With Gen. David Petraeus back in the media spotlight after being tapped to take control of the Afghanistan war following General Stanley McChrystal’s fall from grace, the corporate media are trumpeting the “successful” surge in Iraq (Extra, 9/10/08) that Petraeus oversaw and are looking to him as the man to turn around the Afghan war.
Columnist David Ignatius (Washington Post, 6/24/10) writes:
Gen. David Petraeus didn’t sign on as the new Afghanistan commander because he expects to lose.
That’s the boldest aspect of President Obama’s decision: He has put a troubled Afghanistan campaign in the hands of a man who bent what looked like failure in Iraq toward an acceptable measure of success. Obama has doubled down on his bet, much as George W. Bush did with his risky surge of troops in Iraq under Petraeus’ command.
Similarly, NBC (6/23/10) reports that the White House and the Pentagon are “hoping that by enacting this stunning change in leadership, by putting somebody like General Petraeus in charge, the one who engineered that successful surge operation in Iraq, that it could buy them some badly needed time.”
But as Middle East expert Juan Cole (6/24/10) notes, Iraq is hardly a success story. Over three months after Iraqi elections, their parliament remains deadlocked (Reuters, 6/24/10). Violence is a daily reality (New York Times, 6/24/10), and protests have broken out denouncing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for failing to deliver on basic services like working electricity (Reuters, 6/21/10).
Cole writes that, while there has been a decrease in violence compared to the height of the Sunni/Shiite civil war in Iraq, the surge was not the main reason for the decline in fighting:
The main reason for decrease in the virulence of the civil war (it is not over) was that the Shiites succeeded in ethnically cleansing the Sunnis from Baghdad. Based on U.S. military and NGO statistics, on patterns of ambient light from West Baghdad visible by satellite, on the on-the-ground investigations of journalists like AP‘s Hamza Hendawi, and on subsequent voting patterns, I don’t think Baghdad is now more than 10–15 percent Sunni, whereas it was probably about half and half Sunni and Shiite at the time of Bush’s invasion in 2003.
Also missing from the “surge turned around the Iraq War” trope is any discussion of firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s role in the reduction of violence. While acknowledging that extra U.S. troops did play a role in the reduction of violence, a February 2008 International Crisis Group study states that “the dramatic decline in bloodshed in Iraq…is largely due to Muqtada al-Sadr’s August 2007 unilateral ceasefire.”
And as Cole notes, Iraq is not Afghanistan:
The Shiite victory in the Civil War was thus absolutely crucial as an Iraqi social-history background for what success Petraeus’ policies had.
No such major social-historical change has occurred in Afghanistan or is likely to. The Taliban and other insurgents primarily spring from the Pashtun ethnic group that predominates in the east and southwest of the country. Pashtuns probably make up about 42 percent of Afghanistan’s some 34 million people. Pashtun clans provided the top political leadership to Afghanistan from the 18th century, through the Durrani monarchy, and they look down on the northern Tajik and Hazarah ethnic groups (who speak dialects of Persian). Although probably only 20–30 percent of Afghan Pashtuns view the Taliban favorably, more may admire the Taliban as a group that stands up for Afghanistan’s independence from the Western nations now occupying it.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are complex and multifaceted. But don’t expect corporate media to throw nuance into the debate; instead, look forward to more pronouncements like this one from David Gergen, a CNN political analyst (6/23/10): “[President Obama]…put in place the best general we have right now and a man who turned around the war in Iraq and possibly can turn around this war in Afghanistan, who can take over without losing momentum.”
Aspects of the wars may be “complex and multifacted”, but, stating what should be the literally bleeding obvious, that description doesn’t apply to the black heart of the matter, does it?
Every piece on them should include the words “empire” and “imperial”, shouldn’t they? That’s what this is all about, and has been for centuries – from “the halls of Montezuma” to the sands of Kandahar.
And it’s a wonderment to me why that gets lost so often in the “progressive media”.
Why is that, do you think?
The reselling of the â┚¬Ã…“Surgeâ┚¬Ã‚ was a primary point/focus in my latest blog post (yesterday): â┚¬Ã…“General Petraeus (Compliments of the Press).â┚¬Ã‚Â
â┚¬Ã…“Next, a key phrase is implemented: â┚¬Ã‹Å“architect of the Iraq war turnaround.’ Intended conscious and/or subconscious embedment: Petraeus did not just lead in the Iraq War (â┚¬Ã‹Å“mushroom clouds,’ â┚¬Ã‹Å“WMD,’ â┚¬Ã‹Å“Niger yellow-cake’), he also Turned It Around! What, mainly, is then [re]sold (ad nauseam since 2007) by such an unbiased statement? : â┚¬Ã‹Å“The surge worked!’ Further on in the â┚¬Ã‹Å“report,’ we are reminded, again, of the surge’s success (â┚¬Ã‹Å“turned around’), which also helped to create our â┚¬Ã‹Å“best-known military man’ (who can now save Afghanistan!).â┚¬Ã‚Â
Doug’s comments are well taken. However, our culture has as a core foundational myth that America, unlike previous empires, is altruistic. I’ve shared this myth for much of my adulthood. Maybe there is some truth to this in so far as America as a nation will probably never profit from these expensive misadventures – the profiteers are the usual suspects, warmongering companies like Halliburton, and officers who will be promoted in a bloated military. But I’ve come to realize that even an altruistic empire is still an empire and still operates via violent means, both military and, more subtly, economic means. The Christian majority in America would do well to read John Dominic Crossan’s God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now.
I thought it Was INERTIA!
Responding to John Nagle’s comment: yes, there is a streak of altruism in our culture, but the government’s actions in imperialism and war mongering has nothing to do with altruism except to play on the heart strings of American people, and the altruism of our people is fairly superficial.
“bent what looked like failure in Iraq toward an acceptable measure of success”
“Bent toward” an “acceptable measure?”
Now, that’s what I call a real stretch to find something positive to say.
What the HELL is “successful” about “our”/US involvement in Iraq???…successful destruction and slaughter, yes, in spades.
This constant delusional twisting and lying by the establishment – “our” government (hah!), corporate, financial sector and big media is truely the sign of a Failed State, with a general public that accepts so much of it is the clincher.
Unless more of the public can educate itself to the extent that we join the world’s people, not only we fall as “super power” imperialists, but as as society as well. the decline is well underway.
~John L.
The right-wing in this country was pushed to delusions of American grandeur. When the surge needed to be sold, all they needed to hear was enough government officials saying it worked. What worked? Oil was opened up to the market (unlike under Saddam’s government). We had a hand in writing the constitution, imposing permanent rule by what the government will call “Islam.” We have a city-within-a-city in Baghdad.
Domination by the outside is what the standard seems to be. It takes real corruption for that to be spun as an enlightened goal.
Funny how when it happens to Western companies (like BP) its a “shakedown.” When it happens to them its “bringing democracy” and “fighting the good fight.”
Wow,anytime I find the liberal viewpoints and Obamas presidency to be incomprehensible i simply read these blogs.Hate and blame America first ,always seems to be their guiding light.The thing that puts a smile on their pursed little faces.(Hence Obamas Im sorry for America tours.)Ok we get it -America sucks.Tell me again though….Why did we hire a guy to run the place he hates?Oh that right..To essentially change America.
Imperialism is a worldwide phenomenon in which the US ruling circles have become the dominant group, particularly since the end of WW2 and the decline of the Brits. It is the parasitic stage of capitalism (in that productive forces have gone wild and don’t serve human needs so much as financial ones) and monopoly finance capital basically calls the shots.
This has nothing at all to do with altruistic motives that exist in particular individuals. A great success of the US imperialists (top bankers, industrialists and military, Republicrat leadership, media masters, imperialist-minded scholars etc.) is to have convinced ordinary Americans that to be against imperial policy is to be against “America” and that US acts of war and rapine around the world are altruistic. Of course, media and the educational system work overtime to keep up these myths. That’s why FAIR is important to support – it is a counter to all this propaganda.
Meanwhile the need for capitalism – parasitically sucking on the people of the world – to continue to grow or die has brought us to this state: war is permanent, the “planet of slums” (Mike Davis’ highly descriptive and expressive term) is expanding into the US, and the earth is being despoiled. In this situation, it seems the real patriots are those who dare to call out imperialism for what it is.
Well, michael e, like most ignorant reactrionaries, you equate criticism with hatred. While you may not mind, or even enjoy, the illegal wars that have bankrupted our nation and caused the deaths and serious injuries of over 100,000 American servicemen and women (your fellow Americans), good and loyal citizens such as myself and the other posters (“liberals”) whom you despise and misjudge (all your betters) don’t see any need for the mayhem and murder and criminality that your sociopathic needs require. So Obama
occasionally points out that the good old USA screws the pooch every once in a while? For the most part he’s continued the criminal activities (the wars, wiretapping, illegal searches, denial of habeas corpus, holding indefinitely people who aren’t even accused of as crime, etc.) started by the Bush Administration. Don’t worry, son: Obama is absolutely continuing the horrors that you think make a nation big and strong
and never wrong. Grow up, do a little reading outside the Bible, and become a real citizen, like us liberals, instead of the goose-steppin’ punk and authoritarian you are. Good luck, because you’re going to need it, numbnuts. Semper Fi!
Well TimN, please tell me how you still show your pride of being a Marine but at the same time despise war and basically the U.S. military? How the hell did you ever become a Marine?