Dear Gods, indeed

[elfs]

I've made no secret of my admiration for the blogger Hilzoy from Obsidian Wings. Yesterday, she pointed out a horrifying trend in her own writing (and in our general consciousness): the number of deaths needed to get our attention in Iraq is steadily going up. Three years ago, ten deaths got our attention. Two years ago: twenty. A year ago: fifty. Last week, it took a blow that murdered 250 people to make the press stand up. Some newspapers dutifully noted each bombing in the body of its daily article about Iraq, but to get a headline the bombers needed to kill more and more.

One of the things we've been patiently waiting for is the report from General Petraeus about the status of the surge. Brad DeLong pointed me to an article on Crocker vs. Petraeus, which points out that Petraeus' actions in counter-insurgency involve empowering local forces to fight the insurgents, a move which destablizes the Bush administration's initiative to create an Iraqi national reconciliation. The local soveriengties are challenging, frustrating, and even dismantling the national political process.

Today we learn that the Petraeus report will not be given by General Petraeus and the White House does not want him to testify publicly. A report came out yesterday showing that the White House, and not General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker, would be assembling the report on the surge for Congress and the public, and now the White House has asked Congress for a closed-door, informal, not-for-public broadcast session with Petraeus. Senators Biden and Levin have said that's not acceptable and they want an open hearing.

Petraeus himself said that September was too early for him and he might need another six weeks. They're stalling. They know it. We know it. "Wait until September! Wraaaack! Wait until September!" the Republican side of the aisle has parroted for the past three months. I wonder if they'll press for an honest assessment of the surge, or go with the White wash House's version of events.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Um, Elf? It's not actually September, yet. :-)

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Uh, you're right. Damn. 'S what I get for posting before coffee. Fixed!

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

I watch the BBC News most nights, on my local PBS station. They cover the news much more evenly and completely than the american media, though it's often pretty fucking depressing:

Bush administration shredding the US Constitution, and the fucking Democrats cheering them on.

War in Iraq

War in Afghanistan

Instability in Pakistan

Genocide in Darfur/Sudan/Chad

Zimbabwe's collapse under Mugabe

Massive kleptocracy in Nigeria

Floods in Bangladesh, Nepal, and eastern India

Political machinations in Venezuela

Political machinations in Turkey + Kurdish unhappiness

Political machinations in Russia

China just trying to cope

Volcanos and earthquakes in Indonesia

World-wide stock market panic

Every so often, I have to turn it all off and take a mental health break. Desensitized? Um, yeah, you could say that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

Actually,funny that you mention Venezuela. I heard an interview, yesterday, with a former Priest who was stationed there. He left the priesthood to marry, and still lives in Venezuela.

He had an interesting statement. Paraphrased (my memory's lousy; sorry), he said that, whenever you hear anyone talk about Hugo Chavez, spell "he" with a 't' and a 'y'. As in "they." Chavez, it seems, is doing what the majority of Venezuelans have told him to. This American ex-pat had asked an old Venezuelan, "Do you support Hug Chavez' policies?" and received the response, "I don't support his policies, he supports mine."

Now, he wasn't completely uncritical. But he did go into the recent history of Venezuela. Seems that, during the 80's and early 90's, there was all manner of repression, people were "disappeared," that sort of thing. All by the US-supported regime. So, I don't find it that unbelievable that Venezuelans are peeved at the US, and elected a president who reflects that anger.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Who wants a dictatorial president-for-life? That's what the new Venezuelan constitution amounts to.

Well, if it is the will of the people, they are going to discover first hand just how unforgiving the globalized economy is the minute that they run out of oil to sell. The smarter rich people have already abandoned the place, and the new rich people are Chavez's cronies, though one presumes only as long as the money keeps flowing their way. Only the most risk-tolerant foreigners are going to invest in the place under the rules Chavez has put forth.

"Capital goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's well treated." - Walter Wriston

History is a cute tale to tell the kids, but it's a pretty stupid way to set public policy.

The smart move would be to invest the oil proceeds in the country's infrastructure and people (education, etc), and set the rules so that people can get rich if they're talented and motivated (rather than by greasing the right palm). Failing that last part will simply guarantee that the smart people and smart money will go elsewhere, because there are alternatives today.

Just you watch. Venezuela may well go the same way as Zimbabwe.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/]

Who wants a dictatorial president-for-life?

Oh, I'm none-too-pleased about that. I'd personally hoped, back a few years ago, that Chavez wouldn't head down the same path as most other Latin Amercan rulers.

But my original reply was only to contribute something I'd heard the
day before. And, moreover, to point out that what we're told
isn't necessarily what's true, but more what we want to hear. And we
Amerrricans wanna hear that Everyone Loves Us.
<sarcasm>And
if they don't love us, well, that just means that they're CommunistsTerrristsenemy-du-jour.</sarcasm>

Thing is, the US government has been doing some pretty despicable
things in our name. And nobody's bothered to take any interest
… let alone hold the perpetratorspolticians to account.
So, people elsewhere witness our apparent indifference, and assume
that we must approve of everything the government is doing.

The smart move would be to invest the oil proceeds in the
country's infrastructure and people (education, etc), and set the
rules so that people can get rich if they're talented and motivated
(rather than by greasing the right palm).

According to the interview I heard, that is what the current
Venezuelan government has been doing. Ferinstance, one thing I
still recall from that interview is that food purchases are up 30%.
Meaning: 1/3 more people can now eat than used to.

[hydrolagus.livejournal.com]

Title of a CNN article on a poll they did regarding the report: "Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report"
And a quote from the polling director about the results: "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."
Ya think?

[srmalloy.livejournal.com]

I do wonder, though, whether the increasing lack of knee-jerk "Bombing in Iraq? Flog it all over the media for days!" response is entirely a bad thing; while you can argue that it encourages the bombers to get more and more violent, not shouting their actions all over the media deprives them of public recognition of their activities.

[ewhac.livejournal.com]

September means nothing. It is simply the end of the current Friedman Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_(unit)), which started with the release of the Iraq Study Group report, from which Bush plucked a new marketing slogan -- "New Way Forward" -- and absolutely nothing else.

A month or two ago, they tried to reset the beginning of the current Friedman Unit by saying, "Oh, the surge hasn't actually started yet. The needed troops are still being shipped in. We'll know six months after they've been deployed whether it's working."

As for the carefully cultivated rumors of Republican legislators abandoning Bush if Petraeus's report is a downer -- not gonna happen.

They've been stalling for four years. September means nothing.

[rapier.livejournal.com]

Huh. Thank you for pointing me towards the idea of the Friedman Unit. Every time someone said "the next six months," I kept wondering if it was deja vu, or what. It's good to have a particular name to call that phenomenon.

[tagryn]

* Heck, there were an estimated average of 2,000 deaths/day during the 5 years of the Congo Civil War ('98-'03) and the Western media barely covered it. When its not white people dying, and specifically Americans, the U.S. media doesn't want to be bothered beyond their 1-2 day news cycle. For example, heard much in the media the past couple of days about the Peru earthquake? Nope. It's had its time in the news cycle, the media have moved on.

Assuming the U.S. withdrawl is handled as it looks like its going to be, we'll hear little of the resulting bloodbath that follows. Pull up the ladder, Jack. I'm all right! and all that.

* From what I've read I think Petraeus is actually doing a decent job as far as running the counter-insurgency goes - not surprisingly, considering he wrote the Army text on it - but he was handed such a bad hand by the prior years of mismanagement that there's limits on what he can realistically achieve. The empowerment of local forces to achieve stability goes hand-in-hand with inkblot counterinsurgency strategy.