That other war
"The Hurt Locker" and the war we prefer to ignore
That other war
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Now that The Hurt Locker has been awarded the Oscar for Best Picture (my choice as well), perhaps we'll start to see news stories studded with cinematic metaphors. So let's get it over with:
The bomb clock is ticking on President Obama's health care plan...The Democrats could cut the wrong wires and blow themselves up...Like bomb specialists hooked on danger, the two congressional parties may be incapable of defusing the tension...
On the other hand, the year's most spellbinding movie has not exactly embedded itself in the popular culture; to date, its domestic box office take is roughly $13 million, a vivid testament to the public's ongoing aversion to watching Iraq on the big screen. The reason for this de facto boycott is no mystery. The war is a downer and most Americans tuned it out years ago, back when George W. Bush was trying in vain to defend his ill-considered invasion and his incompetent occupation.
But, at the risk of readers tuning out at the end of this sentence, it's worth noting the latest political developments in Iraq. The Hurt Locker garnered its six Oscars on the same weekend that Iraq staged a national election, its first since 2005. The bad news is that at least 38 people died and 80 were wounded in suicide bombings that were intended to intimidate the voters. The good news - maybe, conceivably - is that the usual quarreling sectarian factions might cobble together some kind of peaceful governing coalition in the weeks ahead, thereby allowing America to proceed with its long-planned combat troop withdrawals late in the summer.
The Obama administration would dearly love for this to happen, given its focus these days on Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention the various crises closer to home. And most Americans would love for this to happen, given their presumably instinctive desire to purge Iraq from their minds and return to the bygone days when they couldn't find it on a map.
But Iraq won't be going away any time soon. Bush's grand democratic experiment is still an exceedingly fragile construct. Three hundred civilians reportedly die each month in political violence; as one news report puts it, "Assassination is still the most likely cause of death in Iraqi politics." A European watchdog group, Transparency International, ranks Iraq as the fourth most corrupt country in the world. Warring political parties control the various government ministries - at least those ministries that are still standing, because car bombs have destroyed five of them during the past six months. Even the most basic services - a car license plate, for instance - are obtainable only if one is prepared to pay a bribe.
Only 25 percent of Iraqis can get enough electricity for their basic needs. Only 25 percent have access to basic health care. Twenty two percent are malnourished. Forty seven percent are unemployed or underemployed. When measuring average income per head of household, Iraq ranks 162nd in the world. Its business climate ranks 153rd; indeed, despite the Bush administration's dream of creating a private enterprise paradise, 60 percent of the Iraqi jobs are in the public sector.
The vote tallies from the weekend election have yet to be announced, but it's clear that none of the 80 political parties have won anything close to a majority. Apparently the current prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and a former prime minister, Ayad Allawi, control the most popular factions. They're likely to spend many weeks, and possibly months, trying to form a governing coalition - presumably, one that would unite or at least pacify the majority Shiites, the minority Sunnis, and the Kurds who have long wanted autonomy in northern Iraq. The longer the negotiations take, the greater the risk of a power vacuum, and the greater the risk of renewed violence.
A new report in The Economist magazine concludes: "The city (of Baghdad) is more militarized than it was under Saddam Hussein...Though Iraqis are fed up with violence, the militia-leaders-cum-party-barons pay no more than lip service to the idea of reconciliation...There is a real risk that Iraq's democratic institutions will not survive. They are too weak and too corrupted to resolve the country's many problems peacefully and credibly. Ambitious politicians are able to go outside the institutional framework to further their partisan aims...Such instability opens the door once again to the militias. They appear to offer a shortcut to success, especially in the aftermath of the election. With their political masters locked in fractious coalition negotiations that may last for several months, (the militias) could be called on to carry out attacks aimed at influencing the division of power...
"America's influence is ebbing noticeably as its troops withdraw. Despite spending $800 billion over the past seven years, its plan for the country has still not worked."
Kathryn Bigelow, the director of The Hurt Locker, gave a shout out to the troops on Oscar night, in the hope that they all return safely from Iraq. They won't. Even if the Obama team hews to its Sept. 1 troop pullout timetable, roughly 50,000 will remain - and, as Joe Biden put it the other day, most of those who stay behind will still be guys who can shoot straight and go get bad guys."
We might be able to tune out the Oscar-winning movie, and even wipe the war from our minds, but we will continue to pay in blood and treasure. The final bill for our '03 folly is still years away.
Comment removed.
BILLO: There were seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion that caused confusion at that time. It wasn't just one resolution on 10/2 and a vote on 10/11 as you suggest. The Administration moved back and forth from one argument to another. The practice of shifting justifications had much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at that particular time. The 10/11 (a Friday) vote wasn't completed until 1 AM on the last day before a recess to go home before the 11/4 election. It was a smoke-screen of shifting reasons in between 10/2 and a last minute vote on 10/11 that created a last-minute situation for both houses of congress. It looks legit after the fact, which was its intent. I didn't say Bush and Cheney were stupid, just devious.— Talvenada- BILLO: This is the same UN that Bush's UN Ambassador Bolton said you could chop off 12 stories without having an effect? The same UN that meant nothing when it disagreed with Bush going to war? The same UN that Conse 'Pubs say is meaningless? Are we talking about 2 different UN's?— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- TOM: Bush and Cheney wanted as many reasons as they could to attack Iraq, and they needed help from The UK. They would have blamed Saddam 100% for 9-11 if they thought it could be swallowed whole. Blair needed some intel, and they fixed that problem. Blair and Bush needed intel from each other that couldn't easily be proved to be bogus. It was The British faux yellow-cake report that Powell presented as only 1 reason. Did you conveniently forget Bush's famous 16 words? Hard to believe that Bush and Cheney did these things, like saying Saddam was involved in 9-11? Beyond belief isn't it?— Talvenada
- BILLO: Yeah, the same UN that needed to be run by Bush-Cheney, right?— Talvenada
- BILLO: The authorization required congress be notified, but do you really think Bush and Cheney felt that they couldn't ignore that?— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- BILLO: As Powell said we could not afford to remove Saddam from power, and now were in hock big time to China. The world has a lot of other bad guys, and we cannot afford the cost of their removal either. Nobody thinks Saddam was a good guy, but the ends doesn't justify the means.— Talvenada
- Comment removed.
- Me drink lots of red wine with my customer and come home and read 5 more questionable acts. Me happy I drank lots of red wine instead of reading posts. Good night. HALLIBURTON! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggg.— Alvenada
- And before I go to bed. Words of wisdom from my customer who happens to employ 47 people in our metropolitan area. " One reason that I will not hire is that our constant uncertainty as to what this President is going to do, makes it hard for my company to figure out the risk of hiring new employees. " Or something like that. Good night. Talvenda- lights out at 10:15- take your meds.— Alvenada
- MOCKY: You should thank Tom and Billo for doing your bidding for you. ............ BILLO: I knew there was a rush prior to congressional recess, and that a large percentage of senators did not read the entire bill. The original was 10/2 and 10/3 which led to Dem amendments on 10/10 that wouldn't pass, because Bush didn't want congress to have the final say or need UN approval to go to war. So, it gets dumped on a congress 9 days before recess that Bush wanted a blank check to go to war. It's still a cram job, albeit it not less than 24 hours. It's still a questionable act. Take away the cram job and replace it with a blank check to go to war unprovoked.— Talvenada
- Tal, at the time, the Democrats controlled the Senate 51-49, so Majority Leader Daschle did not have to bring the resolution to the floor if he thought there was not enough time to debate it. Seems like the questionable act should rest with Daschle.— tom - wilmington, de
- Swedesboro: Yeah, we know Saddam was a tyrant. But we knew that for 30 years. Even sold him weapons. Saddam gassed the Kurds back in the 1980's. Why did this become a reason to invade only in 2003? Should we invade Nigeria also? There was a massacre there just this week.— p-diddy
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
