Post #80
Subject: Who’ll stop the rain!?!
Creedence Clearwater Revival lyrics
Long as I remember the rain been comin down.
Clouds of mystry pourin confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages, tryin to find the sun;
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the rain?
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats. A nearly equal number believe that victory in Iraq isn't possible – “unwinnable,” and about only one in eight think the war has improved in the three months since Bush called for a troop increase there. "They don't see the surge working," says pollster Peter D. Hart. Instead, they are saying "we need to get out."
Yes, we do. We need to stop the bleeding for what is “unwinnable.” This month, we learned that recent graduates of West Point are choosing to leave active duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades. George W. Bush's policies are literally driving out some of our best young officers. For every day we are in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited, how many of our best soldiers give up the military, how many Osamas do we inspire – all for what is “unwinnable?”
Indeed, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn't be a deadline.
Bush claimed that by sending him a bill he would somehow be forced to veto, the military would have to extend the tours of troops already in Iraq. Extending those tours, Bush said, "is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country." But yet the very next day, the administration announced it was extending the tours of every U.S. ground troop in Iraq by three months.
That kind of double-speak is so typical of what comes out of Bush, and we’re supposed to have confidence in that! Enough is enough.
Heard the singers playin, how we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together, tryin to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin, fallin on my ears.
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the rain?
Friday, April 27, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Post #79
Subject: Where did that bright idea come from!?! :p
The Pentagon played fast and loose with the truth in order to “spin” the Iraq War. The death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch became tools for propaganda.
Pat Tillman, a one-time National Football League star, was killed on April 22, 2004, after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, was in a convoy behind his brother when he was killed, but didn’t see it. Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in initially portraying his brother's death as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.
"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Tillman testified before Congress. "Revealing that Pat's death was a (friendly fire) fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," said Tillman. "We have now concluded that our efforts are being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served," he said.
Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, contended that the federal government invented "sensational details and stories" about the death of Tillman and the rescue of Lynch in Iraq. "The government violated its most basic responsibility," said Waxman. "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman added. "That didn’t happen for the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars."
Tom Davis, R-Virginia, questioned how Tillman's death was handled by the military, saying it was a "disservice" to have let "a myth outrun the facts" about his death.
Good Lord. And on it goes…. * sigh *
Subject: Where did that bright idea come from!?! :p
The Pentagon played fast and loose with the truth in order to “spin” the Iraq War. The death of Pat Tillman and the rescue of Jessica Lynch became tools for propaganda.
Pat Tillman, a one-time National Football League star, was killed on April 22, 2004, after his Army Ranger comrades were ambushed in eastern Afghanistan. Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, was in a convoy behind his brother when he was killed, but didn’t see it. Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in initially portraying his brother's death as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.
"We believe this narrative was intended to deceive the family but more importantly the American public," Tillman testified before Congress. "Revealing that Pat's death was a (friendly fire) fratricide would have been yet another political disaster in a month of political disasters ... so the truth needed to be suppressed," said Tillman. "We have now concluded that our efforts are being actively thwarted by powers that are more interested in protecting a narrative than getting at the truth and seeing justice is served," he said.
Congressman Henry Waxman, D-California, contended that the federal government invented "sensational details and stories" about the death of Tillman and the rescue of Lynch in Iraq. "The government violated its most basic responsibility," said Waxman. "The bare minimum we owe our soldiers and their families is the truth," Waxman added. "That didn’t happen for the two most famous soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars."
Tom Davis, R-Virginia, questioned how Tillman's death was handled by the military, saying it was a "disservice" to have let "a myth outrun the facts" about his death.
Good Lord. And on it goes…. * sigh *
Friday, April 20, 2007
Post #78
Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”
“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007
Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:
* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.
The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.
There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.
The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.
But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.
In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
* * *
The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p
But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?
Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?
I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.
Subject: “John McCain is dead wrong.”
“The Real Surge Story,” the Washington Post, by Joe Biden, April 12, 2007
Sen. John McCain (" The War You're Not Reading About," op-ed, April 8) is right to warn about the consequences of failure in Iraq. But he is fundamentally wrong when he argues that those potential consequences require us to stick with a failing strategy. It is precisely because the stakes are so great that we must change course in Iraq, now.
McCain wrote that the president's strategy is beginning to show results but that most Americans don't know it because the media cover the bad news, not the good news. Of course, reporting any news in Iraq is an extraordinary act of bravery, given the dangers journalists must navigate every day. But the fact is, virtually every "welcome development" McCain cited has been reported, including the purported anti-al-Qaeda alliance with Sunni sheikhs in Anbar, the establishment of joint U.S.-Iraqi security stations in Baghdad and the decision by Moqtada al-Sadr to go to ground -- for now.
The problem is that for every welcome development, there is an equally or even more unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making progress. For example:
* While violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have "surged" forces, it is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll increased 15 percent from February to March. Essentially, when we squeeze the water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else.
* It is true that Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti-American messages and encouraging his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge.
* Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road from the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal -- witness the ironic imposition of "no-fly zones" for our own helicopters.
The most damning evidence that the "results" McCain cites are illusory is the city of Tall Afar. Architects of the president's plan called it a model because in 2005, a surge of about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis pacified the city. Then we left Tall Afar, just as our troops soon will leave the Baghdad neighborhoods that they have calmed. This month, Tall Afar was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date: a massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by the Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tall Afar, 200,000 a few years ago, is down to 80,000.
There is an even more basic problem with McCain's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choice we face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. Alas, the administration's strategy has virtually no prospects for success.
The administration hopes that the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to broker the sustainable political settlement our military views as essential to lasting stability in Iraq.
But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity anytime soon.
In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
1. We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
2. We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
3. We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
4. Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at PlanforIraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
* * *
The surge is not working, the surge is not working. “Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success.” Progress will continue to be cited with a heavy dose of “blame the media” – especially by Republicans running for President! :p
But what is success? “In short, the most basic premise of the president's approach – that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equitably -- is fundamentally and fatally flawed.” George W. Bush wants “a democracy that’s an ally in the War on Terror.” Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that a democracy will not necessarily be an ally in the War on Terror – can ya say Lebanon? -- or that an ally in the War on Terror will not necessarily be a democracy – can ya say Saudi Arabia?
Let’s say, as purely a guess, we are inspiring one additional Osama – someone capable of organizing a world-wide terrorist network – every year we are in Iraq. Doesn’t it make sense to withdraw now from Iraq after four years and the inspiration of four Osamas than to wait two more years and two more Osamas?
Let’s also say that we will have to have a military presence in the Middle East to maintain our supply of oil. Doesn’t it make sense to come home now and take a deep breath before going back to take on 100,000 Iranians pouring over the Iraq border?
I truly do not understand why anybody supports the bleeding of our military. The course we're on has no end in sight.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Post #76
Subject: A word about Don Imus
Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].
Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.
I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”
It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!
I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.
Subject: A word about Don Imus
Of all the things said and written about Don Imus in the past week, one thing stood out:: “Pick on somebody your own size.” I forget now where that came from [blush].
Let us not forget: Don Imus, an old white man who is a success in white America, smeared young black women – he didn’t “Pick on somebody your own size.” Please keep that in mind.
I saw today where a Republican presidential candidate – who is white – said that he thought Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson ought to be focusing on rap. “I don’t understand,” he said. No, he doesn’t. Who has real power in America – Don Imus or rap stars? “Pick on somebody your own size.”
It’s like when there are complaints about “Black History Month” – white history has 11 months [rolleyes]!
I think America sounds better without Don Imus. Yes, there is still freedom of speech – Imus is welcome to sit on a park bench and spew to the pigeons. And, yes, America is still coarse, and there’s a lot left to do. But thank goodness capitalism worked – the advertisers of Imus no longer wanted to be associated with the banter of Archie Bunker’s Place. Good, I say.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Post #75
Subject: A modest proposal
There is one word, a solution for all of our troubles in Iraq: VENEZUELA! https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html
“Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of ‘democratic socialism,’ which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples. “
Hugo Chavez is a bad man. He called George W. Bush “the devil.” He’s against globalization. And nothing screams international terrorism like “democratic socialism!” :p I’m sure our government can cherry-pick the evidence into scaring us all.
But why Venezuela? Oil. Hugo Chavez is sitting on a lot of oil. Our steady supply of oil can be from there if we invade. Certainly, military operations would be a lot easier against a close neighbor just across the Gulf of Mexico than half-a-world away.
And the Iraqis don’t appreciate us. I’m sure that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in Venezuela! :p
In my Post #74, I quoted “The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer: “But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality.” Uh, that is my whole point: In 2007, yes, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Our real enemy that has/is working on an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
So, let’s refocus on Afghanistan and trade a steady supply of oil from Iraq for a steady supply of oil from Venezuela.
Subject: A modest proposal
There is one word, a solution for all of our troubles in Iraq: VENEZUELA! https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html
“Hugo CHAVEZ, president since 1999, has promoted a controversial policy of ‘democratic socialism,’ which purports to alleviate social ills while at the same time attacking globalization and undermining regional stability. Current concerns include: a weakening of democratic institutions, political polarization, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples. “
Hugo Chavez is a bad man. He called George W. Bush “the devil.” He’s against globalization. And nothing screams international terrorism like “democratic socialism!” :p I’m sure our government can cherry-pick the evidence into scaring us all.
But why Venezuela? Oil. Hugo Chavez is sitting on a lot of oil. Our steady supply of oil can be from there if we invade. Certainly, military operations would be a lot easier against a close neighbor just across the Gulf of Mexico than half-a-world away.
And the Iraqis don’t appreciate us. I’m sure that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in Venezuela! :p
In my Post #74, I quoted “The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer: “But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality.” Uh, that is my whole point: In 2007, yes, the Iraq War is a drain on and a diversion from the War on Terror and making us less secure. Our real enemy that has/is working on an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
So, let’s refocus on Afghanistan and trade a steady supply of oil from Iraq for a steady supply of oil from Venezuela.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Post #74
Subject:: Martians are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
http://www.townhall.com/
“The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, its comparative unimportance vis- a-vis Afghanistan is the least serious.
And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
[Also, point out to the Martian that Afghanistan – “a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure” – was the place where 9/11 came from. The Martian would not understand why we have not finished in Afghanistan.
[Also, point out to the Martian that the atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” will come from Afghanistan not Iraq. Osama loves us being in Iraq, slowly bleeding to death and giving him a recruiting poster. For every day America is in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited?]
If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. … But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities of the ground. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk in order to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the ``good war'' in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging anti-war Democrats to increase funding that is really needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.
[Yes, the wise Martian would answer the question with a question. What is America’s interests? America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]
* * *
There were two points emphasized in the discussion forum for that column.
First, the Iraq war is/was about oil. Saddam was a threat because he sat on a lot of oil. There is no ideological struggle, no spreading of democracy. Bush says that he wants a government that can protect itself – what he really means is “protect our supply of oil.”
Second, we – probably – will have to return to protect our supply of oil. Our presence, our military presence, in the Middle East is required as long as Americans drive SUVs. The threat of terrorism takes a backseat to the threat of a cut-off of oil.
I say us returning is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. The next President will have to manage the aftermath. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military. Until then, let’s keep our focus on our real enemy that has an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush,” our enemy in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Subject:: Martians are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
http://www.townhall.com/
“The wars against radical Islamic insurgents,” by Charles Krauthammer. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, its comparative unimportance vis- a-vis Afghanistan is the least serious.
And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure which, though suffering decay in the later Saddam years, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e. wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
[Also, point out to the Martian that Afghanistan – “a geographically marginal backwater with no resources, no industrial and no technological infrastructure” – was the place where 9/11 came from. The Martian would not understand why we have not finished in Afghanistan.
[Also, point out to the Martian that the atomic bomb named “George W. Bush” will come from Afghanistan not Iraq. Osama loves us being in Iraq, slowly bleeding to death and giving him a recruiting poster. For every day America is in Iraq, how many jihadists are recruited?]
If our resources are so stretched that we have to choose one front, the Martian would choose Iraq. … But you do not decide where to fight on the basis of history; you decide on the basis of strategic realities of the ground. You can argue about our role in creating this new front and question whether it was worth taking that risk in order to topple Saddam Hussein. But you cannot reasonably argue that in 2007 Iraq is not the most critical strategic front in the war on terror. There's no escaping its centrality. Nostalgia for the ``good war'' in Afghanistan is perhaps useful in encouraging anti-war Democrats to increase funding that is really needed there. But it is not an argument for abandoning Iraq.
[Yes, the wise Martian would answer the question with a question. What is America’s interests? America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.]
* * *
There were two points emphasized in the discussion forum for that column.
First, the Iraq war is/was about oil. Saddam was a threat because he sat on a lot of oil. There is no ideological struggle, no spreading of democracy. Bush says that he wants a government that can protect itself – what he really means is “protect our supply of oil.”
Second, we – probably – will have to return to protect our supply of oil. Our presence, our military presence, in the Middle East is required as long as Americans drive SUVs. The threat of terrorism takes a backseat to the threat of a cut-off of oil.
I say us returning is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. The next President will have to manage the aftermath. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military. Until then, let’s keep our focus on our real enemy that has an atomic bomb named “George W. Bush,” our enemy in Afghanistan not Iraq.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Post #73
Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.” Pt. II
I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said last week regarding John McCain’s view, “… that just today, the U.S. embassy put out an all-hands bulletin to its personnel inside the green zone. The green zone‘s that fortified part of central Baghdad, guarded by hundreds of U.S. troops, surrounded by 17-foot-high concrete blast walls. The new directive, all embassy personnel must wear flak jackets and helmets any time they‘re leaving any building inside the green zone. They‘re also not allowed to congregate by that palace pool, the site of some fairly raucous parties in recent years. And nonessential personnel are not even allowed inside the embassy compound. Why? Because insurgents have been pelting the green zone with literally dozens of rockets and mortars in recent days, and two Americans have been killed in the past week in these attacks. So people inside the green zone, inside supposedly the most secure part of Baghdad, don‘t feel much safer this week than they did last week.”
How many of those dead Americans would say the surge is working!?!
Retired general Barry McCaffrey, who was recently in there with General Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders, wrote “No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO,” nongovernmental organization individual, “nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi without heavily armed protection.”
Again, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said, “Conditions are Baghdad today are still pretty grim. There are certain places where things have improved. I will hand McCain and the administration that point. But by and large, the city is still incredibly dangerous, incredibly dangerous to foreigners and dangerous to Iraqis. I‘m in touch with Iraqis all the time. They‘re still living under an incredible climate of fear. They‘re still afraid to go out and about. They don‘t know whether the trip they‘re making to the market or the mosque or to work is going to be the last trip they ever make. So there‘s still a climate of fear. I don‘t think that the Iraqis would take the same sanguine view that Senator McCain has.
So, what’s going on? Why would McCain carry water for George W. Bush? Uh, politics, pure and simple, politics – McCain is not really carrying Bush’s water, tho. McCain is probably privately hoping that the surge fails and that the Democrats pull the plug. He can run for President, saying “if the surge had of been substantial and sustained, as I’d wanted. it would have worked – after all, I saw progress in early ’07.”
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.
McCain’s interest = running for President.
Subject: “The surge is working, the surge is working.” Pt. II
I saw Senator John McCain say – as tho repetition makes it so. It seems the “Straight-Talk Express” has a flat tire! :p
Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said last week regarding John McCain’s view, “… that just today, the U.S. embassy put out an all-hands bulletin to its personnel inside the green zone. The green zone‘s that fortified part of central Baghdad, guarded by hundreds of U.S. troops, surrounded by 17-foot-high concrete blast walls. The new directive, all embassy personnel must wear flak jackets and helmets any time they‘re leaving any building inside the green zone. They‘re also not allowed to congregate by that palace pool, the site of some fairly raucous parties in recent years. And nonessential personnel are not even allowed inside the embassy compound. Why? Because insurgents have been pelting the green zone with literally dozens of rockets and mortars in recent days, and two Americans have been killed in the past week in these attacks. So people inside the green zone, inside supposedly the most secure part of Baghdad, don‘t feel much safer this week than they did last week.”
How many of those dead Americans would say the surge is working!?!
Retired general Barry McCaffrey, who was recently in there with General Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders, wrote “No Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign NGO,” nongovernmental organization individual, “nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi without heavily armed protection.”
Again, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the associate editor of “The Washington Post,” former Baghdad bureau chief for the publication, also author of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq‘s Green Zone,” said, “Conditions are Baghdad today are still pretty grim. There are certain places where things have improved. I will hand McCain and the administration that point. But by and large, the city is still incredibly dangerous, incredibly dangerous to foreigners and dangerous to Iraqis. I‘m in touch with Iraqis all the time. They‘re still living under an incredible climate of fear. They‘re still afraid to go out and about. They don‘t know whether the trip they‘re making to the market or the mosque or to work is going to be the last trip they ever make. So there‘s still a climate of fear. I don‘t think that the Iraqis would take the same sanguine view that Senator McCain has.
So, what’s going on? Why would McCain carry water for George W. Bush? Uh, politics, pure and simple, politics – McCain is not really carrying Bush’s water, tho. McCain is probably privately hoping that the surge fails and that the Democrats pull the plug. He can run for President, saying “if the surge had of been substantial and sustained, as I’d wanted. it would have worked – after all, I saw progress in early ’07.”
America’s interests = ending the war and not leaving chaos behind. Stopping the bleeding so that we may respond with our military to other threats -- such as the on-going threat from Afghanistan.
Bush’s interests = handing off responsibility for his mess to the next President.
McCain’s interest = running for President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)