No end in sight

From the Houston Chronicle editorial board:

But the fact remains, like the proverbial elephant in the living room, that American troops are overextended and have been for several years, with no relief in sight, and are paying an extreme penalty. This administration offers no solutions and will leave it to the next to try to sort it all out.

The figures from 2007 do little to illuminate the personal tragedies they enumerate: 115 confirmed suicides, nearly 13 percent more than in 2006; 901 military deaths, up 10 percent from 2006; 4,500 or so new post-traumatic stress disorder cases, up about 46 percent over 2006. Since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, 4,087 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and more than 30,000 wounded, and more that 500 killed in Afghanistan.

The much-vaunted decline in U.S. deaths in Iraq last month, at 19 the lowest since the invasion began in 2003, is an unreliable milestone. Previous drops have been followed by increases. Just last Sunday the Iraqi government, under pressure from Shiites, including the forces of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, threatened to reject American demands in the negotiation of a long-term security pact that would determine how long American forces stay in Iraq.

Click here for the rest.

Right. The drop in troop deaths had everything to do with the temporary "surge" and nothing to do with the creation of a viable political and civic infrastructure necessary to provide the national stability that US establishment figures name as the standard for our withdrawal. That is, the "surge" was always intended to be an exercise in smoke and mirrors, keeping the war going until Bush can get the hell out of Dodge; it was never supposed to be a solution, primarily because there is no solution. Furthermore, these US establishment figures who insist that only American troops can create Iraqi stability don't really want us to withdraw, even if the stability standard is achieved: McCain wants us to be there one hundred years or more; Obama wants to keep at least 50,000 troops in Mesopotamia indefinitely. Yeah, that's right. Indefinitely. So much for the anti-war candidate.

If we ever do end up pulling out, I'm not sure how bad it will get. I'm not sure if sectarian violence will get worse or better. But I'm certain that the US presence there is the one thing keeping stability from happening. As long as the Iraqi government is seen as a puppet of the United States, it has zero credibility among Iraqis--it is a cauldron of corruption, to be used only as a source for crooked money, and as a tool for sectarian and personal vendettas. Iraq cannot become a viable and stable nation state as long as American troops are there. We fucked it all up, but only they can put it back together. Our "help" is nothing but hindrance.

Unfortunately, the US political establishment wants us there forever. More disastrous "help" is on the way, no matter which party wins in November.

Vote Nader.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$