Considering the number of elected officials and candidates who are willing to talk about the mess in Iraq, we might listen to one who WANTS to

Word is that when he heard John McCain was prevailing in the New Hampshire Republican primary, neocon nutjob Norman Podhoretz started jumping up and down squealing, "The Surge! The Surge!" (Senator McCain, you'll recall, is on record as supporting the Surge if it means our staying in Iraq for another leventy-kajillion years. Actually, this is just a guess--he hasn't specified an outer time limit.)

Of course the neocons came into existence for the purpose of misunderstanding absolutely everything in the universe, but at an elevated level of viciousness, violence, and all-around scumbuggery, so Pappy Norm is just upholding the tradition. "We're wrong, cosmically wrong, we're in your face, and we dump doody on you," as they say at neocon pep rallies.

On one level, true, the Surge has been an all but unmitigated triumph: It has, incredibly, gotten Iraq not only off the front page but pretty much out of the news. In all likelihood, among the less neolithic of the sociopaths who run our foreign policy, the ones less given to self-delusion as a way of life, this was probably the only goal of the Surge. It was always about politics.

American politics, that is, not Iraqi. Iraqi politics remains an unholy mess. Which is one measure of the total failure of the Surge, since the whole point was to bring the Iraqi government to the point of being able to control the country.

You might think that the fact that there's a presidential election in progress would provide just the swellest opportunity to look at what the hell we think we're doing in Iraq and how we can mitigate the catastrophe we've produced there--not to mention extricate ourselves from it. You might think that, but it appears you would be wrong. The election seems instead the perfect opportunity for never mentioning it--at least among the nonfringe candidates.

So it's interesting to see that Florida Rep. Robert Wexler is actually making the Surge an issue in his reelection campaign. In a recent mailing to his e-mail list, recalling that "a few weeks ago I voted again to deny [Iraq war] funding without a timetable," he wrote:

I am bothered by the recent movement to repackage the Surge as a success. Today, I released an editorial (below and also published on the Daily Kos) regarding my view of the Surge's so-called "success." If you have a moment, please read it when you get a chance.

Oh, there are a lot of people talking about the Surge, but they're mostly "out of sight, out of mind," like the Iraq occupation itself. Even assuming that there has been a significant reduction in violence (and one always has to be careful where information is significantly controlled by an administration that proudly practices the founding principle of the modern Conservative Movement: NEVER RESORT TO THE TRUTH UNTIL YOU'VE EXHAUSTED EVERY IMAGINABLE LIE), there are all sorts of nasty considerations--oh, things like large-scale American buying off of erstwhile insurgents (welfare for Islamofascists?), and the tactical withdrawal of important elements of the struggle, biding their time till the hated Americans are gone and they can get back to killing each other.

Anyway, the mere fact that Representative Wexler wants us to be talking about the Surge, and indeed the whole subject of Iraq, is refreshing. So why don't we take a listen to what he has to say? (Note: All emphasis is in the original, except that I've scaled back the original's boldface italics to plain boldface.)

A Surge of More Lies
By Congressman Robert Wexler

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight. According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security. The Surge had a clear and defined objective - to create stability and security - enabling the Iraqi government to enact lasting political solutions and foster genuine reconciliation and cooperation between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds.

This has not happened.

There has been negligible political progress in Iraq, and we are no closer to solving the complex problems - including a power sharing government, oil revenue agreement and new constitution - than we were before the Administration upped the ante and sent 30,000 more troops to Iraq.

Too many Democrats in Congress are again surrendering to General Petraeus and have failed to challenge the Bush Administration's claims that the surge has been successful. In fact -- it is just the opposite.

The reduction in violence in Iraq has exposed the continuing failure of Iraqi officials to solve their substantial political rifts. By President Bush's own stated goal of political progress, the Surge has failed.

Of course raising troop levels has increased security - a strategy the Bush administration ignored when presented by General Shinseki before the war in Iraq began - but the fundamental internal Iraqi problems remain and the factors that were accelerating the civil war in 2007 have simply been put on hold.

The military progress is a testament to the patience and dedication of our brave troops - even in the face of 15 month-long deployments followed by insufficient Veteran's health services when they return home. They have performed brilliantly - despite the insult of having President Bush recently veto a military spending bill that enhanced funding and benefits, and increased care.

Despite the efforts of American soldiers, the surge alone cannot bring about the political solutions needed to end centuries of sectarian divide.

As it stands, little on the ground supports the assertion that Iraqis are ready to stand up and govern themselves. Too few Iraqi troops are trained, equipped and combat ready, and they cannot yet provide adequate security. Loyalty is also an issue in the Iraqi army as Al Queda and Sunni insurgents infliltrate their defense forces. The consequences turned deadly just recently when an Iraqi soldier purposely killed two U.S. troops.

On the streets of Baghdad and Mosul, the Sunni and Shia factions have paused their fighting, awaiting guarantees and protections that have not yet been delivered. As Iraqi refugees return, there is no mechanism to help them rebuild their lives, nor recover their now-occupied homes. Neighborhoods once mixed are now segregated.

In Northern Iraq, Kurdish terrorists conducting nefarious operations across the border into Turkey have compelled our NATO ally to strike at bases, inflaming tensions between Baghdad and Ankara.

The surge is working? We suffered more U.S. casualties in 2007 than in any other year of the war. We can't afford any more of this type of success.

How can we create the situation that is most likely to deliver political progress in Iraq? Not by continuing the surge and occupation. Our best chance (there is no guarantee) is by putting real pressure on the Iraqi government to force action. Telling the national and local Iraqi leaders that we are withdrawing our troops can help accomplish this goal. Today, the majority Iraqi Shia government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has little incentive to act when American troops remain in the country to provide security and stability.

Based on the Administration's plan, John McCain's proposal of a 100-year US occupation could be a reality!

The Democratic Congress must act aggressively to first cut off funding for the surge and then the entire war. Many of my colleagues avoided a showdown with the administration because they mistakenly believed such a fight would endanger the safety of the troops.

In fact, we must accept that every soldier killed or injured in the coming months should have already been home. Every billion dollars of war-appropriations we spend from here on should have been spent on genuine priorities here at home such as children's heath care.

Enough is enough: While the Administration over-commits American forces in Iraq, we see Al Qaeda-regrouping and Osama Bin Laden still at large. We remain seriously bogged down in Afghanistan, and are witnessing a crisis in Pakistan that has left a nuclear country on the brink of a meltdown. America's resources and attention are desperately needed elsewhere and our soldiers must no longer be needlessly sacrificed as we wait for Iraqis to stand up.

The Surge has failed. If my colleagues gullibly accept the moving rationale for the Surge, just as so many have for the war itself, we will have failed as well.

#