Two years ago the Bush administration choose to increase the number of combat and noncombat troops in Iraq in a so called "surge." The administration was adamant that this was a temporary surge and vehemently denied that it was an escalation. For all the talk about drawing down in Iraq, Obama still hasn't reduced the number of troops below presurge levels. We still have more troops in Iraq than we did in 2006. Does that sound like a withdrawal?
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq war. Show all posts
April 6, 2009
March 31, 2008
There's Something about Basra
The firefight in Basra, which thankfully seems to be over, has the US in a state of confusion. For once, the government and the mainstream US media are providing conflicting narratives about how and why this episode in Basra occurred. Even the outcome is disputed with some sources including the administration claiming that the operation indicates progress for the central government in Iraq while other saying that this a clear victory for the Sadrists or even Iran.
I've been especially curious to note that US sources have begun to abandon the practice of using Sunni-Shia sectarian tension as a causative factor. A whole new narrative or series of competing narratives will soon be emerging.
A narrative is a story line told to puts events in context. For example, a suicide bombing does not occur in a vacuum. If the military or a news organization simply reported a suicide bombing in Baghdad today without providing context, that would do little more than confuse Americans since they are almost completely ignorant of the region and it's history. They wouldn't know their Basra from their Samarra if their lives depended on it (in fact, a lot of lives end up depending on it). So, it becomes incumbent on the sources of information to explain how that hypothetical suicide bomber is either a brainwashed foreign fighter trying to destroy freedom or an extremist Sunni expressing an ages old tribal grudge or whatever. A lot of opinion can go into the construction of a narrative.
The narratives of the Iraq War have, up until now, been relatively consistent across US sources even as they've been consistently changing over time. There have been what I would call phase shifts in coverage as the US military, the US government and the US media all move from one narrative to another. This behavior becomes quite clear when one takes the time to looking back over the history of Iraq coverage.
Remember when the insurgency was originally described as being comprised of ex-members of Saddam's Ba'ath party, so called dead enders? That was in the beginning of the war. Back then the idea of a Ba'ath party insurgency was appealing to the Bush administration because it implied certain things that the administration naively believed to be true (with the press following closely behind). There were voices in the US media and elsewhere that disagreed with this narrative but for the most part it dominated the war coverage in those days. According to this view, the insurgency was the tail end of the initial invasion and destined to deteriorate over time. The correct course of action to end an insurgency of this type would be to root out the holdouts of the Ba'ath party with continued military actions and to dissolve any remnants of the old power structure such as the Iraqi army and civil service. These actions turned out to be big mistakes.
This story of the Ba'ath insurgency was pushed aside fairly quickly since the insurgency grew over time even as more and more former Ba'ath party members were killed and captured. We entered phase two as a new narrative emerged. This time the insurgency was comprised mainly of foreign fighters and Al Qaida. For many years, the insurgency was framed as a conflict between US forces and terrorists from Muslim countries around Iraq. Iraqis did not really factor in anywhere except as innocent bystanders who needed the protection of the US military. This concept dovetailed very well with the desire to see the war in Iraq as a front in the war on terrorism.
From there, we move on to phase three as the narrative turned into one of a "Sunni Insurgency" (the name Fallujah ring a bell?) and then at phase four we end up with the current concept of a Sunni-Shia civil war. Now, in the wake of the latest outbreak of intra-Shia violence, this narrative will most likely be abandoned.
While it's my view that this progression in narrative is more a function of the way that the violence in Iraq is described, others have seen it as fundamental to the situation itself. This attitude has a long history that should be recognized by the mere mention of the mysterious and inscrutable East (or in this case Middle East). Along these lines, US citizens should be familiar with the idea of an "ever-mutating Iraq insurgency."
I, myself, am curious to see where the US discussion of Iraq goes from here. The press doesn't seem to be as willing to take cues from the administration anymore. We may begin to see multiple voices with multiple narratives in the mainstream.
I want to wrap up this post by saying that even though I disagree with the American narratives of the Iraq War thus far I do recognize a kernel of truth in them. The issues with former Ba'ath party members, Al-Qaida, and the Sunni-Shia unrest are all real phenomena. They were not invented by the administration or the media. The problem that I have with these narratives is that they minimize the presence of US troops as a factor in the violence and they marginalize the opinions that have been expressed by the Iraqis themselves. That will have to be the subject of a later post.
I've been especially curious to note that US sources have begun to abandon the practice of using Sunni-Shia sectarian tension as a causative factor. A whole new narrative or series of competing narratives will soon be emerging.
A narrative is a story line told to puts events in context. For example, a suicide bombing does not occur in a vacuum. If the military or a news organization simply reported a suicide bombing in Baghdad today without providing context, that would do little more than confuse Americans since they are almost completely ignorant of the region and it's history. They wouldn't know their Basra from their Samarra if their lives depended on it (in fact, a lot of lives end up depending on it). So, it becomes incumbent on the sources of information to explain how that hypothetical suicide bomber is either a brainwashed foreign fighter trying to destroy freedom or an extremist Sunni expressing an ages old tribal grudge or whatever. A lot of opinion can go into the construction of a narrative.
The narratives of the Iraq War have, up until now, been relatively consistent across US sources even as they've been consistently changing over time. There have been what I would call phase shifts in coverage as the US military, the US government and the US media all move from one narrative to another. This behavior becomes quite clear when one takes the time to looking back over the history of Iraq coverage.
Remember when the insurgency was originally described as being comprised of ex-members of Saddam's Ba'ath party, so called dead enders? That was in the beginning of the war. Back then the idea of a Ba'ath party insurgency was appealing to the Bush administration because it implied certain things that the administration naively believed to be true (with the press following closely behind). There were voices in the US media and elsewhere that disagreed with this narrative but for the most part it dominated the war coverage in those days. According to this view, the insurgency was the tail end of the initial invasion and destined to deteriorate over time. The correct course of action to end an insurgency of this type would be to root out the holdouts of the Ba'ath party with continued military actions and to dissolve any remnants of the old power structure such as the Iraqi army and civil service. These actions turned out to be big mistakes.
This story of the Ba'ath insurgency was pushed aside fairly quickly since the insurgency grew over time even as more and more former Ba'ath party members were killed and captured. We entered phase two as a new narrative emerged. This time the insurgency was comprised mainly of foreign fighters and Al Qaida. For many years, the insurgency was framed as a conflict between US forces and terrorists from Muslim countries around Iraq. Iraqis did not really factor in anywhere except as innocent bystanders who needed the protection of the US military. This concept dovetailed very well with the desire to see the war in Iraq as a front in the war on terrorism.From there, we move on to phase three as the narrative turned into one of a "Sunni Insurgency" (the name Fallujah ring a bell?) and then at phase four we end up with the current concept of a Sunni-Shia civil war. Now, in the wake of the latest outbreak of intra-Shia violence, this narrative will most likely be abandoned.
While it's my view that this progression in narrative is more a function of the way that the violence in Iraq is described, others have seen it as fundamental to the situation itself. This attitude has a long history that should be recognized by the mere mention of the mysterious and inscrutable East (or in this case Middle East). Along these lines, US citizens should be familiar with the idea of an "ever-mutating Iraq insurgency."
I, myself, am curious to see where the US discussion of Iraq goes from here. The press doesn't seem to be as willing to take cues from the administration anymore. We may begin to see multiple voices with multiple narratives in the mainstream.I want to wrap up this post by saying that even though I disagree with the American narratives of the Iraq War thus far I do recognize a kernel of truth in them. The issues with former Ba'ath party members, Al-Qaida, and the Sunni-Shia unrest are all real phenomena. They were not invented by the administration or the media. The problem that I have with these narratives is that they minimize the presence of US troops as a factor in the violence and they marginalize the opinions that have been expressed by the Iraqis themselves. That will have to be the subject of a later post.
March 16, 2008
Iraq War 5th Anniversary
To commemorate the up coming 5th anniversary of the Iraq war, I'm posting a video from one of the most cogent Iraqi speakers that I've come across, Raed Jaffar. Raed is probably most famous for an incident in which JFK airport security forced him to remove a shirt with Arabic writing on it before boarding an airplane. The shirt ironically read "We will not be silenced" in Arabic and English.
If you're a US citizen, you owe it to yourself to listen to what at least one Iraqi has to say about the war. The video's 50 minutes long but it's well worth it.
I would also like to draw people's attention to the Winter Soldier event held by Iraq Veterans Against the War. It just wrapped up today and features the testimony of veterans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are voices that are rarely heard in the mainstream media. Everyone owes it to themselves to hear at least one of these soldiers talk about their experiences.
Logan Laituri
Jon Turner
Jason Lemieux
Also, most cities will have a protest or demonstration of some kind on Thursday, the 20th. If you want to make your opinion known and join with a lot of other people who feel the same way, it should be easy to find when and where a local demonstration will be.
UPDATE:
The Real News has the best coverage of Winter Soldier that I can find.
If you're a US citizen, you owe it to yourself to listen to what at least one Iraqi has to say about the war. The video's 50 minutes long but it's well worth it.
I would also like to draw people's attention to the Winter Soldier event held by Iraq Veterans Against the War. It just wrapped up today and features the testimony of veterans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are voices that are rarely heard in the mainstream media. Everyone owes it to themselves to hear at least one of these soldiers talk about their experiences.
Logan Laituri
Jon Turner
Jason Lemieux
Also, most cities will have a protest or demonstration of some kind on Thursday, the 20th. If you want to make your opinion known and join with a lot of other people who feel the same way, it should be easy to find when and where a local demonstration will be.
UPDATE:
The Real News has the best coverage of Winter Soldier that I can find.
March 14, 2008
Military Intelligence Quote of the Day
I really didn't want to approach the topic from a partisan angle except to the extent that the administration [which was republican] fostered an environment where politics is what drives intelligence rather than intelligence driving policy so people [in the intelligence community] of all political persuasions from left to right recognized that and understood it...We would hear all the time, "this is not in line with administration projections." Well, we're supposed to be creating administration projections with our analysis. We'd hear, "that's too pessimistic."
These quotes are from an interview by Glen Greenwald concerning Rossmiller's book: "Still Broken: A Recruit's Inside Account of Intelligence Failures, from Baghdad to the Pentagon." This is a guy who spend a couple years in Washington and a couple years in Iraq collecting and analyzing military intelligence. The main point of the book is summarized by Rossmiller in this quote from the interview:
"The problems that led to the Iraq weapon's of mass destruction debacle not only aren't improved or fixed but are in fact becoming institutionalized."
- A.J Rossmiller (Former DIA intelligence officer)
These quotes are from an interview by Glen Greenwald concerning Rossmiller's book: "Still Broken: A Recruit's Inside Account of Intelligence Failures, from Baghdad to the Pentagon." This is a guy who spend a couple years in Washington and a couple years in Iraq collecting and analyzing military intelligence. The main point of the book is summarized by Rossmiller in this quote from the interview:
"The problems that led to the Iraq weapon's of mass destruction debacle not only aren't improved or fixed but are in fact becoming institutionalized."
November 7, 2007
Come on People Now
A lot of people these days are wondering why there aren't any anti-war protests but I'm wondering why the anti-war protests aren't being covered. Take last week for example. Thousands of people around the US gathered together to protest the continuing occupation of Iraq. A local activist group that I'm a part of even organized buses to get people to Chicago to join in the marches there.
Unfortunately, I was in NYC attending a class all day so I couldn't go. On Sunday, I looked in vain to the NY Times for coverage of the marches. Yesterday, I heard the only real news coverage of this event on Bill Moyers.
Be sure not to miss the headline from the the NY Times' James Reston in the middle of the clip. "Everyone is a Loser." Reminds me of a shirt my friend used to wear in high school that said "Everything Sucks".
Unfortunately, I was in NYC attending a class all day so I couldn't go. On Sunday, I looked in vain to the NY Times for coverage of the marches. Yesterday, I heard the only real news coverage of this event on Bill Moyers.
Be sure not to miss the headline from the the NY Times' James Reston in the middle of the clip. "Everyone is a Loser." Reminds me of a shirt my friend used to wear in high school that said "Everything Sucks".
July 20, 2007
What is Progress?
Denmark is planning on withdrawing all 480 of it's combat troops from Iraq in about a month. A few days ago, in preparation, they secretly evacuated the 200 or so Iraqis (and their families) that have been aiding the Danish military.
The removal of these citizens for their protection should make it pretty hard for the Bush administration to spin this move as a sign of further improvement in Iraq but I'm sure that's what he'll do if anyone dares to bring up the subject in his presence. Also, it makes clear how the one time "coalition of the willing" has evaporated with former significant members such as Spain, Italy, the Ukraine, and the Netherlands having already withdrawn completely. For those of you who are counting, that leaves just four countries with combat troops in Iraq (the US, the UK, Poland and Austrialia).
"We had the new reports from our intelligence that stated that these people would be executed and liquidated after the Danish troops had departed, and that was of course a threat that we could not live with, so we had to change our position,'' said Soeren Espersen, the party's foreign policy spokesman. '' That's a quote from the Guardian's article.
The removal of these citizens for their protection should make it pretty hard for the Bush administration to spin this move as a sign of further improvement in Iraq but I'm sure that's what he'll do if anyone dares to bring up the subject in his presence. Also, it makes clear how the one time "coalition of the willing" has evaporated with former significant members such as Spain, Italy, the Ukraine, and the Netherlands having already withdrawn completely. For those of you who are counting, that leaves just four countries with combat troops in Iraq (the US, the UK, Poland and Austrialia).
"We had the new reports from our intelligence that stated that these people would be executed and liquidated after the Danish troops had departed, and that was of course a threat that we could not live with, so we had to change our position,'' said Soeren Espersen, the party's foreign policy spokesman. '' That's a quote from the Guardian's article.
June 28, 2007
A Bargain's a Bargain
Talk of benchmarks for the Iraqi government by US politicians or the media is often accompanied by the curious phrase that Iraqis must "hold up their end of the bargain." Every time I hear this phrase I want to smack someone. These kind of statements are the moral equivalent of saying a woman deserves to be raped because she is attractive. There was never any dialog or bargain between the US government and the Iraqi people. Are the people who talk about sharing responsibility for the state of Iraq imagining this conversation:
(The Scene: Late 2002, Halls of Justice)
All Iraqis: Excuse me sir, but you've got to help us.
US Government: Whatever do you mean?
All Iraqis: Our country is magically controlled by a brutal dictator that not a single one of us supports. We're desperate to remove him but too lazy to do it ourselves. If only the magic spell could be broken by simply removing this one person.
US Government: Sounds bad but what are we supposed to do about.
All Iraqis: Invade our country at once. It's the only way.
US Government: I don't know. The whole thing sounds dubious and could be pretty risky for us. For one thing, invading your country will hurt our standing with the rest of the world. It will hurt us financially and militarily. I mean, think about it. Unilateral aggression against a sovereign country that is no threat to us goes against everything we stand for. Not to mention its blatant illegality and...
All Iraqis: We don't care. We demand that you do this. In exchange, we'll meet any demands you might have of us. I think that would be a fair bargain.
US Government: Fine. We'll do it but you'll have to meet a number of arbitrary benchmarks that we will set in the future otherwise the deal's off. It's the least you can do.
All Iraqis: We agree and we thank you. You'll be greeted as liberators for the decade or more that we demand you stay.
(The Scene: Late 2002, Halls of Justice)
All Iraqis: Excuse me sir, but you've got to help us.
US Government: Whatever do you mean?
All Iraqis: Our country is magically controlled by a brutal dictator that not a single one of us supports. We're desperate to remove him but too lazy to do it ourselves. If only the magic spell could be broken by simply removing this one person.
US Government: Sounds bad but what are we supposed to do about.
All Iraqis: Invade our country at once. It's the only way.
US Government: I don't know. The whole thing sounds dubious and could be pretty risky for us. For one thing, invading your country will hurt our standing with the rest of the world. It will hurt us financially and militarily. I mean, think about it. Unilateral aggression against a sovereign country that is no threat to us goes against everything we stand for. Not to mention its blatant illegality and...
All Iraqis: We don't care. We demand that you do this. In exchange, we'll meet any demands you might have of us. I think that would be a fair bargain.
US Government: Fine. We'll do it but you'll have to meet a number of arbitrary benchmarks that we will set in the future otherwise the deal's off. It's the least you can do.
All Iraqis: We agree and we thank you. You'll be greeted as liberators for the decade or more that we demand you stay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)