7 years down, 93 to go?

Today marks the 7th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Seven years later the country is more peaceful than during the first five years of our presence, much of it due to the efforts of Gen. David Petreaus to change in tone and treatment of the Iraqis and their government from the brutally and pervasively racist attitudes and conduct of US forces under Tommy Franks and Donald Rumsfeld.

To be clear, it was not by any means the majority of US forces which behaved with racial/cultural contempt. In fact the vast majority of US forces tried very hard to be fair and decent. No, instead it was much more commonly the private contractors, coupled with a handful of US troops which operated with contemp AND the approval of men like General Odierno. That was the key element, the conduct of the military leadership on the ground and in the Administration which covered-up, brushed off, and ignored brutality and even atrocity. It was leadership and tone which Petreaus changed. It was the corrupt and contemptuous conduct which turned the average Iraqi against us, just as it was that change in conduct which turned them back toward us when Petreaus instilled that change.

The comments of people like Limbaugh who considered providing prisoners with legal counsel to be "molly-coddling" terrorists, and called the conduct at Abu Ghraib "fraternity pranks" spoke of a pervasive attitude among conservatives, inside and outside the military, that Arabs and Muslims were to be treated however we liked. When combined with comments that Muslims like and support terrorism, it helped to foster an fears of crusade inside Iraq and an attitude of contempt inside the Pentagon which shaped US military policy on the ground (prior to Petreaus). It was that contempt, along with too few jobs, too little power and water - which lead to four years of unrelenting insurgency. So, it was more than anything else the change in conduct of US troops by using the local leaders and working within the framework of payments for favors and let's not forget stopping the wanton killings by private contractors which changed the nature of the game in 2007. It was EXACTLY the opposite of the kind of arrogance demonstrated by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, or Cheney - it was precisely what the rest of the country and world said we needed to do, and it worked. So whatever we've "won" in Iraq - make no mistake - it was not Bush nor his cronies who "won" it - they embraced violence and torture instead of cooperation and intelligent interogation. It was the change forced on Bush which "won" whatever we've won.

Yet, this relative peace is just that, relative. There are still daily bombings, there are still daily killings. The frequency is far lower than in 2004-2006, but there are still several a day throughout the country.

Earlier this month Iraqis voted to define the government for the next Parliamentary cycle. It is likely the Al Maliki government will be returned to power, they are leading in the polls.

The shape of the government will likely shape the speed of our departure from Iraq, and Iraqis are worried. They are worried that our departure will create a power vacuum, they are worried our presence props up one faction over another, and so compromises sovereignty. Much of what they worry about is that our departure may set off sectarian violence which has only been forestalled by our presence, but, like Yugoslavia, still lurks slightly below the surface.

By contrast, I watched the movie "Green Zone" yesterday, only by coincidence, and it reminded me how this all started. While it was a work of fiction, it had some undertones which we seem to have forgotten as we claim that "Bush won HIS war" - as if he didn't start Afghanistan - those important facts about Iraq which the movie drove home were:

1. Bush (and company, esp. Rumsfeld) hand picked the intelligence data they wanted. They called it "raw data", but that really meant the ignored the valid interpretation of middle-east experts, including the likelyhood of some intelligence being lies. We obviously found out later that profoundly impactful sources like Ahmed Chalabi and "Curveball" were totally unreliable - yet we invaded anyway.

2. That we, in fact, didn't know where WMD were - Rumsfeld's comments that WMD were "North, South, East, and West" of Bagdhad belied David Kay's comments at the time that the only areas left unsearched were Hussien's private palaces - and given a short period more time he (Kay) would complete the inspections. Bush refused to wait.

3. That invading a country where 25% (ish) of the populace dominated the other 75% by way of controlling the army, and then disbanding that army, helping create 75% unemployment, was enormously foolish. It armed a resentful Sunni minority, and left them with little to do other than be without an income, and fearful of the Shiaa exacting revenge for 30 years of Sunni brutality.

4. Lastly, it reminded me of one extraordinarily important fact. The CIA and other intelligence services said it was 'likely' that Hussien still had some sort of WMD, but that they had no hard evidence. Further, they said that the WMD which was unaccounted for and about which Bush ultimately invaded - was inert and had been inert for 11 years. It was THOSE WMD Bush required Hussien to produce evidence of the destruction of or there would be war. As the truth turned out, he no longer had those weapons, a reality Bush wouldn't address or consider and so we created a pretext for war which made that war unavoidable. Hussien did not have WMD. With respect to nuclear weapons, the weapons Bush and his Administration conjured up fears of mushroom clouds, the CIA told Bush TWO MONTHS prior to the invastion that Iraq no closer than five years from a nuclear weapon, more likely more than 15 years. We had NO solid evidence Iraq had a viable nuclear program, zero. No evidence of nuclear enrichment sites or capability, no satellite imagery, nothing other than the lies of Curveball and Chalabi.

So, seven years after an invasion built on purposefully myopic and deceitfully presented "evidence", Iraq struggles to find its way. The Iraqis hope that peace will be sustainable even though Iran's power has grown, even though the power of the Shiaa has grown, and even though the more militant Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan) want to confront Iran on Iraqi soil. Further, while the more militant elements of the Shiaa majority have accepted a Sunni participation in the government, it is probable that they've only done so because of US troop presence. So our fragile peace continues and our hope for a peaceful Iraq survives, but the test will be will it survive after we leave? This question is the same now as when asked in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Ultimately the fate of Iraq depends upon the desires of the Iraqis and their ability to fend off outside influence. Yet, we are ultimately responsible for that outcome. We took the lid off a powder keg of a highly repressive government which abused the majority of its people. We behaved with blind and blithe ignorance. We tried to install puppets, we failied to secure weapons caches, and disbanded the only organization capable of stopping the looting and probably preventing an insurgency (the Iraqi Army). We did this quite simply because we thought just because we were AMERICANS that we knew better how to 'run' Iraq than those we would govern. The Bush Administration's otherwise professed love of decentralized government was utterly ignored as we arrogantly tossed aside the advice of, and experience of, Iraqi officials.

Seven years later, we are still paying for it - both in treasure and in blood, and while it is less so our blood, Iraqi blood still flows freely. Perhaps the 93 more years John McCain, Dick Cheney and George Bush said we should be willing to stay would mean a sustainable peace. Yet the lessons of Yugoslavia and Chechynya say otherwise. Instead, I think our experience and history says that even seven years cannot make up for the colossal mistakes we made during our invasion and occupation (especially the latter). 500,000 or so Iraqis paid for our mistakes with their lives. I sincerely hope, given that I am responsible for the conduct of my government, that when we leave in one year or 93, no more Iraqis need to die to pay any more for our misdeeds.