Did WikiLeaks end the Iraq war?

From Glenn Greenwald:

From a CNN report on why the Iraqi Government rejected the Obama administration’s conditions for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline: 

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.
But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.
The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported. 

That description from CNN of the cable’s contents is, unsurprisingly, diluted to the point of obfuscation. That cable was released by WikiLeaks in May, 2011, and, as McClatchy put it at the time, “provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” The U.S. then lied and claimed the civilians were killed by the airstrike. Although this incident had been previously documented by the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the high-profile release of the cable by WikiLeaks generated substantial attention (and disgust) in Iraq, which made it politically unpalatable for the Iraqi government to grant the legal immunity the Obama adminstration was seeking. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time the cable was released that it made it much more difficult for Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain beyond the deadline under any conditions.

This is in contradistinction to the run up to the war in 2002-03 when the news establishment-- and especially the NYT's Judith MIller-- were abetting the Bush administration's case for war with obfuscations and outright lies.  

Greenwald continues:

History is filled with examples of those who most bravely challenged and subverted corrupted power and who sought reforms being rewarded with prison or worse, at the hands of those whose bad actions they exposed. If Bradley Manning did leak these cables, his imprisonment is a prime example of that inverted justice.

Things Fall Apart: What if Obama is correct?

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned...

-William Butler Yeats

The reasons to stay out of Libya are compelling: the US population is against it, no war has been declared, we are already spending trillions of dollars on other wars, Arab countries have resources and should be more involved instead of quelling pro-Democracy in their own nations, we should have helped overthrow Pakistan and Yemen. The whole escapade seems like yet another ill-advised excuse for an American president to flex some muscle while the US defense industry sells war on brown people. Can anything good ever come from war?

On Fox News yesterday, the pointed questions seemed to belie the dissonant and contradictory sentiment that while the nobody agrees with the president's actions in Libya, most commenters feel he should have acted 2 weeks ago. Or nascent democracy cannot take hold in such a backward country. Or the President should wait, promise ground forces, act more quickly, withhold ground forces, ignore the NCAA basketball tournament... whatever has been done is never the proper course.

The one sentiment that was not heard on any of the Sunday morning shows was, "What if President Obama is exactly right on this?" I realize this would be a novel result of any US foreign policy, especially in light of the complete disasters we're still experiencing from the last administration.

But let's look at the differences between Libya and the Iraq debacle. Libya's uprising was started by a popular uprising, Iraq's was not. The coalition organized against Libya includes, and is funded by, our allies. The Arab league, while spastic and unreliable, has voiced support for our military action. Our Secretary of State has not needed to lie to the UN in order to get them to pass a proclamation. Obama has not referred to our action as "a crusade." Libya is led by a dictator who has actually attacked US targets, Iraq was not. In short, the US is speaking speaking softly, yet our big stick is crashing down on a despicable terrorist despot.

So I'll ask the question again: What if Obama has gotten this issue exactly right? What if he has deliberated just enough and allowed others to voice the decision that he has already concluded is the correct one? Is that even possible? This is an opinion that would never be heard even if some pundit felt that way. The contrarian view of military action is so easy, so historically easy, to take-- especially with our recent history. Can an American president ever be correct? Fade the warmongering from the right or left.

Criticize the president in a time of war, it's okay only when the president is a Democrat. maybe this all ends in tears...

But consider for a moment, what if he has gotten this one right.

Michael Monsoor and duty

Tonight I watched the Mike Huckabee show only because the White Sox had played a day-game which found me surfing for a few minutes.  The first segment was about Petty Officer Michael Monsoor, the Navy Seal and posthumous Medal of Honor recipient, who instinctively fell on a grenade in Ramadi, Iraq in 2006 in order to save his fellow soldiers.

Monsoor's sister was interviewed and gave a poignant biography of a young man who dedicated his life to the service of family and nation.  He was a loving brother, son and uncle who never hesitated to do the right thing, volunteering for military service and attaining additional training in the special forces.

Lt Commander Seth Stone summarized the details of the fateful day.  Just days before he was to come home after a long deployment, Monsoor's unit came under attack and the highly trained Seal was hit with a live hand grenade tossed by insurgents in the midst of a fire fight.  Instead of running for cover, which was still an option, he covered the live ordnance to shield his comrades standing a few feet away.  The platoon mates, who had wives and children at home, were saved by the heroic act of Michael Monsoor.

I am a 48 year old man who has had a wonderful life.  Michael Monsoor was 25 years old when he died.  I try to remember what I thought 20 years ago; what my world view was; my goals; my feelings of what the future would bring.  I remember that I trusted the system... the status quo, and I imagine that Michael Monsoor did likewise. Maybe not so much naively, but I remember that I respected older wiser adults who counseled me to work hard and trust that rewards will come based on merit.  I trusted that my work would not be in vain, and it has not been.

Now I am the older, supposedly wiser, adult.  When I see stories like Michael Monsoor's I cannot help but feel that my responsibility is to ensure that trust for the system, our system, is not misplaced.  Michael Monsoor, and countless other heroes, bought into this nation's mission, a mission that my tax money has suppported and a mission to which my acquiescence is implied.  Michael Monsoor is not here today largely because of the status quo to which I am a party.  And it breaks my heart.

Lt. Commander Stone said something that truly overwhelmed me.  He said that Petty Officer Monsoor, like all Navy Seals, was trained to care for his brothers.  He was trained to care for his brothers.  And he was merely acting in accordance with his training.

How many of us can say that we have been trained to care for others?  How much of what we do is consistent with any modicum of such training.  I have sat by to watch my nation elect and support leaders who have not exhibited anything close to the notion of caring.

If we cared for Michael Monsoor as much as he cared for us, would we have blindly entered a war that was as unjustified and as unnecessary as the war in Iraq?  Would we have sat by to watch as that war was waged so imprudently?  I have no idea about the political views Michael Monsoor or his family, and I am certainly not trying to co-opt his death to elevate my soapbox.  My hunch is that his sister supports the war since she was so gracious to Mr. Huckabee who has been a staunch supporter of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and I can respect Ms. Monsoor's stance regardless.

I remember the Tehran, Iran US embassy attack in 1979 and remember the rage and know that my 18 year old self would have run-- not walked-- to the nearest military recruitment office if a war had broken out over that greivous action.  At that time the sense of duty to my tribe likely would have overwhelmed my latent wisdom about the situation and my future could have been much different.  I was fortunate. The wise men of my nation decided not to wage war in 1979 and the situation resolved peacefully when I was was ready to act violently.  I joke that Jimmy Carter saved my life, but it's not a joke... his wisdom saved the lives of countless people-- men, women and children-- who would have needlessly died had a justified shooting war broken out.

I wonder where the wise men are now?

I do not cast blame on anyone else in this travesty, and the loss of any man is indeed a travesty.  I am supposedly one of my tribe's wise men now, but for all my ersatz wisdom I did not learn the lesson that Officer Monsoor, who acted instinctively based on his training, had learned even before his 25th birthday.  From the account of his life, there is no doubt that Petty Officer Monsoor would repeat his self-less act of caring for his teammates again and again if faced with that choice again. 

The nagging issue I continue to have is that I did not care for Michael Monsoor like he cared for his platoon.  The war that took his life was waged on my watch.  Unlike the young Navy Seal, I have not been trained to care for my brother.  And I let Michael Monsoor down.

Hypocrisy Fest 2008

Condoleezza Rice on Russia:

"Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that's its military power...that's not the way to deal in the 21st century."

But that rule does not apply to the US:

The US must continue to engage in "kinetic warfare" - which [David Kilcullen, adviser to Condoleezza Rice,] defines as "killing the enemy and breaking their stuff" - in order to demonstrate to the Iraqi population that it has the upper hand.

War. Really, What is it Good For?

Never underestimate the wisdom of Fred, especially when he is debating an imbecilic REMF.

This sums up the purpose of our military better than anything I've ever read.


[Hat tip: The Cunning Realist.]