Snipped from alternet.org.

Whenever I get a chance to read something first hand from Iraq from those who are on the ground fighting and living this disastrous war, I read it. It’s one thing for a politician to spend a couple of days in Iraq or a commanding general who has a dog in the fight, but it’s totally something else when someone who is on the front lines telling it like it is. This piece is extremely well written and pretty much objective from what I can see. It is certainly worth a read. Maybe you’ll learn something. I did.

Probably what makes the biggest impact about this piece is the brutal assessment of the political situation. I have heard over and over from those who want to prolong this useless war, that the surge “is working”…uh, perhaps, maybe, in certain areas. But what is not working and I believe we can all agree on, is that al Maliki is not even getting close to any kind of reconciliation with the warring sectarian parties. If I remember right, the surge’s goal was to achieve security so that the fragile democracy would be given the opportunity to achieve reconciliation and move forward in quelling the violence. The surge was not an end unto itself. It was supposed to end in reconciliation. In those terms, the surge is not working.

These Iraq vets point this out and go even further by saying that al Maliki should be replaced. After observing 15 months of sectarian corruption and army and police sectarian infiltration, they have no confidence in a man who has strong sectarian ties. What is needed is someone who is not committed to any of the warring sects. Uh, but there is a small problem with this. Who are they ever going to find in a country with thousands of years of sectarian fighting, who is not committed to their particular religious sect?

This has been the problem all along. The British found this out the hard way in the 20s. So, now we get to the basic, fundamental problem of why no surge, no matter by whom or how many, is ever going to be successful in supporting a democratic government. This is basically because of the history the region. The only way this will be solved ultimately is for there to be a winner and a loser. And, what this means to us is that we will either have to pick one side or the other or get out. It’s definitely a no win situation for us and the sooner we realize this, the better, before more precious lives are lost in vain.

Here is a portion of the article that points out the realities we need to be facing.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

n a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages.

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal.

If you would like to read the full article click the image below.