War Handwavium

President Obama has set a firm timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.  “Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,”

Now, for some minor details: First of all, this withdrawal will leave 35,000 to 50,000 US troops stationed in Iraq for at least a year and a half after that. That puts the full withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011. That isn’t a military date, it’s a political date, set by an agreement between Iraq and George W. Bush.

This gives Obama about 18 months to withdraw 100,000 US troops. Except he won’t be withdrawing them over that 18 month period. The timeline essentially has troop levels remain essentially constant for the rest of 2009. This claimed to be so that US troops could provide security for Iraq’s elections in late 2009. The problem is this means this announcement is little more that lip service for the next year. And if 2009 draws to a close and someone decides we need to stay ‘just a little longer’, then nothing actually changes.

I’m fairly certain we will have most troops out by the end of 2011. I don’t think Iraq will change their agreement that we leave by that time, unless we dump a very large bag of money in some people’s laps (which isn’t outside the realm of possibilities).

The one good thing is that August 2010 is just before election time for the US. Which means that if Obama does stretch out the timeline beyond what he promised, it might negatively affect congressional races, and Obama can use every democrat in office that he can get.

And a “contingent” of 50,000 troops is hardly a minor force. It is a major obligation and committment. Obama campaigned on getting the US out of Iraq in 16 months. He’s now committed to getting some troops out withing 19 months, but 50,000 will remain for a total of 34 months.

Whether he intends to exercise this or not, Obama certainly seems to have hedged his bets on Iraq such that extending the US presence well beyond his first term wouldn’t be out of the realm of possiibilities.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq

Glen Greenwald has an excellent article about the recent death of Bruce E. Ivins, one of the most elite government anthrax scientists on the research team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease, and how it relates the the anthrax scare of 2001. You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

The gist of it appears to be that the anthrax scare was, at the very least, Ivins own personal attempt to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax letters all came with a letter saying some variation of the following:

09-11-01

This is next.

Take Penacilin Now

Death to America

Death to Israel

Allah is Great

 Worst case, however, the anthrax letters were part of a larger government attempt to “Tonkin” the country into attacking Iraq for 9/11.  The Washington Post‘s columnist, Richard Cohen, in an article had stated “I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official” Cohen was warned, by someone in the government, to get Cipro before the anthrax attacks had started.

The implications of this whole mess deserve a war-handwavium entry or two. What I wanted to point out right now was a bit about John McCain’s reaction back in October 2001 when the anthrax scare was going full throttle. McCain appeared on the David Letterman Show on 18 October 2001.

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine …. I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

There was no indication that the anthrax used in these attacks had come from Iraq. Ever. John McCain had zero evidence to support this at the time. And now as more information keeps coming out about Bruce E. Ivins, it is now known that all the anthrax used in the attacks came from a US Army bioweapon research facility. Towards the end of the interview, McCain not only beats the war drum for Iraq, but reveals his idea of foreign diplomacy.

“The crunch time will be if – and emphasize if – we have to go after Iraq.  … World power politics is very interesting. People are very friendly when they know you’re the most powerful kid on the block.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/

Not only was McCain wrong about the anthrax being from Iraq, not only did he have zero evidence to link it with Iraq, not only does he beat the war drum to invade Iraq, but he shows that his view of diplomacy is little more than war or the threat of war.

Three days later in an interview with Tim Russert, McCain and Joe Lieberman are again trying to connect Iraq with not only 9/11 but also bin Laden and al Queda.

LIEBERMAN:  There is some evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein may have had contact with bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, perhaps even involved in the September 11 attack.

Lieberman is wrong on all three counts. Later in the interview:

MCCAIN: Recently, in Rio, I believe, an envelope was received, which gives me the idea that perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the United States of America.

McCain is wrong here too. Later on in the same interview:

RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush’s orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe’s right.

McCain also puts in some suck-up time to President Bush Jr.

MCCAIN: I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext_102101.html 

This country can’t survive another four years of a war-mongering president at the helm. There will be nothing left of America but a smoldering ruin.

15 July 2008: John McCain says that he knows more than Barack Obama about “how to win wars.” McCain says Obama is offering misguided military plans for the region before he’s even set foot in the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

21 July 2008: John McCain insisted that he has been consistently right on both Iraq and Afghanistan while Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama “has been completely wrong.” 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Well, let’s look at that, Senator McCain, shall we? Back in 2002, when Congress was debating the authorization for war against Iraq, you said:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Remarks_by_John_McCain_prior_to_the_U.S._invasion_of_Iraq

“when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world”

How’s that been working out, Senator McCain? Did the US involvement in Iraq turn into “another chapter in the glorious history” of the US?

In that same speech, you defended Bush, saying “I believe the President of the United States has done everything necessary and has exercised every option short of war, which has led us to the point we are today.”

What does the chapter of the glorious history of Bush Jr. have to say about that, Senator McCain? Do you think we were prepared? Do you think Bush did everything possible to avoid war? Do you think Bush did everything possible to prepare for war?

It would seem your assessment of military prepardness is, in short, utter crap. If you were so wrong in assessing our military prepardness in March 2003, why should we believe you are so much better now?

And finally, at the end of your speech, you said: “I believe that, obviously, we will remove a threat to America’s national security because we will find there are still massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Really? Senator McCain? Is that what you thought? After we invaded Iraq and scoured the country for WMD’s, we came up with absolutely nothing. Zero WMD’s, Senator McCain. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

If you were so wrong back then in March 2003, why should we believe you’ll be so much better now?

And yet you arrogantly claim to know more about how to win a war than Barack Obama. That Obama is offering misguided military plans? Oh really, Senator McCain? How did your plans turn out so far? March 2003, you appear to have come up zero-for-three. Not a single win, Senator McCain.

By comparison, here’s some excerpts from what Barack Obama was saying around March 2003.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech

“But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength”

Golly gee, Senator McCain, it seems Barack Obama certainly had a better grasp of the phantom WMD menace that you and your buddy Bush Jr were trying to scare the nation with.
Here’s something else Obama said: “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”

Who has a better sense of military plans, Senator McCain? Barack Obama was right on every count here: He predicted that invading Iraq would be far longer than the 6 weeks to 6 months that you and your cronies were saying at the time. He predicted that invading would cost a lot more money than anyone would admit, whereas your buddy Bush and the administration was saying the invasion would “pay for itself” with Iraqi oil. He said that the invasion would be a recruitment poster for al-Qaeda, whereas your buddies in the White House were trying to tell everyone that Iraq was already linked with al Quaeda and was connected to 9/11.

Everything Barack Obama said about Iraq before the invasion was right.

Everything you, Senator McCain, said about Iraq before the invasion was wrong.

If anyone has a track record for being smarter at understanding the reality of military plans, it would seem to be Barack Obama.

And if anyone has a verifiable track record for engaging in war handwavium around military plans, it would seem to be you, Senator McCain. You were part of the smoke and mirrors that helped beat the war drum and lead this nation into our dumbest war in history. You were part of the problem, Senator McCain. And it would seem between the two of you, Obama is clearly a part of the solution.

Someone is trying to Tonkin the Iranians.

This article is an example: “U.S. forces may be close to unlocking the mystery of who is behind a deadly innovation in Iraqi insurgents’ weapons, a ‘lob bomb’”

What’s a ‘lob bomb’? It’s a rocket, most commonly 107mm in diameter, with a range of around 8,500 meters (5 miles), a total weight of 19 kg (41 pounds), and an explosive charge of 1.3 kg (3 pounds) of TNT. This article contains some specs on one common example of these rockets.

What’s so different about a “lob bomb”? Iraq insurgents commonly use mortars. 60mm mortars have a range from 1000 to 3,500 meters (0.5 to 2.0 miles), and a total weight of 1 to 2 kg (2 to 4 pounds). Both motars and rockets are unguided, so generally only work against large targets, like an entire base. Mortars can be fairly consistent, though, from one shot to the next, so an insurgent might fire a mortar round from a distance, and then another insurgent might act as forward observer using a radio or cell phone and dial the rounds in. However, if the US forces have Counter Battery Radar, then radar can pinpoint the position of the mortar and send troops to counter attack.

Rockets are different in that they can be set up to fire several shots at once, such as four to twelve rockets. And they can be set up to fire either by remote control or by timer. But they’re still unguided, and since they’re fired all at once, or if they’re fired by timer or remote, there is no “dialing in” as with a mortar. This means they’re only about as effective as mortar rounds are, just applied differently.

So the article says there is a mystery as to who is behind the “innovation”. First of all, it isn’t an innovation. Insurgents have been using rockets for a while. And there isn’t much mystery as to where they come from. As this article points out, “A U.S. explosives expert, Maj. Marty Weber, confirmed in April 2007 that most 107mm rockets found in Iraq were Chinese-made.” So, insurgents have been using rockets since before April 2007, and most of those rockets are made in china.

So, why does the article call it an “innovation” when it’s been around from the beginning of the insurgency? Why do they say it is a “mystery” as to where these rockets are coming from when they knew the source over a year ago or more?

Later on in that same article: “American officers said in interviews that the group is Shiite and may have links to Iran.”

Well, it’s no mystery that Bush Jr. has been beating his little war drum to fight Iran for some time, and it seems that now someone is trying to Tonkin the Iranians so we can bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb bomb Iran.

Just remember, the Administration that is telling you now (2008) that Iran is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents to be used against US troops, is the SAME Administration who lied to you in March 2003 that Saddam had a massive stockpile of WMD’s, was linked with al Queda, and was behind 9/11.

A report was made for US Congress on 14 May 2008. It tries to give an overview of US military casualties throughout its history, and specifically analyzes military losses from 1980 through 2006.

You can read the report here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

In response to this, some emails are floating around quoting this report out of context trying to assert that the cost of the Iraq war is less than the total number of deaths under Clinton or Carter. It is nothing more than trying to handwave the violence.

First of all, page 11 of the report is probably a good start. It lists total casualties per year and then breaks it down into different causes. The largest cause of fatalities is accidents. Accidents result from training accidents, equipment failures, aircraft crashes, vehicle collisions, and so on. Accidents in the military are sort of like accidents on the highway. If you’re going to allow people to drive cars on the freeway, you’re going to have to accept that accidents will happen and people will die. If you’re going to have an active military force of hundreds of thousands of troops, you’re going to have to accept that accidents will happen and some of these accidents will be fatal.

However, what you don’t have to accept is war fatalities. War isn’t something that just happens automatically out of having a large military force. You actually have to go out of your way to go to war. You have to spend lots of money above and beyond your normal military budgets to go to war. So, while military accidents come with having a military force, war fatalities are fatalities above and beyond, are fatalities that occur as an outcome of choosing to go to war.

Furthermore, the emails about this report focuses strictly on the fatalities. The report doesn’t examine permanent disabilities, post traumatic stress disorder, or any other condition where the person lives but is permanently disabled in some way or another. These costs are also direct costs of the war.

The handwave is “Hey! Look! The number of fatalities in Iraq is less than the number of accidental deaths under Clinton!” The implication is that we shouldn’t worry about the deaths in Iraq because they’re so small. But what this ignores is that accidental deaths come from having a military force. Whereas war deaths come only from war operations, and we as a democratic nation have a say in whether our country goes to war.

So, here’s the non-handwave timeline, I added an extra column for permanently disabled figures. Links to that data is below. What becomes clear is that the human cost of the first Iraq war and the second Iraq war is huge and dwarfs the cost associated with training accidents over the years.

      total  fatal     war  permanently
year  fatal accident fatal  disabled     president
1980  2,392  1,556     174               Carter
1981  2,380  1,524     145               Reagan
1982  2,319  1,495     108
1983  2,465  1,413      18
1984  1,999  1,293       1
1985  2,252  1,476       0
1986  1,984  1,199       2
1987  1,983  1,172      37
1988  1,819  1,080       0
1989  1,636  1,000      23               Bush Sr
1990  1,507    880       0
1991  1,787    931     147   183,000
1992  1,293    676       0
1993  1,213    632      19               Clinton
1994  1,075    544       0
1995  1,040    538       0
1996    974    527       1
1997    817    433       0
1998    827    445       0
1999    796    436       0
2000    758    398       0
2001    891    434       3               Bush Jr.
2002    999    542      18    
2003  1,228    576     343     +
2004  1,874    605     739     |
2005  1,942    644     739     V
2006  1,858    530     761   150,000
 
(View in courier font to get everything to line up)

By the year 2000, US Department of Veterans Affairs will have declared 183,000 US veterans of the Gulf War to be *permanently disabled* from effects of Gulf War syndrome.

http://www.accuracy.org/article.php?articleId=44

the Veterans Administration reporting that more than 150,000 veterans of the Iraq war are receiving disability benefits. Pentagon studies show that 12 percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The group Veterans for America, formerly the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, estimates 70,000 Iraq war veterans have gone to the VA for mental health care.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36056

The short of it is, war isn’t cheap. Don’t let anyone try to use smoke and mirrors (or out of context statistics) to tell you otherwise.

See article on right hand side or click link here.

 It’s a first draft, so I’m interested in any comments about typos, broken links, events out of order, inaccuracies, etc.

Thanks