Iraq: Situation Normal (AFU)

This week, the White House and President Bush continued to paint a rosy picture of Iraq, its government, and the Iraqi Security Forces, both police and the Iraqi Army. Only in the Bush bubble could the United States Military getting involved in a turf battle between competing Iranian sponsored fundamentalist Shia militias be a good thing.

Now, I'm all for fighting Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. But let's have a little honesty from the Bush administration: what our servicemembers have been asked to do is side with President Nouri al-Malaki's Dawa (Islamic Call) Party and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's SCII (Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, formerly known as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI) Badr corps in their fight with al-Sadr's Mehdi Army. The SCII's Badr corps are notorious for their desire for a fundamentalist Islamic area in Southern Iraq- the place where women are beheaded and barbers are murdered for being un-Islamic. So, in essence, we are siding with the SCII militia (funded and supported by Iran) against the Mehdi Army, which has been helpful in keeping Baghdad quiet and helping "the surge" to "succeed."

One has to ask, is that really what we signed on to in March, 2003? How many of the 4,000 dead or 30,000 wounded fought for a fundamentalist Islamic theocratic state in southern Iraq? How many Americans can even understand what is happening in and around Basra, can name the major parties and players in this inter-Shia rivalry - and how many believe this actually helps the United States remain free?

I'm happy to see that al-Sadr has called on his troops to stop fighting. It will no doubt be spun as another success in Bush world. But al-Sadr offered these conditions in his surrender: his fighters be released from prison, the Iraqi government offer amnesty to all Mehdi Army fighters, and that his militia retain its weapons. So how, exactly, is that a win for either the Iraqi government or the US? If the whole point of al-Maliki attacking the Medhi Army was to crack down on militias and reduce their influence, how is letting al-Sadr and his followers go home with no penalties and with their weapons a success?

In the reality based world, Iraq is a money pit, something that will be a financial and emotional drain on this country for decades. The US Embassy in Baghdad, overbudget, behind schedule and under daily attack, would have been closed years ago if it was anywhere else in the world. The US military, asked to be the peacekeepers between people for whom grudges last millenia, in a language and a culture they don't understand, and for longer amounts of time, is in danger of being broken beyond repair. The best case scenario for the Iraqi Army - one that the US isn't even sure will pan out - is that they can defend themselves within their border by 2012, and against their adversaries bordering them by 2018. To put it another way, my current 1st grader will be A SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL before the Iraqis can defend themselves against any country that attacks them.

I'll say it again: the next President of the United States should appoint one person and one person only as the next Ambassador to Iraq - George W. Bush. He dreams of the romance of war...so let's give him his wish and let him spend his days within the romantic confines of the Green Zone.

Update: Loyal reader "Serving Patriot" gets his $.02 published on another blog. He's a smart guy, war veteran...and handsome too. His thoughts are well worth reading.