Murtha On O’Hanlon/Pollack Propaganda: ‘I Dismiss It As Rhetoric’

[Hissyspit]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/murtha-ohanlon

Murtha On O’Hanlon/Pollack Propaganda: ‘I Dismiss It As Rhetoric’
On CNN’s American Morning, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) ripped Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack’s pro-escalation propaganda. “I dismiss it as rhetoric,” he said.

Murtha continued, “In my estimation, the things I measure — oil production, electricity production, water — only 2 hours of electricity! I don’t know where they were staying, I don’t know what they saw.”

“It’s not getting better. It’s rhetorical, which is getting better,” Murtha said. “It’s an illusion.” Watch it:

VIDEO AT LINK

“They were there for seven days,” Murtha said. In order to sustain the escalation, troops would see their tours extended from 15 months to 18 months, he added.

[kenny blankenship]

1. I would just like to add that the military situation is NOT what makes Iraq a failure

This point has been made by the Iraq Study Group, (it was obvious enough even before) but continually gets lost in our pro-war, corporate media. It is a rhetorical trick shared by the Brookings apologists and the corporate media to talk about whatever new name Bush gives to "the enemy" in Iraq, and to speak endlessly of how that enemy is being liquidated militarily, allowing them to ignore the fact that Iraqi government does not govern and cannot defend a city block on its own.

Iraq, into which we pour squandered lives and countless billions of dollars, is a lost cause that is irredeemable for POLITICAL reasons not military reasons. The unconquered enemy in the Iraq debacle, more powerful than any weaponry in the United States' arsenal, is simply that the two main religious groups of Iraqi society are unwilling and unable to share power and economic resources. No matter what the military situation for the US forces is in Anbar Province, no matter how you make it look during an unsustainable offensive, the fundamental and fatal problem of Iraq remains UNTOUCHED: the former underdogs are now in charge and they do not intend to share anything with the former masters except that which they'll part with out of the goodness of their hearts.

The Sunni minority which used to rule Iraq is now outnumbered by the Shia THREE TO ONE, and the oil of Iraq is not located in the Sunni home provinces. They cannot make an effective coalition with the Kurds in the North because the Kurds do not see themselves as part of Iraq, longterm or short. The Kurds couldn't care less--they don't even fly the Iraqi flag. There are scores to settle on both sides, Shia and Sunni, before anything like stability can return to Iraq. The Shia factions' leaders intend to make it clear to the Sunnis that the Shia majority now run Iraq unassisted and unchecked. Any oil proceeds that the Sunnis receive will be no more than what the Shia CHOOSE to part with, and it will probably be none at all. The Sunnis are going to want to make it clear to the Shia that the Sunnis are the rulers of Anbar Province, no matter what. The Shia might not decide to let Anbar go, since losing Anbar does terrible things to the shape of their borders --and Anbar reaches right to the western edge of Baghdad which of course there is no question of parting with. These are grievances and points that are not going to be settled through "the democratic process". They are going to settle these things The Iraqi Way, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do to stop them. They will not consider their scores settled in any permanent way while we remain in the country. All we are accomplishing, Surge or no Surge, is an extremely COSTLY delay of the hour of decision.