty-suburban reaction to the crime news is, “Well, I don’t understand why those people behave like that,” and that will be their reaction even to this. “They don’t appreciate what we’re doing for them over there.”
The only part of Iraq that is not a slum in the suburban mind is the Green Zone; that is the nice suburb where the good people live. The administration will be keen to get out before the Green Zone is threatened directly.
Posted by: Jassalasca Jape | Aug 3 2005 21:07 utc | 9
I always enjoy watching Lou Dobbs on CNN. Red eyes, scowl, frown lines, disdainful expression. He looks like his head is going to explode half the time. That is how I feel.
Posted by: la | Aug 3 2005 21:27 utc | 10
I agree with Phil above. In the end, the Democrats will be the only pro-war party standing. I think the DLC types (including Kerry and Clinton and Biden) are calling for more troops and a bigger war. It will be interesting to see them “repositioning” after they realize that “wasn’t where it’s at”. Somehow the progressive wing will be responsible.
Posted by: della Rovere | Aug 3 2005 21:32 utc | 11
Phil yoou leave out that the Dems may possibly be the stupidest political party in my memory.
Posted by: della Rovere | Aug 3 2005 21:34 utc | 12
No, not a “war,” just a “struggle” (as in the phrase “we struggle to make ends meet”). So we have to think of those 1800 soldiers as dying in a “struggle against violent extremism” (also known as “SAVE”)….And how many died on 9/11? Was it 2500? Or 3000? However many died, we’ll have to hurt much, much more before we think of this thing as a “war”. And one thing we know for sure about those chicken hawks running this show: none of them ever fought in a war–none of them knows how to fight one. They’re cowards, those dudes, and they run away from real fights…. But oh, how they love to talk the war-talk! Not that anyone listens, finally (because everyone knows it’s a joke)…..But what if someone, just once, were to grow a little weary of their joke? Would that “someone” do them in? How would that “someone” do them in? If “someone” called their bluff, say, and cornered them with a deadly weapon, how would those jokers respond? Would they cry “time out!,” or “come-on-guys-you-know-we’re-only kidding-can’t-you-take-a-joke?” Hard to picture this turn of events….So let’s imagine Osama bin Laden, his AK-47 at the ready, cornering Damaged W. Goods in the Lincoln Bedroom. Clint Eastwood, as it turns out, is playing the part of “Osama” this time around (D.W.G., as always, is trying to play himself). And what does “Osama” say before pulling the trigger? We can barely hear him–that Osama-with-a-slightly-southern-drawl–snarling, in a sotto voce tone of voice: “Bring ’em on, George, bring ’em on”…. A silence–mute, even terrified–radiates from a trembling (and kneeling) Damaged W. Goods; the silence is thereupon ended, mercifully, by a perfect storm of spaghetti-western bullets-‘n-ketchup, sprayed all over the White House….
Posted by: alabama | Aug 3 2005 21:38 utc | 13
Like every other cultural artifact, the war is noticed only as long as it’s useful.
* Useful: “How can you criticize the President when there’s a war on?”
* Not useful: The rest of the time.
The Republicans don’t care about the war and even less about the warriors, except as backdrop to their delusions of patriotism and righteousness. You bring it too their attention, and they might cluck about how unfortunate it is, but it’s the polite feigning that people give you when you mention a someone crippled in an accident or who lost their home in a fire. “Poor them. (Who cares?)”
There’s been a strong Republican bent to the armed services since the Vietnam War, but one of the outcomes of the Iraq war may well be the breaking of this bond. The military has been used, and abused, and eventually the reality will dawn on them. The Democrats may not benefit from this, however; if I had to bet, I’d lay money on the rise of a Perotist/Patriot party within the next five years.
Posted by: jlw | Aug 3 2005 21:41 utc | 14
Actually, Damaged W. Goods screams, “SAVE me” in perfect Italian.
Posted by: jm | Aug 3 2005 21:51 utc | 15
I just don’t think the people in this country will care, unfortunately, until there is a draft. Then, it will not just be a story on the news, talking about someone else’s children dying; it will be their young children who could possibly be heading to Iraq. As a young person (24) I just cannot believe the people in this country…how could they have voted for Bush knowing that he took us to war on lies? He basically displayed a complete lack of respect for human life…
Posted by: The Dude | Aug 3 2005 22:09 utc | 16
I’ve come to one of two conclusions: The Cheney Bush crowd is the smartest bunch of politicians ever, or the last five years have proved that Americans really don’t deserve democracy.
I’m with Phil here, but I don’t think these conclusions are mutually exclusive, rather the opposite.
Laugh or cry, Cheneybush are going to run on a “Mission Accomplished” promise (which they’ll break) to pull out of Iraq, while the DLC-driven Dems will push for “Stay the Course” in the face of all the polls. The Rovester really does have a wicked sense of humour. Can’t wait to read his “tell-all” autobiography.
“No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” (Lily Tomlin)
Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 3 2005 22:11 utc | 17
@Alabama
Your scenario with D.W.G. is exactly how I’ve imagined he would act if he was ever sent to the World Criminal Court and was finally given his true justice by being sentenced to death. Normally opposed to the death penalty; however, in this case I think it would be justified.
Posted by: terrorist lieberal craigb | Aug 3 2005 23:01 utc | 18
Good fantasies all – I refer to alabama upthread and terrorist-l-craigb. Now how about busting yourself out of this “we-respect-our-govt” thing and face the fact that indeed it will be necessary to behead the mofo (and all his minions) in order to go forward.
There is no other way now – don’t kid yourself.
Posted by: rapt | Aug 3 2005 23:53 utc | 19
As I have written elsewhere, it feels that if Barbara Tuchman was alive and hadn’t already writen ‘the March to Folly: From Troy to Vietnam’, the Bush misadventures would have been a given fifth example to include in her book.
jlw: if I had to bet, I’d lay money on the rise of a Perotist/Patriot party within the next five years
I might be willing to take on your bet; as I mentioned in my post above, while during the Cuba Crisis the warmongering military brass was marching to folly, the Kennedy administration saw to that water not gasoline was poured on the fire; today the roles are reversed.
Just think about military knowledgeable people, from the top of my head, generals Zinni and Tommy “Douglas Feith is the fucking stupidest guy on earth” Frank, Phil Carter, and unarguably conservative William S. Lind.
US officers are definitely one of the most well-educated and well-travelled segment of the US population nowadays, and ‘cosmopolitan intellectuals’ are not a natural fascist constituency…
Of course, I’m talking about the officers… what demi-solde Iraqi vets that weren’t good enough for Custer Battles might conspire together in their Minutmen militias to get a crusade to exterminate all hajjis (and wetbacks… they look like hajjis don’t they?!), that’s another thing entirely….
Billmon: Maybe the gang really can shove 1,800 dead American troops down the fucking memory hole and declare Victory in Iraq Day. Who’s going to stop them? CNN?
Indeed. Anybody on the planet knows the yankees got loads of greenbacks, and this war is waged with mountains of gold and a trickle of blood. And a substantial portion of the latter is that of mercenaries and native auxilliaries. Not the type of people that Joe Six-Pack cares about.
So, I can definitely see a VI day, 1st of may next year, with Dubya manning the .50 cal machine-gun of the lead humvee of a confetti parade driving under a banner that reads “Mission Acomplished. Twice.”
Thing is, the GI’s will not withdraw out of Iraq, but into Fort Apache… sorry, Fort Hajj…no! Camp 911! Wtf them name them them permanent bases in Kuhdistan and th’Siryaq Desert!
From where, while Our Good Shia Injuns kill off the Bad Evil Sunni Injuns, a little Force might Projected, say, eastwards or westwards… and who knows, maybe even someday, if God wills, southwards…
Of course, all that dividare et imperare stuff with the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias presupposes a certain fingerspitzgefühl, and with their anti-Midas power of turning everything they touch into shit the Bushie boys might find out than not even lily-pads float in a dung bog…
What with Al-Jafari getting misty-eyed before Khomeini’s grave, the US might find out they been played for pawns and not played the pawns.
Btw, isn’t it so that chess is a Persian game? Or at least that’s what I’m told.
Posted by: victor falk | Aug 4 2005 0:46 utc | 20
The Bush Administration is the first to make its own reality. They can literally do and say anything they want. More than anything else they want to remain in power and accumulate wealth.
Americans hate prolonged stalemated wars. Bush Administration agit-prop describes the Iraq Occupation as a continuation of 9-11 and victorious march towards democracy. However, the death of 20 Ohio Marines may be the final tripping point that changes the perception from victory to stalemate. The only future the GOP can control is to declare victory and withdraw US troops. The other alternatives, to stay the course in Iraq or to expand the War to Iran or Syria, the outcome is in the hands of Muslim rebels since the US is unwilling to pay for or draft the troops needed to pacify Sunni Iraq. All scenarios except withdrawal result in GOP losing control of the US government.
The Spin for the Iraq Withdrawal has begun.
Posted by: Jim S | Aug 4 2005 0:50 utc | 21
And In the Beginning, Reagan Created Osama:
A TREATISE ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN
No one could make this story up. Thanks to the gnomes at All Spin Zone for bring this fairy tale to our attention.
Posted by: Groucho | Aug 4 2005 1:43 utc | 22
“And as you ….. marvel at the sight of your child’s hair instantly catching on fire,…”
Something Billmon doesn’t have any kids. If he did, I don’t think he’d go over the top that way.
Posted by: Aloyisius | Aug 4 2005 2:03 utc | 23
Finally, someone recognizes that really bad attacks occur when our senior people in and/or talking about Iraq make stupidly grandiose statements!
I can’t believe there are still some people who haven’t put two and two together yet.
————-
Right now, I’m following the arguments about CheneyBush incompetence closely because a leftist buddy of mine (karlmarxwasright.blogspot.com) is insisting that Iran is actuallly allied with the US and everything happening there has long since been planned out. Oh, and magazines like The Nation and Z are tools of the establishment that aren’t really leftists, they’re just pretending to be from the opposition. Oh, and Iran started the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s.
Yeesh! Right now, we’re trading messages on how Iran is supposedly allied with the US. I’ve been giving her a hard time because she hasn’t proven anything!
A notion that doesn’t get enough play is “collective responsibility.”
As unfair and unjust as it is, for there are 49%++ good Americans struggling to defeat the fascists, when the reckoning comes, à la Dresden or Hiroshima, it is sadly all too obvious that *all* Americans will pay for the regime’s crimes.
Posted by: Lupin | Aug 4 2005 7:53 utc | 25
Major drawdowns should begin in Spring ’06, no matter what the situation is on the ground. Gotta demonstrate to the voters in the ’06 midterms that it’s time to bring them home. At the same time the elections will be driven by various ballot initiatives with respect to gay marriage, flag burning, 10 commandment displays and so forth.
This nascent civil war will be well underway with the Sunni militias taking on the Shia in pitched battles. A question I have is will our people have to fight their way out of there. Please god no. Oil production there will grind to a halt for awhile until the Shia get things under control and they and their allies in the new Iran/Iraq superstate controlling the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet will provide quite an interesting counterweight to the predominately Sunni states in the rest of the region. We shall have our interesting times, indeed. The nightmares to come in between here and there will be blamed on the weak-kneed Democrats, the media, and all liberals in general. And Bill Clinton.
E Thomas
Posted by: Ed Thomas | Aug 4 2005 12:34 utc | 26
billmon…like a phoenix after your hiatus (during which i still checked your blog nearly every day in my endless hope for your return), you have risen from the ashes of your burnout and are churning out your best work ever. Bravo billmon and thank you for expanding my mind and keeping the fire burning in my belly.
now where’s your damn paypal link so i can stop feeling guilty about stealing your work everyday?
Posted by: sampo | Aug 4 2005 17:36 utc | 27
Maybe the gang really can shove 1,800 dead American troops down the fucking memory hole and declare Victory in Iraq Day. Who’s going to stop them? CNN?
Nope, People’s Daily is going to write this history.
“They beautify their misbehavior by pompously repeating words like ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights,’ in an attempt to legalize their misdeeds.”
Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 4 2005 21:16 utc | 28
Juan Cole has also done an excellent job of writing the history so far…
The Bush administration responded to these attacks by the former proteges of Ronald Reagan by putting the old Mujahideen warlords back in charge of Afghanistan’s provinces, allowing Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to escape, declaring that Americans no longer needed a Bill of Rights, and suddenly invading another old Reagan protege, Saddam’s Iraq, which had had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the US. The name given this bizarre set of actions by Bush was “the War on Terror.”
Posted by: PeeDee | Aug 4 2005 21:27 utc | 29
While we all get together and posit what we think will happen next, within each of us there is a terrible feeling of inevitability about what we suspect deep down will happen next.
I never see the point in conspiracy theorists going over ‘facts’ and re-interpreting confused witnesses observations in a highly subjective way. Its not that I don’t think conspiracies don’t happen its just that once some terrible event such as a terrorist attack or assassination has occurred, for all practical purposes, it becomes impossible to effect the outcome aimed for by the plotters.
Blind Freddy can see that if Bush/Cheney get in too much strife with their chickens coming home to roost then one scenario that could let them continue in power and even increase their aggression would be if the continental US were subjected to a terrorist attack. If the US is attacked, trying to point out that the group that had the most to gain were the mob which are posing as saviours, after the fact, would be futile. We know how the media will react and it will be may months before any sensible analysis of the attack is published by which time it would be impossible to overturn public beliefs.
So if I was living in a country run by such a corrupt bunch of main chancers where there was the slightest chance of a plot such as this I would be putting a lot of effort into publicizing the dangers of rightist extremists subverting the political process by organising an attack like this.
Whoever actually carries out the attack probably will believe that they are fighting for the ideals that the plotters want the public to believe was the motivation for the conspiracy.
Further up the food chain that need not neccessarily be true and security services around the world are well versed in the use of agent provocateurs to get things done.
Giap probably remebers the Hilton Hotel bombing at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is Sydney in 1978. This terror attack was most likely a security services operation that went wrong and resulted in unplanned deaths. The aim had been to force more repressive security laws on an unwilling public. When people got killed the Australian Security Intelligence service (ASIO) used informants in the Ananda Marga group to implicate the leadership of that group in the bombing.
It is unlikely Bush/Cheney would use the Homeland security organisation to directly instigate an attack as the risk of leak would be too great so the job would require independent contractors a method that BushCo has been perfecting.
If bushCo do decide on a strategy such as this the only way to counter it is having them believe the risk of ‘blowback’ is too great. Ppl need to be talking NOW about who would have the most to gain from another attack. If a further attack would really be in the interest of Iraq/Islam/Palestine?
Yep it would be difficult to counter this strategy of BushCo if for example Bush and Bin Laden have been on the same side since the start, but there is no point in even trying to go down that road with the public who have already developed their beliefs on 9/11 and attemting to change that would just cause complete rejection in the minds of most people. However my take on the public mood in the US is that people are increasingly untrusting of their leaders and doubt their motives, pretty standard stuff considering the economic upheaval and failure in prosecuting W.O.T. so if a substantial undercurrent questioning the motivation of potential US terorists develops; that would be the only thing that could prevent another slaughter occurring.
At the same time BushCo must have their faces held to the hotplate of reality. In other words joey public needs to keep asking why Bin Laden and Zwahiri are still footloose and fancy free enough to be pumping out press releases. If BushCo feel that another attack would leave them vulnerable to the charge of neglect in pursuing these types that would also give them pause. Hence the current efforts by the admin to rebrand Al Quaeda as a philosophical enabler of terrorism rather than an actual implementer. That way the failure of the UN troops to capture the AQ leadership can’t be directly linked to London, Madrid or Bali.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 4 2005 22:32 utc | 30
Saw this yellow ribbon caption on an SUV that dwarfed my half ton pickup: “Git-it-Done”.
Must have belonged to someone in intelligence.
Posted by: Groucho | Aug 4 2005 22:40 utc | 31