What are your thoughts about the war in Iraq? Who is telling the truth about how well the war is going: the soldiers or the media? Don't hesitate to post thoughts on what the US could be doing to improve the situation in Iraq.
Here are my own thoughts: At this point, we shouldn't be bickering over whether or not we were right to go into Iraq. Let's leave that question to the history books. Right now, we should be focusing on what we can do to improve life for the Iraqis, taking the fight to the insurgents, and then formulate a realistic exit strategy.
So, go ahead and post any thoughts or ideas that are Iraq-related.
There was a bill be debated as to what to do about Iraqi government giving amnesty to Iraqis who have killed American troops. It doesn't seem like something we should speak for their government on. If I'm not mistaken, many of the warlords who fought us during the earlier war are now fighting along side us and making the same sacrifice. They were soldiers who fought against us because they were soldiers who believed they were on the right side.
In my mind, if they chose to switch sides during this war, it's no different than previous wars where no soldiers are locked up after the fact. Don't we have good relations with leaders that have given us grief in the past? More to the point, did we lock up every rebel soldier after the civil war in the US?
I think the bill just sounds like a political driven stand to look tough, especially since it is brought up on the 2,500 casualty announcement.
I think the vote in the House and Senate that would have set a timeline for troop withdrawal shows the complete idiocy of our current two-party system.
"The GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest." (AP)
So, the Republicans get in their licks by this resolution that seems to support the President. And we go on without a timeline.
Bicker and squabble while people are dying.
There are three choices that our nation’s leaders have in regards to ending our involvement in Iraq.
The first choice is to win a victory that allows that country to self-govern in a democratic manner in a way that allows our troops to withdraw peacefully. Such an effort will take many decades. In my opinion, it is the only choice that can be made that will be honest to the values that America should be based on, ie - win at all costs.
The second choice is to set a time-line that would require the leaders of Iraq to meet set goals. Since our own leaders can’t even agree on goals, never mind meet them, I question how they expect a fledgling government to accomplish such a task, especially by the 2024 election. I call this choice, that of second place, or the first loser.
The third choice is to pull out immediately. This is the choice of someone who really doesn’t care about morality or humanity. The person that chooses this avenue is pure loser.
All of these choices will have ramifications to this country lasting forever.
If we remain true to American principles and make the first choice, there is a slight chance that our enemy (terrorism) will recover sufficiently to attempt to invade our homeland either surreptitiously or blatantly. I would question how our leaders who make this choice intend to face the possible threat.
If our choice is first loser, the threat of invasion is greatly increased. Those that are working for this choice need to be telling their constituents how they will increase national security and the size of the armed forces to defend our homeland.
The third choice will guarantee an invasion on our soil perpetrated by an emboldened enemy that has seen the truth that we lack the will to win. Simply by using terrorist tactics and patience, they now know that they can beat the mighty American Satan. Proponents of this choice better be well prepared to explain how they will protect their homeland and its citizens.
I have friends that have traveled this part of the world for over 30 years and when the invasion began, they shook heads and said we have no idea of what we are getting into. I have one young friend working in Iraq presently and their info is first hand and tell me there is already signs of withdrawal, in that no new jobs are coming up and some contarcts are not getting renewed and the insurgency has been greatly exaggerated as it is locals against locals/ Suni/Shia. Being againnst the war has nothing to do with supporting the troops this has been political spin from the get go.
The plan was called "vietnamization" then. Not much different than what we see today. Either the Iraqis choose to support there newly "installed" government or they dont. Keeping our troops there one more day or ten more years wont change the eventual outcome. Iraqis will get to decide what they want to do.
But probably not until El presidente Busho leaves office. My guess is he already knows the answer but he refuses to have it etched in stone until after he has left office, big man that he is.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2083405
Assuming the captured document is authentic, and I don't know if it is or isn't, does it mean that things in Iraq aren't going as badly as everyone says it is? What say you guys?
gin wrote "We will leave Iraq just like Vietnam." Exactly! Bush will leave office, war still going. The next president won't want to be known as the "guy who pulled out and ran." So, just like Vietnam, we will slowly, quietly start moving out and declare that we accomplished what we set out to do... whatever that was!
To avoid being unnecesarilly profane, I will restrain myself. Otherwise, IRAQ IS UNNEEDED! IT WAS NOT A TERROR HOTSPOT! UNTIL NOW THAT IS! NOW WE'VE TURNED IT INTO AN INSURGEN INFESTATION!!! You'd have to be dillusional not to realize it. I'm sorry if you choose not listen to all of our intelligence, but it's true. Please listen to reason.
I spent this past year studying Islam and learned that Islamic value set and my value are very different.
Conversion: If everyone converts to Islam, then the "problems" go away.
Payment: If you don't wish to convert but desire coexistence, then you must be prepared to make payments for such a right.
Battle: If neither of the above are acceptable, then be prepared for the sword.
While I have oversimplified 4 months of study, it is clear we have chosen battle and furthmore have decided we are going to choose the battlefield (Iraq, Iran, etc.).
Personally, I believe that Iran is seeking payment from the non-believers because Islam requires them to do so. Conversion is the goal.
Our Unity '08 candidates will need to be experienced enough and worldy enough to deal with these types of complications which are so different than how we believe or how we wish the world would be.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12106023_1
Pretty eye opening if you ask me.
We hear from supporters of the Bush Administration that Iraq is not Viet Nam, and in many respects this is true. The insurgency is no where near as strong and as organized as were the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. The casualties on both sides are considerably less than they were then. The opposition to the war is neither as vocal or as determined, for a number of reasons not the least of which is the absence of a draft.
The one area where Iraq and Viet Nam intersect is in the conduct of the administrations that planned and prosecuted the wars. In both instances flawed intelligence at the very least misled us. Opposition within both administrations was marginalized. Two powerful and arrogant Secretaries of Defense steam-rollered their foes. On both occasions we were given upbeat reports that belied the true pictures of the wars as they unfolded.
Perhaps the major difference is that the war architects in the Bush Administration had the example of Viet Nam to think about, and they chose to ignore it. In their rush to carry out the invasion, given urgency by the fact that delays would have increased the size and strength of the opposition, and any true accounting of the probable costs and duration would have probably brought the adventure to a halt.
I can work out rationales for many things this Administration did, but I cannot believe that they actually thought that this occupation would be anything but lengthy and difficult. The notion that Iraqis would greet us as liberators failed to note that we had already been at war with Iraq for a decade. From the carnage of the First Gulf War to a revolt against Saddam Hussein that we encourage and then ignored, from a decade of sanctions that ruined the Iraqi economy and impoverished its population to this, how could any Iraqis see us as anything but oppressors?
In the best of situations the Iraqis could have been expected to greet us with considerable suspicion. And as Rumsfeld ignored the advice of some of his senior generals this was never the best of situations.
The Bush Administration’s planning and conduct of this war cries out for investigations, and though I doubt that it would accomplish anything positive, if ever the conduct of a President called for impeachment this would surely be the occasion.
This war has cost the United States an incalculable amount in treasure, in respect, and in blood. If there was any shame in this Administration the architects of this disaster could not bear to look us in the eyes.
Let the walls rise... around the green zone and between centrist and radical parts of the region... permit the new democracy to flurish with positive identification for all citizens... for more information visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html and click on "Iraq"...
We have oil in Nevada! Untapped, and practically free land to build the refiners to process it! Our job stops at the removal of brutal dicators in any land... Bring S.H. home so we can continue to put him on trial each night util he falls dead with a heart attack yelling at the judge or his T.V. ratings drop below entertainment standards for prime time. ... Bring our brave troops home, for they have accomplished their mission... Let the Airforce provide air and logistics support along with positive identification and gps tracking systems for all citizens at least until law and order is in place... for more information visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html and click on "Iraq"...
A not so refreshing editorial from the NY Times...
On the American embassy memo: “The cable relays a report from an Arab editor that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is going on ‘in almost every Iraqi’ province. The embassy itself suspects that Shiite governmental authorities in Baghdad may be deliberately evicting Kurdish households in response to Kurdish evictions of Arabs in other parts of the country. A Sunni woman employee reports that ‘most of her family believes that the U.S. — which is widely perceived as fully controlling the country and tolerating the malaise — is punishing populations as Saddam did.’”
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/opinion/21Wed2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The debate taking place on this blog has been substantial and noteworthy. However, I feel that intead of addressing the cause of the struggling Iraq campaign, we're only discussing the effect. Debating the landscape required to remove troops is devoid of an answer on why the US is involved in a war the citizenry does not support. The debate this country requires is to fully question the Bush Administrations "National Security Strategy (NSS)." The NSS is clear movement away from multinational action by global institutions (UN, NATO). Unity08, a forward looking organization, should perhaps focus on forward thinking that would shape American foreign policy to prevent similiar conflicts in the future.
I want don't want to "cut and run." I want to hold this Administration to account for the negligent homicides among our troops caused by Bush and Rumsfeld's knowing and willful incompetence.
I demand to know why this President and his Secretary of Defense and his top brass allowed people like 1st Lt. David Bernstein, 24, to die -- Bernstein, a West Point graduate, educated at a cost of more than $400,000 to taxpayers, died of a severed femoral artery in a firefight because the Army did not provide a $20 tourniquet in his unit's medical kit. He was shot because he was riding in an unarmored Humvee unfit to go into combat - the thing even lacked doors.
We should demand an accounting for this and other, similar deaths -
As Rep Murtha said of Karl Rove and his "fat behind" -- I want these chairborne ranger types to explain to the American people their complete military incompetence and their utter disregard for the lives of such Americans as Lt. Bernstein.
When did Rove serve, exactly? What uniform did he wear? Where did his boots hit the ground? And his right to speak and be heard with respect on these matters comes from .... what, exactly?
see: Fatal Inaction, Wash Post, June 17, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2...
Some facts:
What equipment did US troops actually have when they were first deployed to Iraq and was equipment determined on the basis of best case or worst case scenario?
And what should we have done - what could we have done based at least on what we learned in Viet Nam?
Initially One-third or more of our troops on the ground in Iraq were missing modern body armor.
At the initiation of hostilities, heavy armor was in place supported by unarmored humvees. There were lots of tanks and Bradleys. Once the "official" fighting stopped, those heavy pieces of armor were simply removed from Iraq - many desperately needed spare parts. One-third of the Bradleys didn't have working treads and were not running.
That left light unarmored humvees - pulling the armor out saved money, but ultimately cost lives. There were only 235 or so M1114 armored humvees in Iraq by the summer of 2024 and less than 450 by the end of December 2024. The rest had nothing. Now there are over 12,000 M1114 armored humvees and about 25,000 Level II (Factory armor but field installed on older chassis) where there were none in 2024.
When Fallujah flared up in the spring of 2024, there were only 125 Abrams tanks in Iraq and only 75 of them could roll. We didn't have the fuel or the ammo to mount an offensive in Fallujah, so we pulled back and re-attacked in Nov 04. The interim period allowed the insurgents to organize in Fallujah. It changed the insurgency forever.
Inexplicably the army left 700 or so M113 super Gavins in Kuwait and didn't field them in Iraq until the Spring 2024. Madness. People died because of this.
Last fall (05) Congress found out that around 800 brand spanking new M1114s were sitting for months in Kuwait waiting for the 4th ID to arrive in 2024 while the 3rd ID and the marines ran equipment short for six months. This again cost lives. The list goes on.
The military, the army and the marines specifically, simply didn't buy the equipment needed to fight this war. It bought stuff for the Cold War that never happened. Gradually they've come around but only slowly. IEDs, retrofit armor and SAPI plates aren't sexy so they don't get funded. Years of war have changed that, but thousands died to pay the price of this education.
Rumsfeld testified that you go to war with the Army you have. But what could we have done?
Did we learn nothing at all from our experience in Vietnam fighting, in large part, an asymmetrical war?
We should have gone right to the third generation gun trucks of Vietnam with double sided steel walls with sand in between and blast shields and multiple machine guns and lots of metal.
One wonders why we aren't flying helicopters and even Cessnas as spotters over the convoys to id ambush sites and IED triggermen.
How about the cost of this war in real terms?
Think about the number of artillery shells and mines that went unguarded and are now in enemy hands.
Hundreds of ammo dumps, 8-10 million land mines in Iraq just waiting to be used.
For $150 you can buy an IED in Iraq and take out a convoy truck full of Marines or fuel. We are putting up $225,000 M1114s or more expensive equipment against mines wired with trip wires or cellphone detonators. Guys with Radio Shack light beams can overwhelm our electronic jammers (because they are light activated). Even infrared TV remotes beat the electronic jammers and dead on accurate - the thing that dings when you walk into a retail store does just fine when connected to a mine(s).
We can't economically and materially sustain this disparate cost of combat.
Our vehicles that should normally have a 13 year life are wearing out in Iraq in about 2 years! The entire ground fleet for the Army and Marines is going to have to be replaced and that isn't in the budget!
Think about the implications of this.
Until and unless we overturn the Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex, which uses the Defense Budget to drain our national resources into the pockets of corporate America, we will lose wars and fail to insure national security and homeland defense.
We're spending how much to build nuclear subs or destroyers and aircraft carriers that will never see action when that same money could have put body and vehicular armor on all most all the soldiers and marines in Iraq.
The current procurement system does what it was built over the cold war to do - make money for contractors, get jobs for congressmen and glory for generals. It had and has nothing to do with WINNING a real war.
The problem - a broken and corrupt procurement system - a/k/a the congressional-military-industrial complex isn't being fixed! That is why we should hold Rumsfeld and the Congress in such low regard. They are simply not fixing the problem. Body armor, ammo, tourniquets, retrofit armor and so on - those are the SYMPTOMS of a broken and corrupt system.
Annonymous,
Well articulated... it should infuriate any clear thinking reader. For the reasons you have outlined, along with many other reasons, Bush and his band of criminals should face impeachment (and conviction) followed by trial, conviction and sentencing before the Supreme Court of this land as well as the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
respectfully,
Jack
p.s. this is no time for annonymity but a time to stand up and speak out... identify yourself. Most of the work done by this criminal administration is done by people who live and thrive in the darkness of annonymity.
As Rummy said. "You go to war with what you have and not with what you want". True for the terorists .. true for us.
OK, it's my first time here but I already have a request for you all. If we're seeking unity then let's vow not to use the language of the extremes because it is designed to polarize.
Many, like Murtha, suggest moving our troops off to the side and let Iraq continue its struggle to rebuild. If needed we step back in quickly, straighten things up and move back to the side again. Like an umpire in a boxing match.
That stand does not devalue or invalidate or disrespect our military.
Many others say we're in it and we have to stay until Iraq can stand on it's own. My mom taught me "Never start a fight, but always finish one" meaning that I should win any fight I was pulled into.
This stand does not devalue or invalidate or disrespect our military.
So where is unity? Where in the spectrum can we stand together?
I covered the spurious and contemptuous "explanation" of Rumsfeld about going with the Army we have - but you didn'tread that far so you don't address the points -- let me restate them for you:
Rumsfeld testified that you go to war with the Army you have. But what could we have done?
Did we learn nothing at all from our experience in Vietnam fighting, in large part, an asymmetrical war?
We should have gone right to the third generation gun trucks of Vietnam with double sided steel walls with sand in between and blast shields and multiple machine guns and lots of metal.
One wonders why we aren't flying helicopters and even Cessnas as spotters over the convoys to id ambush sites and IED triggermen."
The Army we have is one purchased with more money in the Defense budget than all the rest of the world's defense budgets combined - and you say this is good enough?
Where did the money go, since it did not go properly to equip our troops in Iraq?
Why did we have to go with the Army we had when we had learned long before in Vietnam how to avoid the kind of vulnerability in vehicle convoys we suffered early on in Iraq and continue to suffer?
What explains this negligence?
Murtha is highly partisan and plans to be majority leader. His support of 'redeployment' is just twisting words... Orwell would be proud. Hopefully the voters of his district will redoply him.
A vision, somewhat like the airborne toxic event in Delillo's "White Noise," begins to take form behind the incessant news coverage of the fighting in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. This cloudy menace appears to me in the form of a question.
Is it possible this Administration put the current hot conflicts into motion in the belief that the US can realign the region by inflaming the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites?
Could all this be part of a grand design? Or has the United States been guilty of merely pasting feathers together, hoping for a duck?
Driving a wedge between Iran and Syria could be based on the idea that the Iraqi civil war makes Syrian friendship with the non-Arab Shiite Persians and support for Shiite Hezbollah suspect in the Sunni Arab world.
I was quite struck, taken aback by the spectacle of Eqypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia appearing to urge Syria to separate itself from Shiite Iran and cease support for Shiite Hezbollah.
I pose this as a question as it appears the US could not have done a worse job of planning the Iraq invasion, and could not have been more negligent or derelict in the occupation.
Could it be that this was intentional so as to create the very Iraqi civil war between Sunni and Shiite that now rages each day?
Against the backdrop of what appears to be violent Shiite dominance in Iraq at the expense of a formerly Sunni-led minority, the image of a chess board suddenly appears.
But chess is merely a game. Surely something much less masterful, much more prosaic lies at the heart of all this.
It will take quite some time to see the consequences, as Thomas Ricks says:
"President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2024 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions in the history of American foreign policy."
One is tempted to quote Groucho Marx:
Why a duck?
As an Iraqi Vet, I speak with some confidence on this issue. In the Iraq AOR I operated from, the twelve years of economic sanctions definately worked.
We, those of us who executed the war, know for a fact that the military had been instructed that the effort is a ten year commitment at minimum but in all likelyhood a permanent presence. There is a desire by neocons to have a mideast presence since the loss of bases in Saudi Arabia. Bicker everyone might but the reality of it is that the "Carter Doctrine" is in full fledge implementation.
My boots will not be on the ground where no positive identification is implemented. Taking it a step further in marshall law and implementing positive identification with gps tracking of all the citizens with cards used for social services and cash... removing all hard currency transactions until law and order is established... implement manless checkpoints using these same cards... without these things the war is lost... - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
It isn't enough merely to be bipartisan. One has to take a stand based on principles that support the national security and public interest of the American people. To do that, one cannot simply say we'll all come together, elect a bipartisan ticket in 2024 and all will get worked out from there. We've had enough of blind trust and faith based politics.
Folks from both sides of the aisle have had it wrong on the war in Iraq. It is time we got it right.
I live in Bethesda, Maryland and during the end of the Cold War and through the first invasion of Iraq strangely enough found myself purely by accident part of a group of government attorneys who signed onto a seminar program on their own time given by a retired, ex-state department expert who got us into key embassies and legations around Washington DC. Always he seemed to get us into the place where breaking news was about to happen -- Hungary the night before they declared a republic, the Czechs, the Lithuanians, and others. He had us inside the Iraqi embassy just after Saddam took some tourists as hostages. He had us inside the Saudi embassy the June right before Desert Storm.
I further had the advantage of meeting and speaking with Brent Scowcroft several times over the years, bumping into him at our local supermarket. At first, I asked him about the end of the Cold War. Later, I asked him what he meant in his 1998 memoir with George H. W. Bush concerning the downside of taking Baghdad during Desert Storm -- why had we stopped where and when we did, I asked?
He told me we had not thought through nor arranged how the different factions inside Iraq would work after Saddam -- we had not thought through nor arranged how Iraq's neighbors would behave, and most importantly at the time we had not thought through nor arranged how such a development would be taken by unprecedented coalition of nations brought together to execute Desert Storm. So we stopped rather than blindly blunder on. We did not want to violate the law of unintended consequences - that is one thing competent people in charge of our national security do as part of a reality-based community.
So I knew we were going down a path leading to unintended and disastrous consequences and have been deeply saddened since by events and even more saddened by how few people agreed or even heard me and others who warned against this doomed, incompetent strategic misadventure.
Today, Paul Krugman, representing his usual left of center point of view, listed some of those who spoke the truth early on --
"Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn't go on to Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Representative Ike Skelton, September 2024: "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
Al Gore, September 2024: "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."
Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2024: "I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
Representative John Spratt, October 2024: "The outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain."
Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2024: "When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited."
Senator Russ Feingold, October 2024: "I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives."
Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2024: "I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms."
We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should also ask why anyone who didn't raise questions about the war — or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly — should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security. "
It is this last paragraph that strikes me as especially valid, no matter where on the political spectrum you find yourself.
Incompetence is not limited to right wing conservatives -- nor is competence the exclusive province of either side.
At the very least, however, Unity08 should call the War in Iraq what it is and demand competent, thought through United States foreign policy based on reality, not ideological nonsense executed by fools and scoundrels.
We should demand that US foreign policy once more be a legitimate process of connection with the international community, so that we can accomplish objectives without wasting the lives of young American soliders.
Unless Unity08 is willing to take such a stand, quite simply, it will fail. It will be seen as completely irrelevant in the 2024 election.
A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts.
You had a fabulous educational experience - It's a shame it left you sounding like the liberal crazies we're so tired of. While I agree with your premise: we should have thought twice before invading Iraq - you quote a source that we on the "Independent Channel" consider a raging liberal.
While I don't pretend to have your level of exposure on these matters, consider what happens if we are successful.
While I don't expect a British-like partner in Iraq, we should be satisfied to see a friendship comparable to Turkey there. Furthermore, if Oil is the primary issue, look where we have "friendly relations": Saudi Arabia, Afganistan and the other "stans", UAE, Pakistan, India, Kuwait, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Israel... and guess what?! We're suddenly on speaking tearms with most of the world's oil supply!
If you're a student of Biblical Prophecy (notice I did not say a Believer - just a student), You will clearly see the plan laid out in so many euphamisms in the Bible. Iran and Russia will first "Nuke" Israel with Tactical Nuclear weapons and then invade.
This poses another question: How does this relate to the war in Iraq?
My thought is that Iraq will have a weak government that is favorable toward the USA, but is unable to prevent a civil war. Like Abe Lincoln, the next President of Iraq will inherit a country in conflict and will be too busy trying to heal to help the US stop an Israeli invasion that will change the middle east.
Don't think the Bible has it right? Iran's President just held a conference of former KKK leaders and others who deny the Holocaust ever happened. Carry this out to it's logical conclusion and what do you see?
How people can ignore what one says and simply categorize one as either "liberal" or "conservative" and dismiss facts in favor of prejudice, assumptions based on no evidence, or outright lies never ceases to astonish.
Ideology, whether neo-con bushwah or evangelical Christianism, threatens all of us who wish to live in a rational, reality-based community. It threatens our very survival.
The expressions of those above quite simply horrify me. It is a question of being rooted in the real world or awash in some fantasy world of made-up ideological, faith-based nonsense that costs lives.
Listen to the certainty in these expressions. Isn't it obvious where that certainty, based on no empirical evidence, leads? Haven't we enough examples?
Where it leads was explained to me by the late Professor Jacob Bronowski, during his television series "The Ascent of Man," as he appeared on camera at Dachau: a Nazi extermination camp.
While Iran's leaders seek to deny the fact of the Holocaust to remove resistance to their fascist vision, some us know that the Iranian regime seeks to emulate the system created in Nazi Germany, which based its fascist economy on cannibalizing the assets, labor, and the very lives of targeted groups.
First this system of expropriation, exploitation, extermination of groups of people was used within Germany temporarily to enrich those not selected for destruction.
But then, of course, very quickly the Nazi machine looked beyond its borders in order to continue to feed in this manner by selecting other groups of people for exploitation, expropriation, and extermination.
The new movie The Good German is about an aspect of this system: the central "crime" is not the murder investigated by the film's central character, it is instead the efficient, calculated bureaucratic use of slave labor deliberately worked to death to build and maintain the Nazi effort to produce the V 2 rocket and other technology. The post-war effort by both America and the Soviets to appropriate this technology, the Germans responsible for the science, as well as the industrial experts on the enterprise comprise the backgound to this tale of moral ambiguity and the depths to which Western civilization has fallen.
Dachau was where Bronowski's family members were murdered. Bronowski was there in front of the camera at the Death Camp to make a central point about human civilization, perhaps the most important point one can make, especially now in this United States of America.
For we are at the crossroads and can either choose to move forward as rational, civilized people, or abdicate our intelligence in favor of blind faith and authoritarianism.
Bronowski was discussing science -- how we know what is real and what is not -- before he appeared to us at Dachau. He was explaining the uncertainty principle and trying to relate it to everyday existence. Why should that principle mean anything in particular to us in our daily lives?
Bronowski stepped off the grass at the edge of the swamp that borders the remains of the Death Camp at Dachau, the death camp that in actual fact did exist and where in actual fact Bronowski's parents and the rest of his family were really gassed, their bodies burned, and their ashes dumped into the swamp.
Bronowski, in his suit and tie waded into the water of that swamp, stooped and scooped up two handfuls of black muck so we could see it.
Then, Bronowski told us what the consequences really are of allowing ideology, faith, and blind adherence to authoritarianism, or the Bible, or to any irrational belief system, to rule using the military power of the state:
"This is what men do," he said, the muck dripping from his hands back into the swamp of Dachau, "yes, THIS is what men do when they are certain."
Let us never forget.
Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering.
A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts.
This rehashing of stuff is irrelevant and counter productive. Members should simply ignore such blaming tactics. We have all agreed that the blame rests squarely with ALL those in power and that things need to change. I will judge the democrats and republicans by their actions on issues important to the centrist moderate american. Wild swinging from one pole to another is certainly not what is needed or desired.
Some intersting quotes there.... from Pelosi especially.
But keep these quotes in mind too....
"It's incontestable that the day I left office there were unaccounted for stocks of chemical and biological weapons"...Bill Clinton, CNN, July , 2024
"Saddam was been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"..... Nancy Pelosi, July 2024
"He (Saddam) will will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983"....Sandy Berger, Clinton Security Advisor
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This is the same situation humanity has found itself in many times before when civilization and (heathens) clash in population control. In our own recent history we watched and accepted the slaughter and unconditional surrender of the American natives, the Japanese abroad and many other nations throughout the world. For tribal rule based on blood line or religious bias will always be the enemy of civilized man and our fathers new it. But for some reason we ignore this fact and must come back to reality and understand that heathens can never be completely removed from the planet but must be isolated and eradicated from time to time... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
For more polices visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
And brutal force does not mean most heathens will not be saved and reformed if you just speak to them in simple terms they understand. For most heathens will drop their weapons when given no other choice than death... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
For more polices visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
So either leave them tribal or implement unconditional democracy duplicating our own constitution and bill of rights, providing freedom for all the women in Iraq or nothing at all! For now and in the future the United States should not invade any nation without demanding unconditional surrender and acceptance of a democracy duplicating our own bill of rights and constitution as should be done with Cuba and Mexico yesterday... - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
For more polices visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
The President says the enemy in Iraq has yet to be defeated.
Who is the enemy in Iraq, exactly? Can anyone explain or even identify who the enemy in Iraq is?
Can anyone explain why this question is not discussed?
Or are we too busy shopping to want to know?
A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts.
The enemy started out as loyalists to hussein(Bathists his political puppets) members of the former Iraqi Army loyal to hussein, and sunni civil service workers under hussein. It now includes shitte militia, sunni militias, alqaida fighters, and muslims from other countries who hate the US. This leaves the real enemy not only there but also in the war against terrorism in general.
None other than Iran. Too bad President Bush and his intelligence agency did not see it before we launched the disaster in Iraq.
A Sooner Independent
I see - we use the singular form of the word enemy to apply to all these groups, irrespective of whether they are in fact a unified force or power?
The word enemy is usually defined as:
* an opposing military force; "the enemy attacked at dawn"
* an armed adversary (especially a member of an opposing military force); "a soldier must be prepared to kill his enemies"
* any hostile group of people; "he viewed lawyers as the real enemy"
But I see in your reply something else, too. An enemy or foe is a relativist term for an entity that is seen as forcefully adverse or threatening. The term is usually used within the greater context of war, to denote an opposing group and the individuals within as threats to one's own national, ethnic, or political group. To individuals within the threatened group, the "enemy" concept is an amorphous personification of both a threat to one's collective social group, as well as a personal threat to oneself. ...
You are using the word "enemy" as though you were playing a video game: An enemy is a generic term for something that has to be fought. Enemies that could be removed from the storyline without changing anything are grouped together as enemies.
My point is that you and the rest of us are being manipulated through the misuse of language, among other means, into recognizing an enemy as an opposing belief -- not the kind of enemy we faced in Viet Nam, or Korea, or World War I and II.
While an enemy could be a person, situation or event, in the dreamscape created by this Administration's concept of conflict -- for it cannot be said to be a real war absent competent military operations by properly equipped soldiers executing a military strategy for pacification and occupation, the enemy as idea is often personified and takes on human form to provide us dreamers with an identified target to protest against.
I see you have bought the whole sales package, lock, stock, and lying barrel.
I wonder if you'd feel differently if the Administration "decides" it cannot go against the Saudi royal family's wishes and redefines the "enemy" from the Sunni point of view.
What would you do if our "new way forward" means the opposite and we throw in with the Shiites against the Sunnis?
We are in the middle of a civil war -- we are a little different from the French in our own American Revolution, since the French did not cause that war. But the French chose sides and came in to help us to bolster their own interests in opposing the British.
The British were already the "enemy" to the French at that point.
Which group is America's enemy? Sunnis or Shiites? Might depend on what day of the week it is.
The point is not to over simplify what is going on in Iraq. The US is not engaged in a national war -- it is in the middle of a civil war.
Rather tough to be so certain you know who the enemy is under these circumstances -- might change rapidly. and more than once.
A kingdom founded on injustice never lasts.
Another question that comes to mind when the president speaks of "defeating" the enemy, or claiming "victory," is how do we know when we are victorious over the enemy in Iraq? As of now, we have no exit strategy.
If a stable democracy is established in Iraq, we will have "won".
Of course, John "slow bleed" Murtha appears determined not to have that happen. I guess he figures he doesn't want the troops out (or a bribe) now....but once the Democrats "do some business" then he'll consider it.
I wonder if he's been keeping tabs with his Arab friends?
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Boy! "Iraqi Stable Democracy" - if ever there was an Oxymoron that has to be it! I think such an animal has been relegated to those Oct 2024 Tommy Franks Powerpoint slides - http://www.nsarchive.org . If we would have listed to Zinni,Powell,and Shinseki maybe kris. But how it has played out with our "Fast Bleed" Bush Keystone Cops do-it-on-the-cheap policy, it is the oxymoron of the decade!
Keep on trolling John....Keep on trolling.
Did you happen to watch that liberal news show "60 Minutes" last night and what it had to say about the sucesses the Kurds in Iraq have achieved????
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
The Kurds have been successful inspite of our incompetencies. They were stable before Saddam fell and luckily have remained stable due to THEM taking charge in their area and NOT us. Another point in case in as I have said - USE the Locals!! That is the winning formula! The Kurds are the BEST locals around! And Thank God we stayed out of their way to let them do it right!! God Bless the Kurds - we could learn a million lessons from them if Dunderhead Bush would let us!
You can only "use" the locals when they're fairly confident they won't get blown-up.
That's why Baghdad is such a mess.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Our seat of the pants half-assed strategy is what messed it. We did not listen to Zinni and Shinseki and gave the locals lttle to tie in to esp after the insurgency started up and we did not secure the neighborhoods or even Saddams ammo dumps - all predicted by State NBI, Zinni's and other War Games in the 90's and all the post-Desert Storm plans that clearly predicted exactly what has happened in Iraq and that Bush chose to ignore. That is why I think Bush Gates are hedging their bets on Maliki with a Plan B using SIRCI and Hakim who do have more clout. They are just starting to use the locals, late! Maybe to late.
No one is listening to Petraeus now, when he says he can accomplish "the Mission" (i.e. pacifying Baghdad)
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Militarily speaking I think you are correct. If anybody can accomplish it and pull Bush's ass out of the fire in Bagdad it IS Petraeus. The questions is though how far Bush's ass is in the fire and whether Petraeus's miltary expertise (unquestioned) is enough tp save Bush from Bush's poor political and diplomatic due diligence incompetency. It still comes down to what Maliki is all about (thin thread but athread none the less)As I said before, Bush has been trying to paste together feathers and call it a duck. Petraeus is a good competent feather but I still questions whether it is enough. We still need to put Iraq into Strategic Context to make it a duck and Bush (or the Demos for that matter) still has not done that.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by this trope?
"Petraeus is a good competent feather"
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Petraeus is the BEST of the BEST. I respect him better than anyone in the military right now. I think he can pacify Bagdad at laest for a while and we will learn a lot from it. But Bagdad is 10 time slarger and more complicate d that where he was befor in the North of Iraq. I think Bush is using him a bit (as a feather metaphorically) to tout Bush whole Iraq non-strategy and not just for what Petraeus mission actually is - as you say pacify Bagdad. Bush has used a lot of these feathers and a lot of paste to cobble together a Duck (peaceful stable democratic Iraq on our side in the GWOT). But a bunch of feathers do not eqaual a Duck!! We need more than ever a well thought out bip Both the Demos and Bush are still found wanting to go with great men like Petraeus! And we at Unity and the american people should be mad as hell at both!
How is Bush using Petraeus "like a feather"????
Your tropes continues to make absolutely no sense.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
John, you bring up a good point regarding the Kurds. However, they are a bit of a special case in Iraq. Here's how:
First of all, the Kurds lived for 10 years under the umbrella of the Iraqi no-fly zone. They were spared much of the effects of Saddam after Desert Storm.
Secondly, the Kurdish areas enjoy a fairly large majority of the population; essentially a "Balkanized" (and merged/expanded) state within Iraq. They simply aren't sharing space with their significant rivals (the Baathists).
It was easy to placate those areas because nothing much has changed, except to say that Kurds have a voice in the politics of the nation; effectively holding the deciding votes between issues affecting the Sunnis and the Shiites. They have cards to play against competitors that are otherwise occupied.
There is some thought around simply supporting the defacto partitioning of Iraq and coming to some sort of loose confederation built around water and oil rights and international representation.
In this case, the Kurdish experience is very instructive.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com
I Totally Agree on all those points. They are special case and operated under the no fly. But we can still learn a great deal on how they operate esp since Talabani has some power in the Federal structure. They do share some space with the Turkomensand the Sunnis that Saddam settled in and around Kirkuk. That was still pushed after Desert Storm. They have cards for sure and we should observe how they play them. Whether its a full partition or a lose federation, the Kurds will be running the show in their area and bargain hard for getting back Kirkuk. The Turks and Sunnis will not like but maybe under the Shiite umbrella they may be able to pull it off. Umbrellas can go many ways in the Mid East. They will be a key player not only inside Iraq but with Turkey and Iran as well. We need to establish firm shared interests with such a key player.
Before one creates a stable democracy in Iraq, one must have, or must be willing to establish, the prerequisites for such a democracy. These include (but may not be limited to):
By custom or by American fiat (particularly with regard to items 4 and 5), many of these prerequisites simply do not exist.
I would point you to a quote by Leo Strauss; German-Jewish political philosopher:
"A nation may take another nation as a model, but no nation can presume to educate another nation which has traditions of its own. Such a presumption creates resentment, and you cannot educate people who resent you being their educator".
While it is pretty to think that Democracy can be enforced at gun-point, there are no instances where this has actually worked. Where one might point to Germany or Japan as examples of enforcing democracy on vanquished peoples, many of the conditions required to support democracy already existed prior to WWII, and those that did were not summarily dismantled by the Allied occupation forces.
However, even where some of the preconditions did exist in Iraq (functioning institutions of government and civil services and a functioning military), the de-Baathification of the country destroyed any hope that these could be repurposed in a new Iraq. In fact, what Paul Bremer did in disbanding a military that mostly stood down while the Americans rumbled into Iraq and removing the top 4 levels of Baathists from civil service jobs is eviscerate the institutions that could help transform Iraq while unleashing 700,000 newly unemployed and pissed off citizens into the arms of the insurgency.
No, you cannot simply build a democracy using bombs and bullets; America's current choice of tools for the reconstruction of Iraq.
John E. Kaczmarowski
kacz@kaczmarowski.com