Michael O’Hanlon: Surge Architects Are the Vince Lombardis of Iraq War

Michael O’Hanlon compared himself and his fellow “surge architects” to Vince Lombardi, the legendary coach of the Green Bay Packers:

In an event at the American Enterprise Institute today, Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon — sitting next to hawks Fred Kagan and Ken Pollack — praised the Iraq surge, saying the surge architects would make former Green Bay Packers head coach Vince Lombardi “proud”:

I want to call them the Lombardis of this war. … And in addition to Fred and Ken who have been two of the most important people. Andy Krepinevich is another important think tanker. Retired Gen. Jack Keane from the outside. A small group of people inside the administration, smaller than it should have been, but people like Meghan O’Sullivan. […]

These people did two things that I think would have made Vince Lombardi proud. One, they stuck with it, and they persevered through difficult times. And two, they stayed focused on fundamentals.

Here’s a fundamental Michael O’Hanlon hasn’t considered: He and his fellow “think tankers” deserve no credit at all for whatever illusory security improvements can be attributed to the surge. These are the men who deserve the credit, and right now they’re mad as hell:

The success of the US “surge” strategy in Iraq may be under threat as Sunni militia employed by the US to fight al-Qaida are warning of a national strike because they are not being paid regularly.

Leading members of the 80,000-strong Sahwa, or awakening, councils have said they will stop fighting unless payment of their $10 a day (£5) wage is resumed. The fighters are accusing the US military of using them to clear al-Qaida militants from dangerous areas and then abandoning them.

A telephone survey by GuardianFilms for Channel 4 News reveals that out of 49 Sahwa councils four with more than 1,400 men have already quit, 38 are threatening to go on strike and two already have.

Improved security in Iraq in recent months has been attributed to a combination of the surge, the truce observed by Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi army, and the effectiveness and commitment of the councils, which are drawn from Sunni Arabs and probably the most significant factor, according to most analysts.

In his speech marking the fifth anniversary of the war George Bush highlighted the significance of what he called “the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden”. Iraq, he said, “has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out.”

But dozens of phone calls to Sahwa leaders reveal bitterness and anger. “We know the Americans are using us to do their dirty work and kill off the resistance for them and then we get nothing for it,” said Abu Abdul-Aziz, the head of the council in Abu Ghraib, where 500 men have already quit.

“The Americans got what they wanted. We purged al-Qaida for them and now people are saying why should we have any more deaths for the Americans. They have given us nothing.”

Maybe not, but what matters is that the militia members have given the suits at the AEI a lovely opportunity for self-congratulation — and you can’t put a price on that.

Four Thousand U.S. Combat Deaths

As of yesterday, at least 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. Nico Pitney has a fitting memorial to these 4,000 men and women.

The New York Times reports that the mainstream media is losing interest in the war. That moron, Michael O’Hanlon, thinks the reason for the drop-off in public interest (if indeed there is a dropoff; one can’t assume there is just because the media is bored of the subject) is because “… Americans who support the war might not have wanted to follow the news when it was bad, and that Americans against the war are less interested now that the news is better.”

Now that the news is better? I believe this is called begging the question. The news in Iraq, from Iraq, and about Iraq is abysmal. The news at home about hard times that are directly attributable to the war also must be included when assessing whether the news “is better.”

The 4,000th American combat death happened only five days after another grim milestone: the fifth anniversary of the day that Pres. Bush invaded Iraq. And it fell on Easter Sunday, the holiest day in the Christian calendar. Make of that what you will. But for me, the confluence of dates is a flashing red light, telling us to slow down, stop, look around us, and think about the consequences of our actions instead of just blindly charging ahead.

Gap in Life Expectancy Accompanies Widening Income Inequality

Robert Pear in the New York Times:

New government research has found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.

Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and this, in turn, has caused a widening gap.
[…]
The gaps have been increasing despite efforts by the federal government to reduce them. One of the top goals of “Healthy People 2010,” an official statement of national health objectives issued in 2000, is to “eliminate health disparities among different segments of the population,” including higher- and lower-income groups and people of different racial and ethnic background.

Dr. Singh said last week that federal officials had found “widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy” at birth and at every age level.

Kevin Hayden notes the time frame within which the gap has been widening:

When considering longevity rates and the fundamental reasons why (lack of affordable healthcare mostly), it’s stunning to see the disparities that exist due to race, gender and income. But a key part of the latest on the topic … demonstrates that the country was narrowing the gap from 1966-1980 and has been widening the disparity ever since.

That coincides exactly to the beginning of Reaganomics. Who could guess that the only thing to trickle down would be more disease and faster deaths?

Cost of Food III

This news release from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is telling us a lot of things we really do not know.

1. The cost of food only went up 4.8%. You gotta be kidding.
2. The cost to feed a family of four went down 11.26%. From $189 to $167.70.
3. The USDA assumes a 1950s mentality where Mom stays home all day and prepares meals from scratch.

The reality is that far too many households are one parent families and she probably has two part time jobs.

And even for two parent families, Mom does not have the luxury of being a “stay-at-home-mom.” In a service economy, people that work at big-box stores, burger flippers and Salvation Army stores make well under $10 an hour in the mid-west, with out any benefits. I cannot believe the cost of food has not sky rocketed up. Sorry, USDA.

Thought of the Day

If you cannot convince them, confuse them.

Anonymous