As the count of Iraq fatalities reached 4000 this past weekend, President Bush made a brief statement at the end of his visit to the State Department about those who paid the ultimate price:

…one day people will look back at this moment in history and say, thank God there were courageous people willing to serve, because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come; that I have vowed in the past, and I will vow so long as I’m President, to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain, that, in fact, there is a outcome that will merit the sacrifice that civilian and military alike have made; that our strategy going forward will be aimed at making sure that we achieve victory and, therefore, America becomes more secure and these young democracies survive, and peace more likely as we head into the 21st century. [emphasis added]

As I have heard and read this statement a few times, I can’t help but think about a wedding. This summer, down at the Crawford ranch, President Bush and his wife will have the joy of seeing one of their daughters married in what I assume will be a lovely ceremony. They will look forward to family gatherings, future grandchildren and the continuation of their family’s linkage to power. And as I think about this wedding and the joyous times that will follow, I can’t help but wonder about all of the parents who will never get to see their sons or daughters married, who will not have grandchildren to look forward to. I think of the husbands and wives who now would be in the most active times of their lives, instead looking at taking care of their spouse who has suffered from serious injuries in Iraq — often major head and/or brain injuries — for the decades to come. And as I think of these people, and that wedding, I can only ask the President, “What makes you think that you are the one to judge what ‘merits the sacrifice’ that these people have made?”

Read the rest of this entry »

CNN just reported that in the supplemental spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, there is $88 million for a “Bunker Buster” Bomb.  While nobody is talking publicly, CNN’s Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, says that officials are telling her that this could be used to attack targets in Iran if it events ever came to that point.  Congressional Quarterly has some more details as to why this type of bomb, designed for the stealth B-52 bomber, has worried Democrats about its potantial implications when it comes to conflict with Iran.

And Bush has said that he has no intention of attacking Iran?  The Democrats have got to stop this one.

This chart from The Washington Post illustrates both how much this thing has cost the U.S. taxpayer directly, and how it stacks up to past conflicts:

Actually, considering reimbursements from other countries, the first Gulf War probably didn’t even cost that much to the U.S. But when you do add the cost of supporting the Iraqi economy for who knows how long, plus the cost of caring for all the veterans who were injured, some severely in the war, plus the fact that unfortunately this isn’t going away and there will be several more of these “emergency” supplemental spending bills — The costs of this Iraq War in economic terms is going to get muchmuch worse — not to mention costs in many other areas.

The Fact Sheet that the Bush White House disseminated regarding their $45.9 billion additional request to their original $150.5 billion Iraq War Budget is fascinating in its rhetoric.  First, there is no surprise that the funds are not for the War in Iraq or for Afghanistan, but rather for The Global War on Terror (GWOT).  But then helpfully explains just how this extra money will be used:

The request ensures that U.S. military forces will remain protected, well-equipped, and ready for future operations; supports ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; provides care for Wounded Warriors and their families; supports diplomacy and development in Iraq and Afghanistan; and provides economic, security, and humanitarian assistance for urgent needs around the world.

Sounds pretty good, eh? This is all about protection for our troops, helping the wounded soldiers and their families, moving forward with diplomacy, and of course the all important humanitarian assistance around the world.  In only one small part is it mentioned that funds support “… ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  As can be seen below, the lion’s share of the request goes to the Department of Defense:

Since the State Department is primarily concerned with diplomacy, as well as economic and humanitarian assistance, you can see that these concerns make up a total of $6.9 billion of the $196.4 billion request, meaning that these priorities make up, at most 3.5% of the War Funding.  And yet we keep hearing that the solution to stability in Iraq is a political solution, not a military solution.

Of that diplomacy money, $561 million goes to “address the additional extraordinary security and operating costs associated with supporting U.S. diplomatic and reconstruction activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  This means that most of these funds are going into the Green Zone and to Blackwater security personnel guarding diplomats and dignitaries (or to whatever other private company gets those contracts).

Why should Congress pass this funding? 

Congress should listen to the recommendations of our military commanders and fully fund our troops.  Today’s request is based upon the findings of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  In September, they reported that conditions on the ground in Iraq had improved, but more funding was needed to continue this progress. 

That’s right — because General Petraeus said so.  And if the surge is going to continue working more funds are needed.  What isn’t stated but understood, is that if the Pentagon doesn’t get its full request, and things get bad in Iraq again (because they are so good now) then it will be Congress’ fault for not listening to military commanders.

I order to counter this, Congress will need to fully “scrub” the request both the original budget request and the additional funding, and give the military funds that specifically concern troop protection, diplomatic efforts and redeployment… along with a few other items.  But to give the full amount would be complete acquiescence.

Representative Kendrick Meek (D-FL) is speaking on the House floor right now about the fact that the Republicans are willing to spend billions in Iraq but are unwilling to slightly expand the S-CHIP program that insures the children of the working poor.  He has a chart (which I will try to reproduce if I get a copy) that illustrates the costs of days, weeks and months in Iraq, and compares these figures to those of the costs in the S-CHIP program.  The Title of the Chart is the same as the title on this entry — 37 Days in Iraq = Health Care for 10 Million Children.  Amazing that the Republicans had the nerve to uphold Bush’s veto.

Final Vote… Lose 56-44. Lost Warner, picked up Johnson, but no new GOPers. I guess Bush succeeded in convincing enough Republicans that the surge was working and that was enough to continue the policy. The next battle is the $50 billion supplemental — we’ll see if the Dems roll over or play hardball.

Levin just announced that the vote will begin at 5:25PM (EDT).

NOTE: Jim Webb just put a fact sheet into the record regarding his amendment — it is on his website as a pdf file so I thought I would link to it HERE

UPDATE (3:25PM): Now Joe Lieberman (CT-Lieberman) is using the same argument — at least a vote for a deadline or to cut off funds is an honest vote to end the war — this is a backdoor way to undermine Petreaus. He then claims that he admires those who will at least debate it directly — then says that they don’t do that because there isn’t the support in teh chamber for withdrawal. But there is support— just not super-majority support. Joe now says this will force them (the soldiers) into a position where they fail. He says most of the soldiers he talks to are proud of their mission and believe in their mission — he claims they are reenlisting at remarkable number. “Do you really want to burden them and their families in a way we can never make up for? Then go on this path of defeat.” OK this is ridiculous — which is the worse burden I would like to know– having their spouse in Iraq for 15 months and only home for 10, or letting them stay longer in that dangerous theater of battle? The rhetoric of Iraq War supporters is insane in its Soviet-like logic.

UPDATE (3:03PM): Do the Republicans just read off the smae talking points every time? Jim Bunning (R-KY) has a difficult time making sense under normal circumstances, but again he says that this amendment’s intent is to undermine Petreaus. He warns us that it is dangerous to send troops into the field without the resources they need to get the job done — In other words the previous four years of a lack of proper armor for the troops, and less safe vehicles and other resources to protect our troops, were dangerous — oh but those aren’t the kind of resources Bunning was talking about.

UPDATE (2:40PM): Jon Kyl (R-AZ) I think just argued that the U.S. soldiers who train the Iraqi troops need to stay longer and be in the theater more so that they can “fight as one.” Wait — aren’t the Iraqi troops supposed to be trained so they can Stand Up as U.S. troops Stand Down?

After the usual claptrap from Kit Bond (R-MO) who decried that political gamesmanship of the Democrats on this amendment (stating that this is obviously a backdoor way to undermine the military), Jim Webb has taken to the floor to explain the actual training that is needed for individual troops and what they most go through when they return to the USA after being in Iraq and Afghanistan, going month-by-month. One nice aspect to the way Webb debates is that he almost always focuses on facts and rarely rises to general political rhetoric, giving him an air of legitimacy others do not have (on both sides).

The Webb-Hagel Amendment will be voted on this afternoon as part of the Defense Authorization bill, but due to the fact that the Republicans are filibustering basically every substantive Democratic amendment that could actually have an impact, it will be necessary for Jim Webb (D-VA) to get 60 votes for his proposal.  His amendment, which received 56 votes earlier this summer — four short of overcoming the filibuster — requires that any troops get a stay at home at least equal to the length of their tour of duty in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.  A small change from the amendment this summer, he has added a provision to let the policy start 120 days after enactment in order to let the generals in charge make the necessary planning changes.

Realizing that this could be the one that could get over the 60 vote hump, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has offered a toothless alternative that states it is the “Sense of the Senate” that a month home for every month away policy for troops is the preferable policy, but having absolutely no enforcement mechanism.  This is exactly the type of strategy that the Republicans love to use — have a fake vote that gives them cover, but defeat the substantive policy that actually would accomplish something.

Graham and John McCain (R-AZ) as well as other Republican Senators have argued against the Webb amendment because: 1) It is interfering (”meddling”) with the military leaders ability to make strategic decisions in the field, 2) It is micro-managing a war that is not in the proper role of congress, with McCain even claiming that it is probably an unconstitutional act, and 3) It will lessen the ability of the military to do what it needs to do on the ground to win, and thus put the people who are in the combat theater in greater danger.

Webb countered in a short speech on the floor, stating that a similar situation occurred during the Korean War and that Congress stepped in and demanded appropriate training for U.S. soldiers when military leaders wanted to get them into the field before the usual training had been completed.

While John Warner (R-VA) took to the Senate floor and acknowledged the benefits of the Webb amendment and the positive intent of its author, he stated that he will oppose it due to the fact that his discussions with military leaders have made it clear to him that they couldn’t be able to properly transition to such a policy for about a year, even if ordered, without inhibiting their needs.

This is the amendment that will demonstrate whether there is any real dent in the Republicans’ obstructionist strategy on the floor of the Senate.  The critical element will be whether Webb and Hagel can overcome the knee-jerk war supporters like Graham and be able to gain votes, despite the cover of the worthless amendment that he offers as so-called political cover. This vote will determine the top number of Republicans who can be counted on to assist in a change in direction in Iraq.  If Webb doesn’t get 60 votes, then it is unlikely that any real change will be allowed by the 40 or so Republicans preventing any real change in policy.

The question for those Republicans who vote against the Webb amendment is:  What is more important to you — the President and the war planners, or the troops on the ground?  Are you really supporting the troops if all you do is talk about how great a job they are doing and how we should continue this failed policy? Or would a policy that would at least slightly lessen the burden on their families, their psyches, their finances and their health.  All members acknowledged that the “ideal” situation would be to give every soldier or marine a month home for a month in the war, but for some reason they must continue to be pawns in this fiasco, as politicians who insist that “Victory is the only strategy” and praise the troops that, in the last analysis, are being abused.

I don’t know how they sleep at night — but if they vote against Webb this afternoon, they certainly can’t say they support the troops. 

Congressional Quarterly’s CQ Weekly has a “Reality Check” When it comes to Iraq policy that is good at focusing on the critical elements that are shaping the Iraq debate.  Since CQ Weekly is a subscription service, I have summarized the Five Realities:

1. The Reports coming out this month will change few positions – Members of Congress will see what they want to see in the reports.  Republicans will focus on the progress that the reports explain, while Democrats will point to the shortfalls of U.S. Iraqi operations.
2. Bush still has the upper hand in foreign policy – Bush is still Commander in Chief and he still has the power of the veto.  In the Senate the Republicans are able to filibuster any bills that run counter to the President’s goals.  The Democrats do not want to be viewed as abandoning the troops, so they do not want to take a hard line on spending for Iraq and Defense.  Even if the Democrats work with Republicans to meet the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, a veto by Bush would still be upheld without 67 votes.
3. It’s not just the numbers, it’s the mission – The troop levels will remain the same for the next few months in order to carry out the mission associated with the surge.  Troops will have to begin to be drawn down next spring because the current troop levels are unsustainable if troop deployments are not extended past the current 15 months. The debate next year will be over the number of troops that remain after the next draw down.
4. Maliki may be weak, but a strong central government still matters – The reason given for the surge in the number of U.S. troops was to give the Maliki government the breathing space that they need to complete the necessary political step to stabilize Iraq.  Maliki’s failure in using this time to get the Iraqi parliament to pass critical legislation and to take essential steps in solidifying the government’s role has been one of the biggest failures of the surge.
5. Of all Iraq’s neighbors, Iran is most critical to Iraq’s successful stabilization – If the Maliki government fails, then tribes may turn to other sponsors for money and support.  While Saudi Arabia and Syria would have a role to play, it is the standoff between the U.S. and Iran that is preventing a region-wide conference and potential broad solutions from being debated and implemented.

With the impetus to show that the troop surge is indeed working, it is not surprising that the Defense Department is going to define success to make the tactic look successful.  What is unusual is that they have revised past casualty numbers so as to make current numbers look better.

Shifting Death Counts

Quarterly Defense Department reports released in March and June provided significantly different counts of sectarian killings in the second half of 2006. The discrepancy is one example of how shifting statistics paint pictures of progress in Iraq.

SOURCE: “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,” March and June 2007 | The Washington Post - September 06, 2007

This Washington Post article explains that the claim that sectarian violence is sharply down in Iraq due to the surge is a result of cooking the books.  Looking at the above charts, you can see that by revising December and January totals upward, the numbers that the Pentagon then files for the summer will look better in comparison.  The problem, though, is not just the revision of previous casualty counts, but changing the definition of what is considered a sectarian casualty.  The excellent article by Karen DeYoung, linked above, shows that the Pentagon can “Cherry-pick” numbers to meet the needs of the one who is using them. read the whole article, but this I found worthy of note:

Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. 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…

Attacks labeled “sectarian” are among the few statistics the military has consistently published in recent years, although the totals are regularly recalculated. The number of monthly “sectarian murders and incidents” in the last six months of 2006, listed in the Pentagon’s quarterly Iraq report published in June, was substantially higher each month than in the Pentagon’s March report. MNF-I said that “reports from un-reported/not-yet-reported past incidences as well as clarification/corrections on reports already received” are “likely to contribute to changes.”

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent “since last year,” the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that “last year” referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however — before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush’s strategy — the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May “but trending back down in June-July.”

So Patraeus is going to report a 75% drop in sectarian attacks, but is using 1) Revised data (as can be seen inheha above) that make the months before the surge appear to be more violent than in earlier reports, and 2) He is not doing a year-to-year comparison, but is rather comparing attacks to a revised December number that was one of the worst months of the occupation in terms of violence.  When you get to create your own data and your own standards, then it sure is easier to get the results that you want.

This does not make me any more optimistic about the accuracy of General Patraeus’ report to Congress next week.

House Democratic Caucus Leader gets a lot of criticism from progressives for his handling of progressive candidates while Chairman of the DCCC, but he is also a very smart guy and knows how to frame a debate.  After Bush’s comments in Australia praising the Iraq Parliament at the expense of the U.S. Congress, Emanuel sent off this missive to Bush Chief of Staff Josh Bolten:

September 5, 2007

Dear Mr. Bolten:

It has long been the custom that members of Congress do not go overseas and criticize the President—that partisanship ends at the water’s edge. But reading today’s accounts of the President’s remarks in Australia, it is clear he has a different view.

Asked about the lack of political progress in Iraq, the President said Iraq’s Parliament had passed 60 laws, and added, “It’s more than our legislature passed.”

It was a false and gratuitous shot, which ignores the scores of laws we have passed, sometimes over the President’s strong objection, to promote economic fairness for America’s struggling middle class. >From passing a long-awaited increase in the minimum wage to an historic reform of the student loan and grant program so millions more young people can achieve the dream of college, our Congress is offering new hope to the American people. We can debate these accomplishments at another time on another day.

But as a veteran of the political wars, I am not concerned about the slight as much as I am about the President’s spirited defense of the status quo in Iraq.

The truth is, the Iraqi Parliament has made virtually no progress on any of the major issues that must be resolved to end the civil war there. Their most noteworthy agreement was a resolution to adjourn for summer vacation, while our troops toiled in 115 degree heat to try and halt the bloodshed.

It is the same stubborn defiance of the truth that has marked his stewardship of this four and half year war. And the truth is this:

The valiant efforts of our troops cannot and will not substitute for real, determined steps on the part of the Iraqis to resolve the issues at the heart of their civil war.

So I am not asking for an apology. Like most Americans, I am merely asking the President to finally come to grips with the reality of the failures of the Iraqi leadership and the shortcomings of his own Iraqi policy.

We do not need cheap shots or photo ops. We need a change in policy to relieve our troops and put the Iraqis on notice that it’s long past time for them to take responsibility for their own future.

Sincerely,

Rahm Emanuel

Member of Congress