The 'al-Anbar Awakening'...sounds fancy doesn't it?

Since the testimony of the Petraeus/White House Report on the Surge beginning Sept. 10th two things have proven true about Iraq:

1) At the very least [and I'm leaning towards cherry picking positive data and ignoring negative stats]....the data is often contradictory about civilian and sectarian deaths in Iraq. That's at the very least. Of course that is me being 5 times more generous than I should be because data from all independent sources, from sources with no vested interest in painting a rosy story, tell us that sectarian and civilian deaths nationwide are trending at nearly the same levels, or sometime a little higher.

2) In the al-Anbar Province region [in yellow] of Iraq there has seen a noticeable reduction in violence. The reason for this lies in the fact that some Sunni sheiks and tribal leaders, and formerly insurgent groups attacking American soldiers have decided to instead work with us against their former allies the Sunni group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Surge Progress?
This fact has been touted by war supporters and by some generally ignorant commentators as a clear case of progress for the Surge.

They look at Anbar Province and they see a way of scrapping some success (somehow) from the jaws of defeat.

But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?

Dousing The Raging Fires Of Civil War...With Gasoline?
This policy involves the US collaborating with groups who formerly were heavily involved in attacks on US troops not that long ago.

Why the change you might ask? Why are Sunni insurgent groups formerly at odd with us, suddenly eager to work with us against al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Simple: While nobody in Iraq [neither Kurd, Shia, nor even Sunni] liked the Sunni foreign fighters, among the Sunni insurgency a marriage of convenience was made with them in order to deal with what was perceived as the greater evil and threat; The United States.

Many insurgent groups have changed their mind and are making another marriage of convenience [this time with the Americans] in order to eliminate al-Qaeda who they now see as a bigger pest.

Good news for the US and for Iraq right?

Wrong...so horribly wrong.

3 Reasons This Is Wrong And/Or Dangerous

1) We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

One Sunni insurgent leader - Abu Ali - said this US assistance:

Publicly, Abu Ali is grateful for the assistance he and his followers have received from the U.S. military. He predicts he can help clear the entire province of al Qaeda militants within six months if the U.S. Army provides more ammunition and supports insurgent operations with air cover and help from tanks and armored personnel carriers.

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

Meaning once they are done with AQI, they will have no need for our cooperation. In other words: We are arming and funding the very groups who will use those very weapons we provided to attack US soldiers in the future. We are being used...

But that's not the worst part of this policy

2) If feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

The Shias and Kurds are not happy needless to say.


We are pouring gasoline on a fire that was already blazing.

And one of the most frustrating part about this policy is #3

3) It is a totally unneccesary policy if the stated goal is to eliminate AQI and prevent it from taking over Iraq.

First, it is sheer fantasy to believe AQI could ever take over Iraq. It numbers from 1500- 3500 members, which is very small considering that the Sunni insurgency overall is estimated to consist of 25,000 members. They are particularly lethal minority but they simply don't have the numbers to take over even 1 province in Iraq.

Second, the Kurds in the north, and the much more numerous Shia would never allow the Sunni AQI to have a real stronghold in Iraq.

But that's not really the frustrating thing

The most frustrating part is that the only factor that keeps some insurgent groups in league with AQI (and even then many have turned against them) is the US presence in Iraq. Not only does our presence motivate AQI to be in Iraq, it is the reason many Sunni insurgents have (and some continue to) work with AQI.

If we were to leave, there would be no incentive for anyone in Iraq to shelter AQI...they'd most likely be eliminated quite quickly. And in the unlikely case that the Sunnis made another marriage of convenience with AQI to fight the Shias in the full-scale civil war that would follow our exit...well, lets be real. There is NO doubt about who will be the winner...the Shias who are numerically superior.

------------

No Happy Ending Here

Sad isn't it? The US is preventing a full-scale civil war with its presence in one respect, pouring gasoline on it in another respect, but all it can do is delay the eventuality of that war.

If it leaves it will be a bloodbath, if it stays its a smaller bloodbath. But it cannot seem to change that eventuality...But in the meantime, every day it stays in Iraq delaying that war, we lose precious lives, untold billions of money, push our military that much closer to collapse, make us vulnerable to other emerging threats, and hinders our ability to deal with other threats and crisis around the world.

There are no good solutions or policies for the US or Iraq that will ensure anything but some level of violence. But we must leave because that is what is best for the US.

But...it's not fair.

We invaded their country, we destroyed their infrastructure, we messed up the occupation, we allowed the country to go to hell, and now we are going to leave them to a bloody civil war.

It's not fair. Its not fair...

But this is necessary for the United States and ultimately that is who I will think of first. It is not the fault of those who want us to withdraw (many who never wanted us to enter Iraq in the first place), ultimately it is the fault of those who took us to war, and then compounded that initial mistake with a bungled occupation.

Yet I still feel guilty. I suppose, as Americans, we all share blame for the blood shed in Iraq up until now, and for the blood that will be shed when we leave.

You don't understand...I want the US, I want Bush (no matter how much I hate the guy) to pull off a victory, to pull off some miracle that brings the Iraqi's together or at least prevents a bloodbath.

I don't write about my doubts with the Iraq strategy out of some wish to see him fail, I write it because its what I see, and I wont BS you guys out of wishful thinking for a better outcome for Iraqis.

We had an Administration who was and continues to be delusional in all things Iraq and were the masters of wishful thinking, and wishful planning...there is no need for me to add to that delusion if it is not warranted.

-----Roundup------

Expulsion of American Security firms could jeopardize withdrawal plans - Its talking about the withdrawal of the 30,000 Surge troops that Bush recently said could come home by next summer. Why is it in doubt? Because the US relies heavily on "private contractors" in Iraq, otherwise know by its more well know name: mercenaries. Paid-soldier, guns-for-hire etc...

In fact, mercenaries outnumber US troops in Iraq...bet you didn't know that!! (We have 160,000 US troops there right now just as a FYI)

And these mercs are unaccountable to the Iraqi govt or the US government. These aggressive mercs frequently kill civilians and inflame the population, thus making the job that much harder for US soldiers. Everyone, even US soldiers, hate their guts but given the combat troop shortage, its been the US only recourse to keep the occupation going. Iraqi's especially hate their guts.

But now that prominent mercenary company Blackwater might get booted out, it might make it difficult for the US to withdraw those surge troops. With 15 months tours already, I'm not sure how the hell the US can maintain such deployments...An already strained and exhausted military is going to take another hit.

'Help Wanted' Ad Belies Report on Iraq Security - Claims of increased progress and security are looked at in the face of the fact that the US military is seeing the need to hire ever more mercenaries to fulfill certain roles as US troops go off on combat patrols. This excerpt stuck out:

"With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq.

Increased insurgent activity!? But I thought things were going better? Apprently insurgents are stepping it up, requiring more US troops on the patrol, while mercs take care of the base.

--------

Speaking of al-Anbar Province, apparently the Administration is so happy with the "progress" so far in Sunni areas [read the first half of this post], that they wish to 'expand Anbar model to Iraq Shiites

Fueling different sides of a civil war, and undercutting the central government by fostering and promoting independent Shia forces independent of the Shia-controlled central government.

What's more there is danger to this strategy because of how divided the Shia parts of Iraq are becoming:

On Septmeber 15, powerful Shia militant leader Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his support for the Iraq government and dealing a blow to the political process and the viability of the central government.

And, security has taken a 'turn for the worst' in the Southern Shia areas -

Security is deteriorating in southern Iraq as rival Shiite militias vying for power have stepped up their attacks after moving out of Baghdad to avoid U.S.-led military operations, according to the latest quarterly Pentagon report on Iraq released yesterday.

"The security environment in southern Iraq took a notable turn for the worse in August" with the assassination of two governors, said the report, which covers June through August. "There may be retaliation and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the South," it said, whereas previously the violence was centered in the main southern city of Basra.

Even Shias are beginning to fight amonst themselves. Which leaves us to this question: Which Shias are we going to support in our expansion of the Anbar model?

You see how complicated this is getting? Because certain groups like Al-Sadr's are very nationalistic and very anti-American. Could we expect increasing intra-sectarian violence? Tread carefully...

The growing violence in the south is one factor making it unlikely that Iraq's leaders -- hampered by a "zero sum" mentality -- will make headway in the fall on key political resolutions, the report concluded. "In the short term, Iraqi political leaders will likely be less concerned about reconciliation than with consolidating power and posturing for a future power struggle," it said.

This Pentagon report, different from the Petraeus report of Sept. 10, is a lot more pessimistic about the security situation and the political progress that the surge was supposed enable. [I will add that a its sectarian violence figures is based on the same methodology as the Petraeus report so I'm still skeptical about its violence figures]

And note the last sentence about how Iraqi political leaders are less concerned with reconciliation than with consolidating power for a future power struggle. Progress will only come from the political process, not the military. Political progress will help the security situation, not the other way around.

It's clear that Iraqi political leaders are not interested (or at least not expecting) in political progress because they know what's coming: The future power struggle. The Iraqi politicians are preparing for what the Administration still fails to acknowledge as inevitable: The civil war.

If they are planning for civil war, if they are not interested in reconciliation then what is left? If there is no reconciliation there is only conflict.

Like I said earlier, I don't BS you. If I say that I think civil war is inevitable, it's because I see some indications for it (like this one) that tell me that the opposing parties are not interested in having a political reconciliation...and that leaves only one choice...

So long folks, I'll be back from Chicago on Sunday. A vacation from news might do me some good.

One of Those Times I Hate To Be Right

The Prediction

Did I call it? Or did I muthafuckin' call it?

Back in July 17, shortly after the release of the interim progress report on the Surge I said this:

Come on!! Who actually believes that any report coming from the Bush Administration this September will say anything but what they feel is necessary to say in order to maintain (and in this case further escalate) our presence in Iraq.

Like the flawed and dishonest Iraq Progress report released this past week, the report in September will fudge figures, distort reality, and lower the bar of what is 'progress' in order to claim that there is some progress due to their surge (where there is actually none).


They will then claim that these optimistic signs of progress prove that the surge is making progress in Iraq, and that they will say is why they will need an 'even bigger surge' to make even bigger gains.

*sigh* It appears we live with a government whose governing philosophy is based around the idea of "when your stuck in a ditch, keep digging"

In other subsequent posts I've mentioned that this "progress" they will claim will be used by those "wavering Republicans" to continue supporting the war. Idiots in the press and in the Democratic Party wrongfully believed that once the report came in September, it would show little progress and force Republicans to vote against the war....WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

The mistake they made was assuming that they would not fudge the September report in the same way that they fudged the July report.

I wrote this one August 15, 2007 . Pay careful attention to my prediction

Due around mid-September is a final progress report on the current 'surge ' strategy in Iraq. Now, it was billed as a report not only written by the military itself, but as the report of the last person who still seems to hold credibility with Congress - General Petraeus. Me, being me, was always suspicious about the report because as so full of integrity as Gen. Petraeus is reported to be he is just a General who works at the discretion of the President. He is tasked with implementing policy the President wants, whatever he thinks. I'm a little skeptical of how credible Petraeus will be although it might be completely moot whether he is or not (I'll tell you why later in this post) I always believed that the September report would purport to say that there IS progress even if there are some problems and that we should continue in Iraq: Republicans waverers who keep saying 'lets wait till the September report' will stop wavering. And they will 'give the strategy more time to work' and Democrats will be able to get less votes for any withdrawal resolution in Congress. I still believe this will happen.

Well, the propaganda (and lies) being repeated continuously, and bought hook-line-and-sinker, is that the surge has created progress.

For the love of God, the "respectable" General Petraeus went to Australia and pulled the biggest lie out of his ass: He made the absurd claim that there has been a 75% drop in ethnic and sectarian violence since the surge began!

You have got to be kidding me!?

And how have the Republicans responded to these fudged figures (and I will show why they are fudged)?

They declare "Iraq withdrawal is now off the table":

Leading Republicans in Congress on Thursday declared that troop withdrawal legislation should be scrapped because the United States has made significant progress in the Iraq War, just as Democrats were resuming efforts to bring soldiers home. "It should be off the table," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said of Democratic attempts to pass legislation to force President George W. Bush to withdraw some of the 168,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and wind down the combat mission there.

The Republican hardened stance followed months of speculation that September could usher in cooperation with Democrats on trying to craft a new Iraq policy. In recent months a small but growing number of Republicans have said it is time to develop a bipartisan strategy to bring troops home. (SNIP)

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters of "significant progress in Iraq," and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the 4-1/2-year war effort was "finally paying dividends."

"We're at a crossroads. Pour it on. Seize the moment ... take withdrawal off the table," said Graham, who last month served in Iraq as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force reserves.

Next week Congress will hear from U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. Both are expected to report significant military progress in Baghdad since the start of a troop surge last January.

Did I call it or did I freakin' call it?

-----

Do The Facts Fit the Propaganda?

Now, maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe I'm too cynical. Perhaps I've let my distrust of this Administration, its history of deceit....the fact that they fudge numbers all the time on everything from global warming data to deficit figures....well that they've falsified and fudged the July Surge report too....

...You know what these guys don't have credibility!! Screw that!

But, its not enough to rightfully point out their lack of credibility and their history of willingness to lie and distort figures to serve their goals; Lets actually examine if their claims are true

Has the Surge Succeeded in Bringing Progress?

Lets start with the absurd claim by the "honorable" General Petraeus that there has been a 75% drop due to the Surge.

Now, 75% is a huge number for violence to drop...one would almost expect things to look vastly different if it had really dropped that much. I haven't noticed that much of a change but who knows that could just be a matter of perception...so lets see what the actual stats say.

Associated Press, August 25, 2007

This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

I'll add that it is hard to make comparisons from "peak levels" because certain seasons are more violent than others and so it is best to compare violence as compared to the same time the previous year. So, in that sense it is a little misleading to compare it to "peak levels." That's why the bolded part is a much better gauge than the leading part of the sentence that said its down from "peak levels."

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings - the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

Many militants simply fled the capital (as expected), and there initially was a reduction in violence in Baghdad as violence in other parts of Baghdad where those militants fled to increased.

But I did only say "initially": As the AP's reports, its own statistics are now showing that the rate of killlings is at the same percentage as a year ago. And those are apples-to-apples comparisons (by same time last year).

In other words, violence has increased outside Baghdad, and stayed the same in Baghdad despite the Surge.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

That 'headway' is hardly headway in my opinion...

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.

The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings - largely the work of Shiite death squads.

The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count.

The findings include:

- Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year - an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.

- Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.

- Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

-According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31.

However, Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq ``has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006.''

He offered no statistics to back his claim.....

'And he offered no statistics to back his claim'!?

With an Administration that would be is desperate to give good news, don't you think they would be jumping at the change to provide good data if they had it?

They'd be throwing it in everyones face and all over the news but...they aren't. Instead they make claims with no proof and pleas to "just believe it" in essence. Plus the news organizations who are compiling the data are painting a much darker picture. Smells real fishy...

And the problem isn't only Baghdad and Central Iraq, the south is exploding too as different Shia groups also battle amongst themselves.

But a huge problem also looms in the south, the center of Shiite political and spiritual influence and the site of Iraq's main oil fields.

There are daily gunbattles between the Mahdi Army militia - loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the powerhouse Shiite political party that controls most of the bureaucracy and police forces in southern Iraq.

This month, the governors of two southern provinces loyal to the Supreme Islamic Council were killed in roadside bombings.

The clashes are expected to grow more intense as Britain draws downs its forces in southern Iraq over the coming months. The effect of the shrinking British presence is already being felt, said Cordesman in an assessment released Aug. 22.

``The end result was to turn the four provinces in southeastern Iraq over to feuding Shiite factions whose actions were mixed with corruption, extortion and links to criminal activities,'' he wrote

There is a good reason too note this. One not only because it points to increasing violence in Iraq, but because violence such as this is not counted as sectarian violence in Iraq, thus skewing those military numbers very much lower.

------------

Fudging The Numbers

One again, the Pentagon and the Administrations are fudging the numbers that go in their reports to paint a rosier picture than is deserved:

The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.....

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory....

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I'll do into the GAO (General Accountability Office) Report later. So what problems did the U.S. officers have with the GAO, the CIA and DIA's (Defense Intelligence Agency) methodology? That they didn't put up with this bullshit:

Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

You see the problem in that such a....well, retarded manner of differentiating criminal violence from sectarian violence naturally will drastically undercount the numbers dead from sectarian violence.

Remember that I asked you to keep the Shia vs. Shia violence in mind? Well here is why: [from same article]

According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

Did you get that? Shia vs. Shia (and Sunni vs. Sunni) violence is not added in the total for sectarian violence (although its supposed to because such fighting is part of a civil war), and the reason is because it's "hard to track". So they don't even mention it!! And then they can claim violence is down because they are not reporting substantial types of violence in their final tallies!

Plus they do not count the violence inflicted [on Sunni's, Shia's or anyone] by the Sunni groups who have recently decided to side with the US against al-Qaeda even though these groups are still players in the civil war, and will resume taking up arms against the US when it has weakened al-Qaeda. And these groups are part of the civil war for control of Iraq against Shias, Kurds and other Sunnis...yet their violence is not counted.

Want more? Apparently they also do not include car-bombs in the statistics of violence

The reason why will astounded me:

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

President Bush explained why in a television interview on Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population—one of the surge's main goals.

We don't count them because we will hand those bombers a victory if we do count them!? WTF!? Jeez, why should any violence in Iraq be counted if it will just give those killers a 'victory"?

Shoot, why did they claim a 75% drop in violence when they could have claimed a 100% drop in one?

Yet again, statistics are fudged and the counting of violence manipulate in a manner that seems to reduce the total numbers of violence reported. Clever...and deceptive.

Are you getting a better understanding how the military came to that "75% reduction" and why it is so at odd compared to everyone else's numbers?

-------

Other Factors of "Success" for the Surge

So clearly the military aspect of the Surge has failed which is funny because it is about the only part of the Surge that administration supporters and conservative hawks have proclaimed was a success. We know better though...

It's also funny because, at the outset, the "Surge" was supposed to achieve a more secure and peaceful environment through increased troop levels, in order to create a better environment for Iraqi politicians and groups to make political progress and gains for peace.

Has that happened: No.

So in that sense, even if it where true (and its not) that the surge has created some short term tactical progress, it is irrelevant because it has failed to bring about the political progress from Iraqi's that the Surge was supposed to help do.

In other words, a complete failure, so says the GAO report:

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker...

"While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

In other words if they did not cherry-pick positive indicators, eliminated negative-indicators from the final count. But this Admin has no compunctions with manipulating numbers to get the answers and results they want. And that's not just with Iraq.

I'll add that 3 out of 18 benchmarks is actually less than what the July Surge report showed when they showed 8 out of 18 were met. And even then (if you follow the link), I showed that even those 8 they claimed as success were not.

And what do you know: Apparently, even those 3 from the current GAO report have downsides as the GAO itself noted as well. Now that is not exactly a good assessment.

Surprisingly, most Americans are on their guard [Wash.Post/ABC News Poll] about the September Report due to be released on Tuesday September 11 (God, do those people have no shame?).

Most expect it to be manipulated and deceitful, and vast majorities say that even if the Admin reports progress, it would make no difference in making them support the war. Good.

Those Americans are basing it on a feeling (and I'm proud of them for that), but you who have read this far into this post know just how deceitful the conclusion to the September report will be.

There are tons of links there for you if you ever need a way to prove to others what a crock the report is...use them, direct them here...whatever. I'm just trying to do my part and hopefully I can help just one person do their part as well.

---------

Links I Didn't Use But For Reference

Letter to Congress demanding a sound counting of Iraq civilian casualties - From the National Security Network. A group of national security thinkers and practitioners have written a letter that expresses doubts - and reasons for them - of the new statistics.

Iraq stats 2006: The UN vs. the Iraqi Govt. - From TPMuckracker. They compile the UN's data and compare it to the Iraqi govts numbers. Not surprisingly, the Iraqi governments numbers were a lot lower.

The Middle East Update Part I: Iran

It's been awhile I know. I blame the Nintendo and the Wii and the game Metroid Prime 3 for being so damn hard to put down. lol (but I'm not kidding!!)

One of the sources I go to daily for news - Rawstory - has done a lot of its own original reporting and investigating lately regarding Iran. [And by lately, I mean over the past two weeks]

What they have turned out are a lot of rumors and pieces of investigative journalism that give us some reason to be worried about the Cheney camp in the White House getting their way (or waiting for some intel connecting Iran to Iraq attacks in order to use it as an excuse for strikes against Iran)

Rawstory

Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months -

Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.

"I've taken an informal poll inside the government," Baer told Fox. "The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." His Time column also suggested that "as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities."

Baer explained that what his sources anticipate is "not exactly a war." He said the administration is convinced "that the Iranians are interfering in Iraq and the rest of the Gulf" but that "if there is an attack on Iran it would be very quick, it would be a warning."

"We won't see American troops cross the border. ... If this is going to happen, it's going to happen very quickly and it's going to surprise a lot of people," said Baer. "I hope I'm wrong frankly, but we're going to see."

However reliable Robert Baer has been in the past, and we definitely should take his warnings serious, these are just rumors so far. I've seen plenty of similar warnings that have not panned out. But as we get closer and closer to the end of the Bush Administration the chance only increases for strikes against Iran.

This administration does truly sees Iran as a grave threat and they do not trust any future administration (Republican or Democrat) to "deal with" Iran correctly. And one doesn't have to guess that hard what "correctly" means to them!

Further, the situation is a little different today. Today they seem have stepped up their case for rationalizing strikes in Iran from "They are trying to build nuclear weapons" (which wasn't moving anyone) to "they are helping insurgents and militias kill US soldiers and interfering in Iraq" (which is more provocative, but even here I doubt most Americans will support ANY Iran strike). They still need a "trigger" though

The Bush Administration expects a quick war, to which I say: "Are you stupid?! Think this through"

Yes, your strikes will be quick but...what about Iranian retaliation? Or is the US assuming that Iran will just lay down and take it? They have agents, and reach around the world through covert actors and they can hurt US interests globally. Plus, Iran is a much bigger nation with a much more sophisticated military (that would still likely get slaughtered in a conventional fight), and it is right next door to Iraq. If you think Iran is interfering in Iraq now, imagine the carnage they can sow if they were so inclined.

Adding that, one of the main goals for the Neoconservative hawks is for a regime change in Iran and to eliminate it as a power in the middle east region. But, a strike on Iran will only galvanize the support of the Iranian public behind the ultra-conservative and deeply unpopular presidency of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (think about how the 9/11 attacks rallied the American people behind the previously unpopular Bush presidency).

Neoconservative do not seem to think beyond the actual strikes and the "message" it would send. They don't seem to ever think about what comes next: the consequences, the counter-strikes, the world reaction, how it will strengthen the grip on power in Iran of President Ahmedinejad etc...It's enough to drive you nuts!

But lets get back to that "trigger" for war that Cheney and the hawks in the Administration are desperately looking for.

In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.

According to officials – including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East – the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.

Read the whole thing. If you want to get a sense what current and former intelligence officials think about the prospects and motivations behind the Bush Administrations current Iran strategy. None seem to be of the opinion that strikes in Iran are not the ultimate goal of this administration.

I'll add, as does the article, that there is nothing tying those IED's to Iran directly. At least nothing I've seen.

------

But what would a strike against Iran look like? Would it be limited to WMD sites or to critically wounding Iran as a regional power and destabilizing the regime?

The following study seems to point to the later: [study cited by Rawstory]

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.


• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.


• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.


• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.


• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.


• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.


• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.


• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power.

What a horrible prospect. Charging headlong into war that I see escalating into an ugly mess where Iran, overwhelmed by the US's conventional forces, resorts to irregular and terrorist tactics at US interests and targets globally. Just like many of Iraq's former solders resorted to asymmetrical tactics once overwhelmed by conventional US force. We call many of those former Iraqi soldiers "insurgents" now.

Iran's reach may be more global than Iraq's though. One of the first targets will likely be oil and fuel targets.

But not only is it foolhardy, it's...immoral. Think about it: To eliminate Iran as a strategic competitor in the region it may just critically wound the Iranian regime (sowing chaos), destroy road and fuel infrastructure and much more.

The "collateral damage" may be significant although the long-term "collateral damage" may be more significant.

1) A radicalized Iranian populace that will rally to aid of the regime
2) A destroyed economy and physical infrastructure that will destroy the livelihood of all people in Iran by destroying its economy and all means for it to go on with business as usual. This will feed the chaos.

We will punish and hurt the Iranian people, you know, the very same people those cynical ass Neoconservatives claim to want to help by "liberating" them from the "tyranny of the mullahs." But your motives become a little suspect when you want to reduce the country they live in to a "weak or failed state."

In other words a state so weak that it cannot exercise any control over its territory. Dumbed down even more: A state where the government cannot police or keep order in its own country, cannot provide for its people (because it cannot). Say hello to warlords, strong-men, and violence. Then again, some of the pressure towards total chaos may be mitigated if the Iranian people rally to support their regime. In that case, its already-bad economy will still be destroyed and its peoples lives still destroyed so its still not shits and giggles.

These neocons can give a damn about the Iranian people though. They cynically use them as props and tools to put a "nice" face on their true goals: Eliminating any and all regional competition for power, even before it emerges.

Or if not cynically, than its obvious that their thirst for power is much more powerful than their desire for democracy.

-----

Here's something more recent and the source is someone in the government as opposed to a study using open-source information:

Pentagon '3 day Blits Plan' (London Times)

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

So what is it?: Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities, destroying its military as well, or complete crippling? Though, destroying its military will probably not have the desired effect (regime change) if the people rally behind the regime against US aggression.

-----

So what is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad thinking about the possibilities of a strike in Iran? Apparently he's not so worried:

TEHRAN: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed the chance of a US attack against Iran as impossible, saying that Washington already had enough trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is in no way the possibility of such an attack by the United States. Even if they take such a decision they cannot implement it," he told a news conference. "They have to solve the question of Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Politicians do not deal with imaginary things. They deal with reality and this is propaganda. This (an attack) is not on the agenda of US officials and it cannot be," he said.

You know, he makes a point that I'm sure plenty of us have made in the past. The US is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, and also still contends with Afghanistan; how could it possibly think to get itself into more dookie (to use the technical term).

But, with this President...you just cannot assume that this logic will work. Prior to war with Iraq, I could not imagine how an invasion made sense because it just didn't make sense: The case for WMD's seemed weak (to those who paid attention), Iraq was successfully contained and was no longer a threat to his neighbors...why would he invade and get himself into a situation where there would be violence and resistance to our presence we thought.

All I have to say to Ahmedinejad: Don't let your logic, however sound it may be in most situations, lead you to discount out of hand the possibility of this President ordering strikes in your county. He's a president with nothing to lose (he's already failed in Iraq), everything to gain from "success," and a president who has less than two year left in office and so won't put up with the consequences of his actions for very long.

Who knows whether Bush will go all the way but I know one thing:

Don't underestimate his propensity for stupid...and I mean that in all seriousness.