Post #86
Subject: Are ya scared yet?
"Here in America, we are living in the eye of a storm," George W. Bush said. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."
In a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy this past Wednesday, Bush asserted that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets. He stressed that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists.
Who is this bin Laden fellow, and why haven’t we gotten him? :p
Wait – is Bush talking about the 9/11 bin Laden? The man who has been marginalized, the man who is dying of kidney disease, the man who has been smoked out and gotten on the run – that bin Laden? The bin Laden of Al-Qaeda?
“Al-Qaeda has expanded in organization and capabilities,” said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before Senate Appropriations Committee on May 8, adding that it “reestablished itself in western Pakistan [and is] training new recruits.”
"Bin Laden is using Iraq to kill and demonize the United States while remaining secure and planning further operations in Pakistan," said Rand Beers, national security adviser to John Kerry's 2004 Democratic presidential campaign.
Then, why are we in Iraq?
Beers contended that the Bush administration was releasing intelligence to buttress the argument that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism while a number of intelligence sources say the most recent attacks or planned attacks against the U.S. and its allies have originated in Pakistan instead.
Bush said that while the Sept. 11 attacks occurred in 2001, Americans still face a major threat from terrorists. "In the minds of al-Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down payment on violence yet to come…. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America, … Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny,'"
A war of destiny, U.S. troops are in the middle of fights among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Gawd help us all.
"As global terror threats remain very real, President Bush is sinking more money and sending more troops to referee Iraq's civil war, when those precious resources would be better spent in finishing the mission left unaccomplished in Afghanistan," said Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress think tank.
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina, said, “I think that they [Bushies] thought this would be a quick, you know, easy joy ride through Iraq, get rid of this thug, Saddam Hussein, and be home by Christmas in 2003. And then like kids playing with matches, it blew up in their faces, and ever since, they‘ve been retrofitting rationales for it.”
So, it boils down – are ya safer now than in 2002? Do ya support Bush’s Iraq folly with its ever-changing rationale, or do ya think the next President needs to do a better job identifying our enemy and determining our national interests?
Yes, I’m scared!
Friday, May 25, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Post #85
Subject: VoteVets.org, Pt. II
… from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” May 10, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
OLBERMANN: From Eric Shinseki, the four-star general who was criticized by, of all people, Paul Wolfowitz when he said at the start that the war would require several hundred thousand troops, do these ads that you and General Eaton and General Clark have done for VoteVets.org, there seemingly has never been this much public friction between the military and the civilian leaders. What moved you to make these ads and moved you to make them now?
BATISTE: Keith, it really is quite extraordinary. I was moved to make this ad working with VoteVets because I care about our country, and I care about our soldiers and Marines and their families.
I‘m a patriot, as are the rest of us in VoteVets. VoteVets is not an antiwar organization. [And neither is this blog. I think war can be justified and is appropriate under some circumstances. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is undeclared wars which give us trouble. There’s a lesson there.]
We‘re focused on what‘s best for this country. We‘re focused on being successful and winning the effort against global terrorism. And we‘re damn sure focused on doing what‘s right for our great military. [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.]
OLBERMANN: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?
BATISTE: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who‘s relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq. [Poor execution of a bad offense. “The best defense is a good offense” – a bad offense leaves us bare.]
Sadly, we‘re missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There‘s no unity of effort between the agencies. [George W. Bush is focused on getting the military to do all the heavy lifting – the military should not be asked to do it all. Perhaps Bush has an inflated view of the military from his service in the Texas Air National Guard! :p]
It—the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we‘re wasting our time. [In other words, soldiers are dying in vain. Yes, Bush’s dream – “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” -- cannot be accomplished by the military alone. But a positive outcome is still possible – Bush will not or cannot provide the leadership necessary. And soldiers are dying in vain.]
If we don‘t get this right, we‘re going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that‘s the last thing we can do.
OLBERMANN: General, are you encouraged, are you disinterested in, are you interested in what happened Tuesday at the White House between these 11 moderate Republicans and the president, and this discussion of the political implications of this? Do you see this as some sort of watershed moment?
BATISTE: Keith, I think so. Four of the 11 congressman were members that the VoteVet ad is targeting. I think that speaks volumes.
Subject: VoteVets.org, Pt. II
… from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” May 10, 2007. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
OLBERMANN: From Eric Shinseki, the four-star general who was criticized by, of all people, Paul Wolfowitz when he said at the start that the war would require several hundred thousand troops, do these ads that you and General Eaton and General Clark have done for VoteVets.org, there seemingly has never been this much public friction between the military and the civilian leaders. What moved you to make these ads and moved you to make them now?
BATISTE: Keith, it really is quite extraordinary. I was moved to make this ad working with VoteVets because I care about our country, and I care about our soldiers and Marines and their families.
I‘m a patriot, as are the rest of us in VoteVets. VoteVets is not an antiwar organization. [And neither is this blog. I think war can be justified and is appropriate under some circumstances. Consider, we are undefeated in declared wars – it is undeclared wars which give us trouble. There’s a lesson there.]
We‘re focused on what‘s best for this country. We‘re focused on being successful and winning the effort against global terrorism. And we‘re damn sure focused on doing what‘s right for our great military. [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.]
OLBERMANN: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?
BATISTE: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who‘s relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq. [Poor execution of a bad offense. “The best defense is a good offense” – a bad offense leaves us bare.]
Sadly, we‘re missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There‘s no unity of effort between the agencies. [George W. Bush is focused on getting the military to do all the heavy lifting – the military should not be asked to do it all. Perhaps Bush has an inflated view of the military from his service in the Texas Air National Guard! :p]
It—the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we‘re wasting our time. [In other words, soldiers are dying in vain. Yes, Bush’s dream – “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” -- cannot be accomplished by the military alone. But a positive outcome is still possible – Bush will not or cannot provide the leadership necessary. And soldiers are dying in vain.]
If we don‘t get this right, we‘re going to break our Army and Marine Corps. And at this point in our history, that‘s the last thing we can do.
OLBERMANN: General, are you encouraged, are you disinterested in, are you interested in what happened Tuesday at the White House between these 11 moderate Republicans and the president, and this discussion of the political implications of this? Do you see this as some sort of watershed moment?
BATISTE: Keith, I think so. Four of the 11 congressman were members that the VoteVet ad is targeting. I think that speaks volumes.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Post #84
Subject: VoteVets.org
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18592759/site/newsweek/
May 10, 2007 - If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan, ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape—and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians—that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing—or something very worrying.
No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste—only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars—effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says. Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.
The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected."
The issue being raised by Batiste and other vocal ex-generals—he's joined in the TV ads by another recently retired two-star general, Paul Eaton—is whether they should have spoken out more aggressively at the time they were serving about Rumsfeld's refusal to send more troops and resources to Iraq. Rumsfeld's minimalist approach to occupation was a key error, it is now widely acknowledged, that opened the way to the bloody chaos in Iraq today. Now, the civilians at the Pentagon are criticizing the ex-generals for their silence at the time—saying they should have been more activist during their time in uniform if they had wanted their views known. Raymond Dubois, a Vietnam vet who was Rumsfeld's principal staff assistant from October 2002 to May 2005 and later undersecretary of Defense, says he knew Batiste well, and recommended him for his promotion. When Dubois first heard about Batiste's postretirement objections, he says, "I was nonplussed. I thought to myself, 'This isn't same guy who talked to me in my office' about Iraq."
Dubois, who says he still admires Batiste, adds: "I was with [former deputy Defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz when we went to Iraq to visit with John and his First Infantry Division in Tikrit. I sat next to Batiste on the one side and Paul sat on other side. I can remember the opportunities—that's in the plural—that both Paul and I gave to John [to speak out]. I encouraged John to have private meetings with Paul. He had worked with him for two solid years [as Wolfowitz's assistant]. I find it a little incredible—and I used that word advisedly—that he would not have mentioned something to Paul." In one meeting, Dubois recalls, Rumsfeld asked Batiste during a visit to Tikrit on Christmas Eve of 2004, with media present, whether he had received the resources he had asked for. Batiste declined to say for the cameras. "He talks now about being put on the spot by Rumsfeld in front of the press," says Dubois. "C'mon, you're a general officer, you're a big boy."
Batiste says that Dubois doesn't know the whole story. "I was extremely vocal within my chain of command," he says. Batiste says he communicated his specific concerns about lack of troops to his former superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of multinational forces in Iraq, and his successor, Gen. George Casey. "And yes, I did have a meetings in Iraq with Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld. Regarding the disputed meeting during Rumsfeld's trip, he says, "In our culture within the military, you don't air the dirty laundry, certainly not with the international and national press." But Batiste adds: "I do remember speaking to both those guys about the frustrations of picking up a brigade element of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in contact with the enemy and moving to another location in Iraq 200 to 300 miles away to deal with an emergency. When you do that you create an immediate vacuum. … It's the whack-a-mole game. They're doing the same thing now."
Batiste adds that the U.S. Army is now "at a breaking point." America's armed forces won't leave Iraq right away—even if the president agrees to withdraw. "It will take between eight and 10 months to uncoil all that stuff and move it out in good order. We have an obligation to leave that country in best shape we can. But what's more important for us right now is to get our great military home. We need to rearm it and refit it and get ready for next phase. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book."
The question lingers: should the debate between military commanders and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have been more robust in the crucial early stages of the war? Even Dubois admits that the Army can't afford to lose top performers like Batiste. As a result, we may be witnessing a new set of rules being drawn up for civilian-military relations—rules that could forever change this crucial partnership in American political life. Today's sense of frustration among the military brass has been redoubled by the knowledge that this is the second time in the last two generations that things have broken down. In Vietnam too, generals stayed silent when they should have voiced their reservations about how the civilians were handling and politicizing a war. Col. H.R. McMaster, a highly regarded Army officer whose tactics in Tal Afar, Iraq, have been praised by Bush, made this argument in his 1998 (and recently reissued) book, "Dereliction of Duty." The point was also raised eloquently by former secretary of State Colin Powell in his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey." Powell wrote: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons…" As we now know, almost all of these military officers did quietly acquiesce, along with Powell.
The debate rages on today. Even Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has been recently accused of concealing his true assessment of the Iraq situation by backing Bush's surge plan. (Interviewed last fall by Iraq Study Group members at Fort Leavenworth, where he was finalizing the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus was quite plain in backing an accelerated effort to train Iraqis, not add more American troops, according to former Rep. Leon Panetta, a member of the group.)
Batiste says he remains a "diehard Republican" and has no intention of wading directly into the presidential campaign à la McClellan and MacArthur. He took part in the VoteVets.org campaign, he says, because it's a "nonpartisan group." (VoteVets.org describes itself as a political action committee whose goal "is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." The cofounder, Jon Soltz, said he "came up with the concept" for the ad himself. He and Wesley Clark, the former general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, recruited Batiste and Eaton.)
Still, Batiste and the other rebellious ex-generals are testing the limits of military decorum, shifting lines that have been in place for two centuries. While they disagree about who said what and when, both Batiste and Dubois concur on one central point: the importance of the military speaking candidly in real time to the Pentagon. "The flip side of civilian control is [for the military] to speak truth to it—not impertinently, not with disdain, but you have an obligation," Dubois says. Will the generals working with the new secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, handle things differently? The course of the Iraq conflict—and the way America wages future wars—may depend on it.
Subject: VoteVets.org
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18592759/site/newsweek/
May 10, 2007 - If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan, ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape—and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians—that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing—or something very worrying.
No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste—only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars—effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says. Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.
The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected."
The issue being raised by Batiste and other vocal ex-generals—he's joined in the TV ads by another recently retired two-star general, Paul Eaton—is whether they should have spoken out more aggressively at the time they were serving about Rumsfeld's refusal to send more troops and resources to Iraq. Rumsfeld's minimalist approach to occupation was a key error, it is now widely acknowledged, that opened the way to the bloody chaos in Iraq today. Now, the civilians at the Pentagon are criticizing the ex-generals for their silence at the time—saying they should have been more activist during their time in uniform if they had wanted their views known. Raymond Dubois, a Vietnam vet who was Rumsfeld's principal staff assistant from October 2002 to May 2005 and later undersecretary of Defense, says he knew Batiste well, and recommended him for his promotion. When Dubois first heard about Batiste's postretirement objections, he says, "I was nonplussed. I thought to myself, 'This isn't same guy who talked to me in my office' about Iraq."
Dubois, who says he still admires Batiste, adds: "I was with [former deputy Defense secretary] Paul Wolfowitz when we went to Iraq to visit with John and his First Infantry Division in Tikrit. I sat next to Batiste on the one side and Paul sat on other side. I can remember the opportunities—that's in the plural—that both Paul and I gave to John [to speak out]. I encouraged John to have private meetings with Paul. He had worked with him for two solid years [as Wolfowitz's assistant]. I find it a little incredible—and I used that word advisedly—that he would not have mentioned something to Paul." In one meeting, Dubois recalls, Rumsfeld asked Batiste during a visit to Tikrit on Christmas Eve of 2004, with media present, whether he had received the resources he had asked for. Batiste declined to say for the cameras. "He talks now about being put on the spot by Rumsfeld in front of the press," says Dubois. "C'mon, you're a general officer, you're a big boy."
Batiste says that Dubois doesn't know the whole story. "I was extremely vocal within my chain of command," he says. Batiste says he communicated his specific concerns about lack of troops to his former superior, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of multinational forces in Iraq, and his successor, Gen. George Casey. "And yes, I did have a meetings in Iraq with Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Rumsfeld. Regarding the disputed meeting during Rumsfeld's trip, he says, "In our culture within the military, you don't air the dirty laundry, certainly not with the international and national press." But Batiste adds: "I do remember speaking to both those guys about the frustrations of picking up a brigade element of 3,000 to 5,000 troops in contact with the enemy and moving to another location in Iraq 200 to 300 miles away to deal with an emergency. When you do that you create an immediate vacuum. … It's the whack-a-mole game. They're doing the same thing now."
Batiste adds that the U.S. Army is now "at a breaking point." America's armed forces won't leave Iraq right away—even if the president agrees to withdraw. "It will take between eight and 10 months to uncoil all that stuff and move it out in good order. We have an obligation to leave that country in best shape we can. But what's more important for us right now is to get our great military home. We need to rearm it and refit it and get ready for next phase. Iraq and Afghanistan are the first two chapters in a very long book."
The question lingers: should the debate between military commanders and the civilian leadership at the Pentagon have been more robust in the crucial early stages of the war? Even Dubois admits that the Army can't afford to lose top performers like Batiste. As a result, we may be witnessing a new set of rules being drawn up for civilian-military relations—rules that could forever change this crucial partnership in American political life. Today's sense of frustration among the military brass has been redoubled by the knowledge that this is the second time in the last two generations that things have broken down. In Vietnam too, generals stayed silent when they should have voiced their reservations about how the civilians were handling and politicizing a war. Col. H.R. McMaster, a highly regarded Army officer whose tactics in Tal Afar, Iraq, have been praised by Bush, made this argument in his 1998 (and recently reissued) book, "Dereliction of Duty." The point was also raised eloquently by former secretary of State Colin Powell in his 1995 memoir, "My American Journey." Powell wrote: "Many of my generation, the career captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels seasoned in that war, vowed that when our turn came to call the shots, we would not quietly acquiesce in halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons…" As we now know, almost all of these military officers did quietly acquiesce, along with Powell.
The debate rages on today. Even Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of multinational forces in Iraq, has been recently accused of concealing his true assessment of the Iraq situation by backing Bush's surge plan. (Interviewed last fall by Iraq Study Group members at Fort Leavenworth, where he was finalizing the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, Petraeus was quite plain in backing an accelerated effort to train Iraqis, not add more American troops, according to former Rep. Leon Panetta, a member of the group.)
Batiste says he remains a "diehard Republican" and has no intention of wading directly into the presidential campaign à la McClellan and MacArthur. He took part in the VoteVets.org campaign, he says, because it's a "nonpartisan group." (VoteVets.org describes itself as a political action committee whose goal "is to put Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans in Congress who are critical of the execution of the war in Iraq." The cofounder, Jon Soltz, said he "came up with the concept" for the ad himself. He and Wesley Clark, the former general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, recruited Batiste and Eaton.)
Still, Batiste and the other rebellious ex-generals are testing the limits of military decorum, shifting lines that have been in place for two centuries. While they disagree about who said what and when, both Batiste and Dubois concur on one central point: the importance of the military speaking candidly in real time to the Pentagon. "The flip side of civilian control is [for the military] to speak truth to it—not impertinently, not with disdain, but you have an obligation," Dubois says. Will the generals working with the new secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, handle things differently? The course of the Iraq conflict—and the way America wages future wars—may depend on it.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Post #83
Subject: A secret unauthorized leak of the advance copy of Gen. Petraues‘ September report
No, not really. I do not have friends in high places or low places. But I do know what Gen. David Petraues will say: “The surge is working. We have made progress. We have not made enough progress to leave, but we have made enough progress to justify staying.”
Bill Bennett would not bet against my tea leave reading! :p
Of course, Petraues will hit all the high spots in defending George W. Bush’s folly – Bush said, “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” But Petraues will duck the crucial question: Of Bush’s stated goals, which one(s) is/are an appropriate use of our military?
Bush just wants to leave office with troops in Iraq. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “The President said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, I think it‘s important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long [the troops] will be involved, and when they would be withdrawn. Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activity.” And he’s relying on Petraues to give him cover.
Bush wants to prolong the war – he can’t admit that he made a mistake. And our military is paying the price. He took us to war unnecessarily – Iraq did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq – Bush did not plan to fail; he failed to plan. He took us to war without enough troops and without the right equipment for the troops we did send or the proper care for those who came home wounded.
Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home. Can ya say Greensburg, Kansas?
Bush has declared war against his own – our – Army. And he claims that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy. Doesn’t Bush realize that emboldening the enemy is the one mission his failed policy has accomplished?
Aaahhh – but we are fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers – a plot the FBI says was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD. A New Jersey store clerk noticed the suspicious video. Um, what does Bush’s criminal crime-fighting powers have to do with this? More importantly, why didn’t the surge in Baghdad stop this?
Petraues knows….
Subject: A secret unauthorized leak of the advance copy of Gen. Petraues‘ September report
No, not really. I do not have friends in high places or low places. But I do know what Gen. David Petraues will say: “The surge is working. We have made progress. We have not made enough progress to leave, but we have made enough progress to justify staying.”
Bill Bennett would not bet against my tea leave reading! :p
Of course, Petraues will hit all the high spots in defending George W. Bush’s folly – Bush said, “Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.” But Petraues will duck the crucial question: Of Bush’s stated goals, which one(s) is/are an appropriate use of our military?
Bush just wants to leave office with troops in Iraq. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “The President said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them. Yet in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said about President Clinton, I think it‘s important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long [the troops] will be involved, and when they would be withdrawn. Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standard to his own activity.” And he’s relying on Petraues to give him cover.
Bush wants to prolong the war – he can’t admit that he made a mistake. And our military is paying the price. He took us to war unnecessarily – Iraq did not attack us, did not threaten us and did not want war with us. He took us to war without a plan to stabilize Iraq – Bush did not plan to fail; he failed to plan. He took us to war without enough troops and without the right equipment for the troops we did send or the proper care for those who came home wounded.
Now, by continuing this war indefinitely, he is sending soldiers back on third and fourth tours; extending the time they spend in Iraq; abolishing the practice of keeping them home for a year between tours; and diverting the National Guard and Reserve from critical missions here at home. Can ya say Greensburg, Kansas?
Bush has declared war against his own – our – Army. And he claims that those who criticize his conduct of the war are undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy. Doesn’t Bush realize that emboldening the enemy is the one mission his failed policy has accomplished?
Aaahhh – but we are fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack the Army's Fort Dix and massacre scores of U.S. soldiers – a plot the FBI says was foiled when the men took a video of themselves firing assault weapons to a store to have the footage put onto a DVD. A New Jersey store clerk noticed the suspicious video. Um, what does Bush’s criminal crime-fighting powers have to do with this? More importantly, why didn’t the surge in Baghdad stop this?
Petraues knows….
Friday, May 04, 2007
Post #82
Subject: Jihad Joe vs. Afghan Ali
"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"
John Edwards, former Senator and current Democratic Presidential hopeful, wants to know. He submitted that question for the GOP Presidential debate last night -- about a third of the debate questions were from submissions to Politico.com. Take away the verbosity [!?!] and you have the whole Iraq war boiled down: “… a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or… we need a broader approach?”
Who are we fighting? On May 1 – a day that will live in infamy, George W. Bush said “It‘s true that not everyone taking instant life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home, but many do.”
So, does Jihad Joe who wants to blow up the Baghdad Babes, uh, Adult Entertainment Club deserve the same military approach as Afghan Ali who wants to fly a plane into the White House?
Bush also said, “Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.”
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
Bush continued, “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.”
Who? Jihad Joe or Afghan Ali? Does it make sense to spend blood and treasure fighting Joe at the expense of Ali? All I heard at the debate was that we needed to swing bigger – nobody said ”smarter.” * sigh *
Subject: Jihad Joe vs. Afghan Ali
"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"
John Edwards, former Senator and current Democratic Presidential hopeful, wants to know. He submitted that question for the GOP Presidential debate last night -- about a third of the debate questions were from submissions to Politico.com. Take away the verbosity [!?!] and you have the whole Iraq war boiled down: “… a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or… we need a broader approach?”
Who are we fighting? On May 1 – a day that will live in infamy, George W. Bush said “It‘s true that not everyone taking instant life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home, but many do.”
So, does Jihad Joe who wants to blow up the Baghdad Babes, uh, Adult Entertainment Club deserve the same military approach as Afghan Ali who wants to fly a plane into the White House?
Bush also said, “Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.”
Frank Rich, columnist for The New York Times and author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina said on TV “The fact is that al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq has always been false. That they continue to repeat it, that Cheney continues to make specific claims about collaborations between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, it‘s preposterous. And indeed, this al Qaeda [in Iraq] really threatens the Iraq government, or so-called government we‘ve set up, it‘s not going to follow us over here. That al Qaeda is in Pakistan and other places.”
Of course, the whole neo-con world view Bush continues to spew is lazy, shallow. From Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: “There is a deep feeling among some senior Bush administration officials that somehow we had not started the Iraq war. We had been attacked. Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the other terrorists and anti-American forces – whether groups or countries or philosophies – could be lumped together. It was one war, the long war, the two-generation war… described after 9/11.”
From my Post #22, I quoted from the column “Islamo-fascism?” by Pat Buchanan, http://www.theamericancause.org/ , from September 1, 2006: “But the term represents the same lazy, shallow thinking that got us into Iraq, where Americans were persuaded that by dumping over Saddam, we were avenging 9/11.”
Bush continued, “It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.”
Who? Jihad Joe or Afghan Ali? Does it make sense to spend blood and treasure fighting Joe at the expense of Ali? All I heard at the debate was that we needed to swing bigger – nobody said ”smarter.” * sigh *
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Post #81
Subject: Iraqis are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
… by George F. Will, Sunday, April 22, 2007. georgewill@washpost.com
* * *
Republican Presidential candidate, Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin's Governor and four years (2001-05) as Secretary of Health and Human Services, says, regarding Iraq, he would challenge that country's government to relegitimize the U.S. presence by voting to ask U.S. forces to remain. If the government does not, the United States would leave. If it does, it should then encourage voluntary ethnic rearrangements by establishing federalism -- strong governments in all 18 provinces -- where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can cluster under governments of their kind. Then it should divide oil revenue, one-third to the national government, one-third to the provincial governments and one-third to Iraqi individuals, much as Alaska does with its oil trust fund.
* * *
So, in other words, our presence in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis – not us. We leave or impose the Biden plan. There’ll be no debate about our interests – the Iraqis will determine that.
Of course, that is better than letting Martians be in charge of our foreign policy – Post #74. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer’s main qualification in a “neutral observer” is a simple and unquestioning willingness to swallow “neo-con” garbage. At least, the Iraqis are not neutral.
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.
We need to think ahead. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. That is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. The next President will have to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military.
Subject: Iraqis are in charge of our foreign policy! :p
… by George F. Will, Sunday, April 22, 2007. georgewill@washpost.com
* * *
Republican Presidential candidate, Tommy Thompson, who served four terms as Wisconsin's Governor and four years (2001-05) as Secretary of Health and Human Services, says, regarding Iraq, he would challenge that country's government to relegitimize the U.S. presence by voting to ask U.S. forces to remain. If the government does not, the United States would leave. If it does, it should then encourage voluntary ethnic rearrangements by establishing federalism -- strong governments in all 18 provinces -- where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can cluster under governments of their kind. Then it should divide oil revenue, one-third to the national government, one-third to the provincial governments and one-third to Iraqi individuals, much as Alaska does with its oil trust fund.
* * *
So, in other words, our presence in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis – not us. We leave or impose the Biden plan. There’ll be no debate about our interests – the Iraqis will determine that.
Of course, that is better than letting Martians be in charge of our foreign policy – Post #74. Indeed, Charles Krauthammer’s main qualification in a “neutral observer” is a simple and unquestioning willingness to swallow “neo-con” garbage. At least, the Iraqis are not neutral.
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.
We need to think ahead. We can not stay another 5 years or 10 years or 20 years – Bush wants 2. We need to lesson the chances of us having to return. That is why the second half of America’s interests as defined above – “not leaving chaos behind” – is so important. The next President will have to manage the aftermath of the greatest blunder in our history. If we do have to go back, let’s go back with a rested and resupplied military.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)