The oozing pustule called Iraq

(Readers of delicate sensibility must forgive me for the graphic title of this post, but I could find no better description, having just reviewed the news from that country.)

In a remarkable piece of political legerdemain, the Bush campaign seems almost to have turned the war in Iraq into an asset, a trick that depends on the populace tuning out to the increasingly horrible details there. Let's try to avoid that, despite how repulsive and depressing the daily reports have become.

The Washington Post has a depressing story of Fallujah, detailing the critique of the local Marine commander. Even filtering for the self-serving nature of his charges, the story is a tragic tale of how ill-prepared we were, and are, for dealing with insurgency and occupation.

The outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western Iraq said Sunday he opposed a Marine assault on militants in the volatile city of Fallujah in April and the subsequent decision to withdraw from the city and turn over control to a security force of former Iraqi soldiers.

That security force, known as the Fallujah Brigade, was formally disbanded last week. Not only did the brigade fail to combat militants, it actively aided them, surrendering weapons, vehicles and radios to the insurgents, according to senior Marine officers. Some brigade members even participated in attacks on Marines ringing the city, the officers said.

The article suggests that the order sending the Marines into the city came from Washington, as did the pull-out three days later. (Why in the world, would you, to use the vernacular, "open a big can of whupass" only to try to put a lid on it 3 days later? "Send in the Marines!" has never been a phrase used by Americans as a euphemism for "engage in precise and controlled application of influence." The world's finest and best-equipped combat soldiers are NOT an effective police force.)

But then again, as Mr. Cheney repeatedly points out, intelligent, or dare I say, sensitive, use of force is not a hallmark of the Bush Administration. Which leads us to situations like that reported over the weekend. Quick Quiz: what would you do if you wanted to inflame anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East? Would you a) fire from a battle helicopter onto a crowd with "dancing children", b) kill an Arabic-speaking broadcast journalist on-camera, or c) both? In Baghdad, helicopters came to stop potential looters surrounding a previously disabled Bradley fighting vehicle.

In the video, which was shown on al-Arabiya throughout the day, the journalist, Mazin Tumaisi, 26, can be seen reporting near the burning armored vehicle. It is not clear what the people around it were doing. As the camera moved to the sky to capture the image of two low-flying military helicopters swooping onto the scene, bullets rained down, hitting Tumaisi and the cameraman, Seif Fouad, who was seriously wounded. The camera lens was sprayed with blood, and Tumaisi could be heard saying, "Please help me. I am dying."

Meanwhile:

In Ramadi, a city west of Baghdad, 10 people were killed and 40 were wounded, including women and children, when U.S. tanks and helicopters opened fire in a residential district.

And:

A similar incident was reported in the town of Fallujah, where U.S. forces launched airstrikes early Monday, killing at least seven Iraqis, including women and children, a doctor there said, according to the Reuters news agency.

And:

Near Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad, three Polish soldiers were killed in an ambush and three Iraqi National Guardsmen died in a bombing, according to the Associated Press.

And:

Also in Baghdad, a suicide bomber set off an explosion next to two patrol cars in the Amyria neighborhood, killing two Iraqi police officers and wounding four, 1st Lt. Sudad Fadhil said.

And:

Elsewhere in Iraq, U.S. Marines killed an insurgent and captured seven others after they launched an attack at Abu Ghraib prison.

Let's all get clear about this, and say it out loud, since the Bush people aren't talking about it. (Except to, bewilderingly, give themselves a B+.) This is NOT just a little unrest, sure to calm down after the elections Bush still claims will happen in January. (Uh, you still sure on that, George? Checked with anyone in Iraq lately?)

This is a wide-spread armed conflict (at what point do we call it civil war?), and IT'S GETTING WORSE. The daily fatality rate for Americans has INCREASED since we captured Saddam. The daily Coalition casualty rate for 2004 is more than TWICE that in 2003. And the percentage of Coalition fatalities attributable to hostile action is ALSO higher. There is no credible government, nor any convincing plan for turning the competing factions into one, be it democratic, theocratic or totalitarian. Meanwhile, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a real, bona fide terrorist, has a fabulous training area for schooling up young jihadis in guerilla combat tactics, bribery, sabotage, you name it.

John Kerry hasn't presented a convincing case for what he would do to fix all this. This may be because there may not be a way of actually "fixing" this. Despite that, I feel convinced that, if there IS a way to make the best out of this mess, it doesn't begin by re-electing the people who screwed it up so badly to begin with. The sooner people remember that Iraq is an ONGOING example of abject, tragic failure by George W. Bush, and not an example of bold, decisive leadership, the better.