HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Andrew Sullivan has a post today highlighting some new information on US detainees in Iraq. The info comes via Foreign Policy Magazine's blog, which says the following:

"Despite public statements after the Abu Ghraib scandal indicating that the United States would reduce the Iraqi prison population, the Brookings Iraq Index released this week shows it has more than doubled since June 2004. There are now around 15,000 Iraqi prisoners held by U.S. and Allied forces, in addition to those held by the local authorities. Compare that to the estimated size of the insurgency, between 15,000 and 20,000, and that gives an indication of how wide the net has been cast." Meanwhile, the WaPo reports that Bush has been scaled back funding for groups building civil society and democratic institutions in Iraq. For all the rhetoric about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis through democratization and increased self-governance, security projects are growing ever more prominent in the nation-building equation. As reconstruction projects continue to go unfunded in order to pay for training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, commitment to building infrastructure in the country seems to be waning. This could represent a refinement in strategy aimed at boosting stability, but to me it appears more likely that the retrenchment anticipates riding out the next two years and dumping the situation on whomever comes next.

Andrew points to the first paragraph as a sign that we need to set down firm policy on the humane treatment of detainees. I agree. But there's a second equally important point that Andrew leaves unaddressed, and it comes form the common theme that runs through all three paragraphs: this administration's lack of honesty and sincerity in both its public statements and actions.

Take, for example, the first paragraph. Not only does it show that the administration has been lying about its post= Abu Ghraib policies, it also (unless I'm reading this wrong) shows that they have been deliberately lying about the insurgency. If official estimates place the insurgency between 15,000 and 20,000, and if 15,000 people are currently held at US detention centers, why is there still an insurgency? And why does the violence seem to be escalating? I just don't see how that adds up.

The lies continue in the second paragraph, which details how this administration has been slashing funds for democracy building activities in Iraq. Think back to Bush's 2nd Inaugural. Remember all the hype from the right about his lofty rhetoric? Passages like the following had them all atwitter:

Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.

Although it sounds great, it wasn't something I was going to get all worked up up, because in the end I knew they would never be willing to do the work necessary to make it all happen. Of course, when I suggested that at the time, my inbox was flooded with hate mail from people on the right, mail quite often suggesting that I would be proven wrong. I wish I had been, and I take no pride in saying "I told you so." But really, seriously... "I told you so."

"The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat." If this administration is walking away from its commitment to build democracy in Iraq, doesn't that mean by its own definition it is handing a victory to our "enemies?" And if not, please explain why. Because by their own definition, I don't see it.

Lastly, the final paragraph in the original FP post is chilling. A strategy of retrenchment that rides out 2+ years so that they can dump the problem on the next president? I realize the president has already announced his intention to do just that, but it wasn't until I saw it formulated like this that it really hit me what he's doing. It's not just that he's stubborn. Its that he doesn't want to deal with any of the consequences of what he's done. Why bother? He can just let the next president clean up his mess.

No shock there either, I suppose. It really has been the pattern of his life, hasn't it?

--------