The Occupation of Iraq, Five Years Later: Evidence of "Progress" Cited but Hard to See

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the day the Bush administration decided it had the moral authority to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq, despite the absence of full UN backing, despite opposition from key allies like France and semi-allies like Russia. There's no rational person I know who would want the monstrous Saddam Hussein back in power (were he not brutally executed, that is), but with hawkish US leaders, like McCain and Cheney, competing for relevance in Baghdad (that is, after showing up either secretly or in full armor, demonstrating how dangerous the country remains) and then popping up in a market or meeting on oil profits once the coast was clear to suggest that "progress" is being made and it's been a "successful endeavor," it's clear that 100 years of occupation might be an understatement of their goals.

But five years into this debacle, the signs of progress (and it's always possible to find relatively better conditions when you're in some quarter of hell on earth ["A bombing on Monday evening killed 43 people near the Imam Hussein shrine in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, penetrating one of the most secure perimeters in Iraq." (emphasis mine)]) are constantly countered by signs of regression. Take, for instance, the fact that when its renovations are completed, the National Museum in Baghdad (you know, the one Rumsfeld mocked as insignificant when his breathtakingly incompetent prosecution of the war led to it being violently looted) will NOT reopen to the public for the foreseeable future:

Baghdad's National Museum, a treasure trove of artifacts from the stone age and Babylon to the Assyrians and Islamic art, will not reopen when renovation of two of its galleries is completed in a few months, an official said.

[...]

Although there are no fears of renewed looting, the building could become a target for bombers, said Maysoon al-Bayati, a media official at the museum.

"We are afraid of bombings," al-Bayati said in Baghdad. "We are afraid if we open the museum, bombers with explosive belts would come and damage the museum."

But museums are not how Bush and his friends measure progress. No, to them progress is measured not through quality of life, but rather through more liquid commodities:

Speaking to US troops at Balad air base north of Baghdad, Mr Cheney said the US had "no intention of abandoning our friends or allowing this country of 170,000 sq km to become a staging ground for further attacks against Americans".

Mr Cheney then flew to Irbil, capital of Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish region, where he pressed political leaders to pass long-delayed legislation on sharing Iraq's oil revenues.

Moments ago, President Bush more or less declared victory in Iraq:

Five years after launching the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush is making some of his most expansive claims of success in the fighting there. Bush said last year's troop buildup has turned Iraq around and produced "the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden."

He shooed away his critics with non-specific claims, continuing to simply ignore the facts:

As of Tuesday, at least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died in the war, which has cost the U.S. roughly $500 billion. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated.

Without specifics, Bush decried those who have "exaggerated estimates of the costs of this war."

"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much," he said.

But Bush has himself defined "victory" in Iraq in such terms that undercut his statements today:

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

* In the short term:
o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

So, clearly we are still in the "the short term" stage of victory, as the medium term requires that Iraq be "providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential." I see no signs of that at all. Yet, being still, five years later, with victory, at best, in the "short-term" stage Bush steps out and claims he is "winning" in Iraq.

How many days until that deluded lunatic is out there?