[Robert J. Clawson]

John McCain has simplified the American War Against Iraq by telling Americans at his rallies, "We're winning." Of course, my question is, "Winning what?"

I've always found it difficult to determine the actual enemy in this war. Lewis Lapham once asked General Zinni who the enemy was and Zinni fritzed.

At any rate, we now have claims not only that THE SURGE WORKED and WE'RE WINNING, and not much of the mainstream press appears to be interested, apparently too absorbed in McCain's lightning rod, Sarah Palin.

Here's an article on what's actually happening in Iraq, especially regarding our increasing military pressure there.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174973/michael_schwartz_is_american_success_a_fa ilure_in_iraq_

Here's a sample, an on-ramp:

"As for "success" in Iraq, which we've been hearing quite a lot about lately in the U.S., here's one way to measure the administration's trust in its own "success": The Pentagon, we now learn, has just "recommended" to President Bush that there should be no further troop drawdowns in Iraq until a new president enters office in January 2009 -- and even then, possibly in February, that no more than 7,500 Americans should be withdrawn, and only if "conditions" permit. So the administration's "success" in Iraq could, in terms of troop levels, be measured this way: The U.S. invaded and occupied that country in the spring of 2003 with approximately 130,000 troops. According to Thomas Ricks in his bestselling book Fiasco, by that fall, its top officials fully expected to have only about 30,000 troops still in the country, stationed at newly built American bases largely outside major urban areas.

In January 2007, when the President's desperate "surge" strategy was launched, there were still approximately 130,000 U.S. troops in the country, and, of course, tens of thousands of hired guns from firms like Blackwater Worldwide. Today, there are approximately 146,000 troops in Iraq (and the U.S. is spending more money on armed "private security contractors" than ever before). By next February, according to Pentagon plans, there would still be about 139,000 troops in Iraq, 9,000 more than in April 2003, as well as more than early in Bush's second term, as Juan Cole pointed out recently -- and that's if everything goes reasonably well, which, under the circumstances, is a big "if" indeed.

As Michael Schwartz indicates below, for all the talk over the years about "tipping points" reached and "corners" turned, it's just possible that -- while the Bush administration and the McCain campaign are pounding the drums of "success" -- the U.S. might be heading for an unexpected and resounding defeat."

In that we're paying for this war (thanks to the Chinese), my attitude is simple: please define winning. I'm willing to listen to anything.

Bob

[Anne Bryant-Hamon]

I'm pretty sure that what "winning" means to these guys is when we have full control of the Oil in Iraq and a puppet government that will do our bidding.

McCain says we might be there for 100 years. I doubt we have 100 years left to inhabit the earth under a McCain administration considering that he sees no need to do anything about the issue of climate change.

[Stephen Collington]

It's a little long, but

THIS ARTICLE

by Nir Rosen is the best report I've seen on the subject. Having appeared in March's Rolling Stone, it may not make too much of a dint in the faith of True Believers ("But things have changed!" the McCaingaroos will cry . . . and the wise owls at FREE REPUBLIC responded with comments like, "I had no idea that Hippie rag was still around!" No kidding? Get out much?). Anyway, for anyone whose mind is not closed like a clam, some very thought-provoking reading.

Following Bob's lead, here's a teaser:

Now, in the midst of the surge, the Bush administration has done an about-face. Having lost the civil war, many Sunnis were suddenly desperate to switch sides — and Gen. David Petraeus was eager to oblige. The U.S. has not only added 30,000 more troops in Iraq — it has essentially bribed the opposition, arming the very Sunni militants who only months ago were waging deadly assaults on American forces. To engineer a fragile peace, the U.S. military has created and backed dozens of new Sunni militias, which now operate beyond the control of Iraq's central government. The Americans call the units by a variety of euphemisms: Iraqi Security Volunteers (ISVs), neighborhood watch groups, Concerned Local Citizens, Critical Infrastructure Security. The militias prefer a simpler and more dramatic name: They call themselves Sahwa, or "the Awakening."

At least 80,000 men across Iraq are now employed by the Americans as ISVs. . . .

But loyalty that can be purchased is by its very nature fickle. Only months ago, members of the Awakening were planting IEDs and ambushing U.S. soldiers. They were snipers and assassins, singing songs in honor of Fallujah and fighting what they viewed as a war of national liberation against the foreign occupiers. These are men the Americans described as terrorists, Saddam loyalists, dead-enders, evildoers, Baathists, insurgents. There is little doubt what will happen when the massive influx of American money stops: Unless the new Iraqi state continues to operate as a vast bribing machine, the insurgent Sunnis who have joined the new militias will likely revert to fighting the ruling Shiites, who still refuse to share power.

And just a little reminder to anyone who's forgotten. John McCain has tried to sell this "the surge is working" crap before. In April of last year, just as the "surge" was getting underway, he took a walkabout with fellow Rebublicans in downtown Baghdad:

"Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today," Mr. McCain puffed after his brief walking tour of the Shorja market. He remarked that he had left his helmet in his escort Humvee and felt utterly safe in the marketplace. Wearing a flak jacket, he neglected to mention that the pedestrian mall was patrolled by 100 heavily armed American soldiers and watched over by attack helicopters and snipers.

My favourite line, though, came from Indiana Rep. Mike Pence "who marveled at the peaceful scene and compared it to a 'normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.'" Corn on the cob, anyone?

Read the full article HERE .

[Robert Meyer]

Bob C:
John McCain has simplified the American War Against Iraq by telling Americans at his rallies, "We're winning." Of course, my question is, "Winning what?"

About the "We're winning" statement, the question is not to define "winning" but to define "we" - i.e., we=America or we=contractors.

Robert Meyer