Iraq after the War

Posted on by

I’ve been reading and reviewing books about the Iraqi war, and believe the primary question is, “Was it worth it?” There is an excellent article in Spiegel Online International by Bernhard Zand that is summarized in the title, “Obama’s Over-Hasty Withdrawal, Iraq is Neither Sovereign, Stable, nor Self-Reliant. The article begins with a description of a meeting between some students with Ahmed Chalabi, the man the U.S. brought in from exile after the Iraqi government had been dismantled by the invasion to be prime minister and oil minister. He had a goal to rebuild Iraq. The businessman was asked whether Iraq was what he would imagined it would become. He replied,”We have all failed. Totally”

The article was written in late March 2012 as the Arab League was preparing to meet in Baghdad. It was to be the first meeting of the League in Iraq since 1990, the first since the beginning of the “Arab Spring,” and the first since the last U.S. combat soldier left on December 18, 2011. President Obama had given a speech saying the U.S. was “…leaving a sovereign, stable and self-reliant country with a representative government elected by the people.” The article says, “…the circumstances of the US withdrawal and the language Obama used to whitewash it borders on negligence.”

Devoted Shiite Nouri Al-Maliki was imposed as Prime Minister of Iraq because he was perceived to have the best chance to form a government in the short term. He issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President the day after he came to power, drove other Sunnis out, and strengthened relations with Iran.  He also has appointed figureheads and relatives to important government positions who have access to lucrative government contracts.  Many areas of the country continue to lack basic services, and over 4,000 Iraqis had died in violence after the exit of the Americans to the date of the article. There continues to be a risk that the country will splinter. Western Sunni regions could secede if Syria falls to Sunni rule, Kurdish areas are effectively autonomous, and other areas have either threatened or announced plans to separate.

A New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt published about a month after the U.S. troop withdrawal expressed concern that violence had increased. One speculation is that Al Qaeda in Iraq has regained strength and has “…shifted its attention toward those with close ties to Iran, particularly Iraq’s Shiites, in an effort to push back Iran’s influence in Iraq in the wake of the American withdrawal.”

A multipage Bloomberg Business week article by Elliot Woods has the ominous title “Iraq:  Under Worse Management,” and describes a country in shambles. There is inadequate infrastructure to deliver water and electricity or to remove sewage and garbage. Corruption is routine. Iraq is far from stable, and the future is uncertain, but there is some good news. “By some statistical measures, Iraq today is safer and more stable than it has been in nearly a decade.” There are “…shouts of young men watching soccer in the cafes, the laughter of children tromping off to school.” I’m hoping the blood shed by American soldiers has the ultimate outcome that Iraqis decide to stand against terrorists.

One encouraging sign is that a Google search for “Iraq in June 2012” brought up sites for job openings in Iraq, a cycling event that includes Iraq, a soccer game with Jordan, and an upcoming trade show. That must mean the world media has lost interest in violence in Iraq, and the media is notoriously disinterested when there aren’t disasters to report. I remain hopeful for the Iraqi people. However, there continue to be politicians who have not put aside the tradition of corruption, hatred for those with different religions, and desire for absolute power.

I’m typing this on Memorial Day, and am thinking of the American soldiers who gave lives and limbs in Iraq. Their mission was to make Iraq a safe place for its citizens. To Iraqis, you have been given a precious opportunity bought with the service and blood of soldiers. I don’t expect you to think kindly of people many or most of you resented being in your country. All I ask is that you don’t waste what they gave for you.

I’ll close this by revealing I was apparently one of the few Americans who thought the war was a bad idea from the start. However, I will never criticize soldiers who fought or are fighting to fulfill a mission given them by their commander.

The Good Soldiers

Posted on by

David Finkel wrote this book based on the eight months he was with the 2-26 Army Infantry Battalion that was ordered to Iraq as part of the “surge” announced by President George W. Bush in January 2007. The announcement set off a storm of criticism by people opposed to the war (I thought it should have been called “reinforcement”). Battalion commander Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich was eager for his unit to deploy from Fort Riley, Kansas to Baghdad.

The book does not give a clear answer whether the surge was a success or failure, although the tone indicates the author certainly did not consider it a success. The book does provide brutal insight into the lives of combat infantry soldiers facing the daily possibility of being blown apart inside their Humvees by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). Snipers were often waiting for them.

The first death was twenty-two year old Private First Class Jay Cajimat who died either instantly in an explosion or more slowly in the fire inside the Humvee that burned his arms and legs into stumps and the rest of him beyond recognition. The details of the deaths and treatment of the injured are difficult to read. As an example, a soldier treating a comrade with a head injury noted a piece of the injured man’s brain fell out as a bandage was being adjusted. The injuries aren’t always that obvious. The trauma suffered by those who watched fellow soldiers die will be with them for a lifetime. A friend of Kauzlarich had ominously warned him before he and his unit left Fort Riley, “You’re going to see a good man disintegrate before your eyes.”

The families, girl friends, wives, and children of the soldiers also suffered, and of course some suffered more than others. President Bush visited a soldier and his wife in Bethesda. The soldier was described as “ruined,” and was only able to do small movements with his eyes, fingers, and feet. The wife thanked Bush for coming, but wished she had told him he didn’t understand what they were going through and that he didn’t know how it felt. She began to cry, and Bush didn’t understand she was crying in anger.

Reality had been exposed even before the soldiers had left Fort Riley as they and their families completed forms prior to the deployment to select whether they wanted to be buried or cremated, the location of their cemetery, and what personal effects they wanted to have buried with them. The remainder of the country mostly was oblivious with the exception of watching news reports that were often about the opposing political views.

The author describes the soldiers leaving the Forward Operating Base (FOB) fully equipped for combat “…to make their first impression on 350,000 people who surely were just waiting to blow the dumbasses up.” They found an unexploded mortar shell with Iranian markings on the fins. “A lesson, perhaps, in who they would be fighting.”

Kauzlarich began the deployment believing that he and the men of his battalion were going to make a difference, and he was said to very frequently respond to questions or concerns with the comment, “It’s all good.” He also tended to make comments such as, “What’s the difference between ordinary and extraordinary? A little extra.” He had been influenced by studying the battle of Ia Drang in Vietnam, which was the subject of a book and movie called “We Were Soldiers Once…and Young.” He had been told by Hal Moore, the commander of the unit portrayed, to trust his instincts. He had almost daily opportunities to rely on his instincts and the skill and courage of his soldiers as they performed the missions intended to make Baghdad safe for Iraqis. He had great respect for Qasim, his counterpart in the Iraqi military, although the soldiers of the Iraqi unit would mostly desert in the face of intense combat. The explanation for those desertions is given in the descriptions of the torture and murder of Iraqis who had been suspected of helping the Americans.

Most of the soldiers would soon hate everything about Iraq. The hated the garbage along the roadsides that often was used to hide the IEDs and EFPs. They hated the open trenches of sewage, the smell, the heat, and their living conditions. Mostly they hated “…the way these people don’t care about freedom. I hate that human beings want to kill one another for nothing.” They didn’t understand why the Iraqis hated them as they risked their lives to make the country safe.

Not all felt that way. Bush said in a speech, “We’re helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the extremists…” Kauzlarich said, “I like this president.” Soldiers were beginning to refer to the “Lost Kauz,” and openly questioned how anyone could think they were winning. They began to openly admit to each other that they were hurting and scared.

General David Petraeus visited and acknowledged, “You never get used to the losses.” He went to Congress to present his report, and gave an optimistic outlook. He focused on the fact the number of combat deaths were declining. MoveOn.org bought a full page ad in The New York Times “…headlined GENERAL PETERAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?”

Chapter 10 describes the soldiers from the battalion being treated for their devastating injuries at the Brooke Army Medical Center (BMAC) in the company of their wives or other family members. They had been told they hadn’t lost their arms, legs, or sight. “You gave your arm. You gave your leg. You gave your sight.” One of the soldiers had a specimen cup where he collected the pieces of metal and plastic shrapnel he had been pulling out of his wounds.

The soldiers had to attend a mandatory seminar on what to expect after they returned home. Many of them would have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). All of them were told to expect flashbacks, to have trouble sleeping, and to be angry and jumpy. They were warned that some would have broken marriages and to find bank accounts cleaned out. None of them were expected to be unaffected. As they were preparing to return to the United States Senator Barrack Obama was telling General Petraeus, “I’m not suggesting that we yank all of our troops out of the way. I’m trying to get to an end point.”

I think the author sums up his feelings about whether the surge was worth it on the last page. He describes how Kauzlarich doesn’t open his eyes as he is departing in a helicopter. He thought to himself that they had won, “But he had seen enough.”

The Appendix lists the roster of soldiers in the battalion and has pictures of those Killed In Action.

Cabela’s and Trickle Down Economics

Posted on by

The curious title originated with my first visit to the Cabela’s store in Sydney Nebraska while “trickle-down economics” was being used to criticize President Reagan. I was impressed with the massive sporting goods store with huge aquariums full of trophy-sized fish, mounted game animals from around the world, and the extensive amount of sporting merchandise. However, the most impressive part of the visit was the employees. Everyone I spoke with presented themselves as genuinely happy to be at work; they could have taught classes in customer relations. It occurred to me that this business that was founded and expanded to an impressive size could be used to demonstrate the power of “trickle down economics.”

President Reagan actually never used the term, but that didn’t stop the opposing politicians from using  to infer wealthy people selfishly only allow a few scraps of money to make their way into the pockets of average people. (The “Occupy” movement uses the one percent versus the ninety-nine percent to make the same argument.)

The term “trickle-down economics” had its origin in the “Cross of Gold” speech given by Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan in 1896. He said, “There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below.” Wikipedia says they first known use of “trickle-down theory” was in 1954. Lyndon Johnson said after leaving the Presidency “Republicans… (are) so busy operating the trickle-down theory, giving the biggest corporations the biggest break that the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket.”

It strikes me that trickle-down economics isn’t such a bad thing if the Cabela’s story is an example. The stores across the country (with one in Canada) were possible because two businessmen continued to invest as their successful stores brought in profits. I’m grateful that the government didn’t take the money used for those investments in taxes and I’m guessing Cabela’s employees feel the same.

The history of Cabela’s is interesting and impressive. The business began with one sale of a dozen hand-tied flies for a dollar by Dick Cabela in 1961. One could say sales picked up quite a bit after that first sale. The kitchen table operation moved to the basement of the father’s furniture store in 1964. The business now has thirty-five retail stores, extensive catalog sales, and over 3000 well paid employees. The stock of the company is publically traded, so anyone can participate in the company’s quest for solid business performance and profits.

The company web site says employees have health, dental, and prescription drug insurance, life insurance, accidental death and disability insurance, a 401k retirement plan, an employee stock purchase plan, and a college savings plan. Sydney’s unemployment rate is reported to be about a third of the national rate.

I was fascinated to think that that the term “trickle-down economics” might be applied to a business built by two entrepreneurial brothers. I came to realize that the Cabela’s story is really a story of the power of free enterprise and capitalism. It would probably be political suicide for a politician to claim that capitalism is unfair because it only allows prosperity to “leak through to those below.”  It is safer politically to use the demeaning term “trickle-down economics” or to continually tell the country the people who have succeeded at building wealth aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.

Going to Hell in a Handbasket

Posted on by

The Phrase Finder defines the expression means “…to be rapidly deteriorating—on course for disaster.” It goes on to say that it isn’t all that clear why a handbasket is preferred to transport people to hell, although there is a theory that it comes from baskets being used to catch heads removed by the guillotine. An alternate expression is going to hell in a handcart. A medieval stained glass church window shows a woman being taken to purgatory in a wheelbarrow pushed by a blue devil.

The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin

Posted on by

This book by Masha Gessen describes how Vladimir Putin rose from low-ranking member of the KGB to “…absolute—and absolutly corrupt—power…” as the leader of the Russian Federation. I was eager to read the book and post this review because the latest statistics on this web site indicated large numbers of readers in the Russian Federation and the Ukraine.

The story of Putin’s childhood is murky. His parents were a disabled man and a woman who had almost starved to death and had lost another son. They had a larger apartment and more amenities than neighbors. The apparent advantages of the parent’s living arrangement created rumors about what the father might have done to serve the KGB. There also are rumors that Putin was adopted. The author says what is indisputable is that he “…by the standards of his time, was a miracle child.”

The KGB expected new recruits to be skilled in hand-to hand combat, and Putin studied Sambo, a Soviet martial art. He was assigned to a unit created to fight dissidents and later trained as a spy. He was assigned to Dresden where there were few spying opportunities. Mikhail Gorbachev began the policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, and dissidents in Leningrad had been emboldened by the time Putin and his wife and family returned from Dresden.

The demolition of the Angleterre Hotel, a Leningrad historic site, spawned a revolution. Dissidents calling themselves “Informals” began gathering and giving speech in front of the site, which they called “Information Point.” Glasnost had released the power of freedom and brought about the rapid collapse of the Soviet system.

Putin claimed he resigned from the KGB when the Soviet Union was collapsing. A man named Sobchak worked himself into being chairman of the Leningrad City Council and hired Putin as an assistant. One theory was that Sobchak was said to know “…that it is wiser to pick your KGB handler yourself than to have one picked for you.” Putin convinced one after another higher ranking officials he could be both trusted and controlled amongst all the political intrigue.

Oligarchs became incredibly wealthy as the country lurched to corrupt enterprise. Russia defaulted on its debts in 1998 amidst hyperinflation. The turmoil opened opportunities for the nondescript Putin. He worked his way into the trust of Boris Yeltsin, who had launched democracy in the Russian Federation with great hope, but Russians quickly became disillusioned amidst terrible economic conditions. Yeltsin resigned and named Vladimir Putin prime minster of Russia August 9, 1999. Yeltsin probably picked him because he believed Putin would not prosecute or persecute him.

The date of Putin’s appointment was intended to make him the “…instant incumbent…” The Russian people and world leaders were “…relieved that unpredictable, embarrassing Yeltsin was gone …” Few understood Putin believed a “…country is as great as the fear it inspires, and the media should be loyal.” The American media was focused on the Bush-Gore election and paid no attention to the turmoil in Russia or Putin’s immediate moves to transform the country back to a Soviet-style government.

There is a story about a tobacco riot  that gives insight into the kind of desperation that led to the collapse of democracy. People were constantly forced to search for food and other commodities, and the stores were often empty. Several thousand people gathered in central Leningrad to demand cigarettes. City council members arrived to prevent violence. It was well after dark when a stash of cigarettes was located and delivered. The protestors lit up and dispersed. However, “…it seemed the city would run out of everything.”

Putin used state control of the media and, according to the author, intimidation, corruption, murder, and terrorism against Russian citizens to solidify his power. The book presents many chilling stories about his actions and how he used corruption to make himself an incredibly wealthy man. The most disturbing accusation is that the FSB, the replacement for the KGB, set off bombs in apartment buildings that killed hundreds of men, women and children. Sacks of the explosive hexogen labeled “sugar” that were used to demolish the apartment buildings were found in a FSB warehouse. It is speculated the bombings were intended to make people want stricter state control; Putin used them to justify canceling gubernatorial elections. The bombings were officially blamed on an Islamic terrorist group. The official response to terrorist attacks was to “…maximize bloodshed…aimed to multiply the fear and the horror.”

There are disturbing stories of Putin’s willingness to punish critics. Wealthy people and powerful public figures who decided to publically oppose Putin’s abandonment of democracy and development of a “tyranny of bureaucracy” paid with their freedom or their lives if they didn’t first escape the country. Some critics died of mysterious poisons such as the radioactive element polonium which could not be obtained by anyone other than a central government. Some critics were convicted of invented crimes and imprisoned by Putin’s imposition of the Stalin theory that the courts existed to “…do the bidding of the head of state and dole out punishment…” He didn’t just apply his “don’t mess with me” policy domestically. He also officially abandoned the “no first nuclear strike” policy against foreign foes. Disasters such as the failure to rescue men on the nuclear submarine Kursh and the slaughter of more than 300 people, mostly women and children, at a school in Breslan by terrorists seemed to cause Putin little concern.

Putin also apparently can’t resist taking things. He pocketed the diamond Super Bowl ring shown to him by New England Patriot owner Robert Kraft. Kraft later ended the embarrassment by saying the ring was a gift. Putin took a glass replica of a Kalashnikov filled with vodka shown to him at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. The author calls him a pleonexia, which is a person who has “…the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others.”

Dmitry Medvedev (who is around five feet tall, although his height is classified) served as the stand-in when Putin had to leave office because of term limits. Medvedev publically admitted in 2011 that he and Putin had made arrangements for Medvedev to hold the office for Putin until Putin was once again eligible to be president.

All of this leads to the Epilogue, which gives a day-by-day description of the events immediately before and during the Russian Federation election in December 2011. Putin was announced to have been the winner, although the margin was narrow despite the suspected corruption of the election. Mikhail Gorbachev called for a re-vote. There was a Facebook posting “The Snow Revolution, or a Clean Slate.” Large numbers of people (the author estimates 150,000) arrived wearing white armbands or other white articles. I haven’t noticed U.S. coverage of what has happened since, but I intend to research the subject for a blog posting at that link.

Vladimir Putin and the Snow Revolution

Posted on by

The “Snow Revolution” part of the title comes from the Epilogue of the book “The Man Without a Face:  The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin,” by Masha Gessen. A dissident put up a Facebook post asking people to wear white ribbons on their arms to show they protested the announced election of Putin to be president of the Russian Federation in December 2011. The author estimated as many as 150,000 people arrived at the protest wearing white armbands or some other white article. The Russian people deserve better if only a few of the allegations and speculations put forward by the author about Putin are true.

Gessen was interviewed by John Williams of The New York Times, and he said she had cataloged disastrous events “…and lay much of it at Putin’s feet. How much of this is concretely provable?” Gessen’s response was that conclusive evidence would have to be obtained by law enforcement, and “None of the murders or acts of terror that have occurred in the last 12 years have been properly investigated.”

How many people arrived to join the Snow Revolution protest? The estimates vary widely, but are significantly lower that what the author predicts. An article on Newyorker.com by Julia Ioffe says the protestors claimed 85,000, the police estimated 25,000, and the media said 50,000. There no dispute that there were thousands of people all over Russia who protested the “…rudely falsified elections.” There is an article with photos of thousands of people in the the streets, and many are holding white ballons. What is important now is what happens with the protest movement. An article titled, “Russia’s Revolutionaries Ponder Next Move” includes a photo of many people carrying white balloons. The protestors are said to face the challenge of creating a unified front.

Russian protest leaders have never pretended that things would be easy. “One peaceful march will not change our country,” protest organizer Boris Nemtsov said on the eve of one rally. “We are in for a long, hard struggle.”

I’ll give a brief review Gessen’s book, which gives background for why there is a Snow Revolution. The book details how Putin made it from being a self-described thug in his youth to becoming the brutal leader of the Russian Federation. He was a bureaucrat in the KGB, and claimed he resigned from that secret police organization when the Soviet Union was collapsing. A man named Sobchak worked himself into being chairman of the Leningrad City Council. He hired Putin as an assistant, because he was said to know “…that it is wiser to pick your KGB handler yourself than to have one picked for you.” There were several steps from there to leadership, and apparently one high level person after another picked Putin as the person to be beside them believing he could be trusted and controlled amongst all the political intrigue. The last in this chain was Boris Yeltsin, who had launched democracy in the Russian Federation with great hope but was forced to resign.

Putin immediately began to transform Russia back into the USSR. He is said to have used state control of the media, murder, corruption, and perhaps even terrorism to retain power. The book discusses how he took control of the government while making himself an incredibly wealthy man. Critics were beaten, imprisoned, or murdered. Some critics died of mysterious poisons which could not be obtained by anyone other than a central government.

The accounts reminded me of a book I reviewed titled “Spy Catcher” by former senior British intelligence officer Peter Wright. There is a description of a container of antidotes for all the known Soviet poisons that was kept with Soviet agents who had escaped the USSR to turn themselves in to British authorities. I believe Wright would also have said that Putin was following the advice of Lenin in keeping control of the country. “Lenin understood better than anyone how to gain control of a country, and, just as important, how to keep it. Lenin believed the political class had to control the men with the guns, and the intelligence service, and by these means could ensure that neither the Army nor another political class could challenge power.

I fear for the author. She is obviously at risk of violence if only a fraction of what she writes about Vladimir Putin is true. She writes in the Prologue that she worked as a journalist in war zones “…but this was the most frightening story I ever had to write:  never before had I been forced to describe a reality so emotionless and cruel, so clear and so merciless, so corrupt and so utterly devoid of remorse.” She lives in Moscow, and told The New York Times interviewer that she had thought of leaving, but “I love my home, my friends, my life. And if Putin doesn’t like me he can leave.”

Recent statistics on this web site indicate there are large numbers of readers in the Russian Republic and Ukrainia. I thought of those readers as I was reading Gessen’s book and prepared the review and this post and wondered how many Russian readers would be Putin supporters and how many would be protestors.

To readers in the United States, I think we should all renew our appreciation of the freedoms we have. I read a joke said to have been told quietly within the Soviet Union. The joke isn’t all that funny, but I think it is pertinent. An American and Russian were arguing about which country was best. The American said, “We are so free that I could stand on a street corner in New York and shout ‘Reagan is an idiot’, and nothing bad would happen to me, although some might stop to argue with me.” The Russian replied, “That’s nothing. I could stand on a street corner of Moscow and shout ‘Reagan is an idiot’, and nothing bad would happen to me, and no one would even argue with me.”