Iraq - 10 More Years?

[BVS]

I guess. I was thinking more along the lines of someone extorting you, threatening you, etc... where they weren't actually attacking you -- and you've had enough and you just beat the crap out of them.

Not a pacifistic approach, but one that I would still endorse under certain circumstances with my children.

hmmm, and that doesn't conflict with your Christian values?

 

[MadelynIris]

Patience, love, understanding... all of these I hope to have when dealing with everyone, but obviously there is a time and place to draw the line and make a point. You only have 2 cheeks, you know!

John 2:13-17 (The Message)
The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson



Tear Down This Temple . . .
13-14When the Passover Feast, celebrated each spring by the Jews, was about to take place, Jesus traveled up to Jerusalem. He found the Temple teeming with people selling cattle and sheep and doves. The loan sharks were also there in full strength.
15-17Jesus put together a whip out of strips of leather and chased them out of the Temple, stampeding the sheep and cattle, upending the tables of the loan sharks, spilling coins left and right. He told the dove merchants, "Get your things out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a shopping mall!" That's when his disciples remembered the Scripture, "Zeal for your house consumes me."

But I think we are digressing. From the point of view of a nation, I believe that a country doesn't excersize military might on it's enemies by rule, loses the option, and therefore might as well not have a military.

 

[BVS]

Patience, love, understanding... all of these I hope to have when dealing with everyone, but obviously there is a time and place to draw the line and make a point. You only have 2 cheeks, you know!





But I think we are digressing. From the point of view of a nation, I believe that a country doesn't excersize military might on it's enemies by rule, loses the option, and therefore might as well not have a military.

No, it's not obvious.

Turning over tables is different from kicking the crap out of someone. And this is the biggest issue I have with CCs. It's not enough for them to defend, they must avenge. Even if there really isn't anything or anyone to avenge.

 

[phillyfan26]

Is it right for the US to pull out of Iraq when they know that death in the Middle East will increase dramatically?

After four years, I still am more of a devil's advocate than anything. I've yet to be convinced of either way to go. It's a sticky situation. So, I ask questions like these.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Bush's statement today, on the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the war

Roosevelt Room

11:30 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Four years ago today, coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam Hussein from power. They did so to eliminate the threat his regime posed to the Middle East and to the world. Coalition forces carried out that mission with great courage and skill. Today the world is rid of Saddam Hussein and a tyrant has been held to account for his crimes by his own people.

Nearly 12 million Iraqis have voted in free elections under a democratic constitution that they wrote for themselves. And their democratic leaders are now working to build a free society that upholds the rule of law, that respects the rights of its people, that provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror.

At this point in the war, our most important mission is helping the Iraqis secure their capital. Until Baghdad's citizens feel secure in their own homes and neighborhoods, it will be difficult for Iraqis to make further progress toward political reconciliation or economic rebuilding, steps necessary for Iraq to build a democratic society.

So with our help, Iraq's government is carrying out an aggressive plan to secure Baghdad. And we're continuing to train the Iraqi security forces so that they ultimately take full responsibility for the security of their own people.

I've just received an update on the situation from Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. My conversation with the Prime Minister followed a briefing earlier this morning that included Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates, along with General Petraeus and Ambassador Khalilzad, who participated by video conference from Iraq.

Prime Minister Maliki and General Petraeus emphasized that the Baghdad security plan is still in its early stages, and success will take months, not days or weeks. Yet, those on the ground are seeing some hopeful signs. The Iraqi government has completed the deployment of three Iraqi army brigades to the capital, where they've joined the seven Iraqi army brigades and nine national police brigades that were already in the area.

The Iraqi government has also lifted restrictions that once prevented Iraqi and coalition forces from going into areas like Sadr City. American and Iraqi forces have established joint security stations. Those stations are scattered throughout Baghdad and they're helping Iraqis reclaim their neighborhoods from the terrorists and extremists.

Together, we've carried out aggressive operations against both Shia and Sunni extremists; carried out operations against al Qaeda terrorists. We've uncovered large caches of weapons and destroyed two major car bomb factories that were located on the outskirts of Baghdad.

I want to stress that this operation is still in the early stages, it's still in the beginning stages. Fewer than half of the troop reinforcements we are sending have arrived in Baghdad. The new strategy will need more time to take effect. And there will be good days, and there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds.

As we help the Iraqis secure their capital, their leaders are also beginning to meet the benchmarks they have laid out for political reconciliation. Last month, Iraq's Council of Ministers approved a law that would share oil revenues among Iraqi people. The Iraqi legislature passed a $41 billion budget that includes $10 billion for reconstruction and capital improvements. And last week, Prime Minister Maliki visited Ramadi, a city in the Sunni heartland, to reach out to local Sunni tribal leaders.

There's been good progress. There's a lot more work to be done, and Iraq's leaders must continue to work to meet the benchmarks that have set forward.

As Iraqis work to keep their commitments, we have important commitments of our own. Members of Congress are now considering an emergency war spending bill. They have a responsibility to ensure that this bill provides the funds and the flexibility that our troops need to accomplish their mission. They have a responsibility to pass a clean bill that does not use funding for our troops as leverage to get special interest spending for their districts. And they have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay.

It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating. If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen.

Prevailing in Iraq is not going to be easy. General Petraeus says that the environment in Iraq is the most challenging that he has seen in his more than 32 years of service. He also says that he has been impressed by the professionalism and the skill and determination of our men and women in uniform. He sees in our troops "a true will to win and a sincere desire to help our Iraqi partners achieve success."

Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through. I'm grateful to our servicemen and women for all they've done and for the honor they brought to their uniform and their country. I'm grateful to our military families for all the sacrifices they have made for our country. We also hold in our hearts the good men and women who've given their lives in this struggle. We pray for the loved ones they have left behind.

The United States military is the most capable and courageous fighting force in the world. And whatever our differences in Washington, our troops and their families deserve the appreciation and the support of our entire nation.

Thank you.

 

[deep]

About four in five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops


but only a third want those U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately.

Poll: Iraqis gripped by fear and anger

By WILL LESTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The optimism that helped sustain Iraqis during the first few years of the war has dissolved into widespread fear, anger and distress amid unrelenting violence, a survey found.

The poll - the third in Iraq since early 2004 by ABC News and media partners - draws a stark portrait of an increasingly pessimistic population under great emotional stress. Among the findings of this survey for ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV:

-The number of Iraqis who say their own life is going well has dipped from 71 percent in November 2005 to 39 percent now.

-About three-fourths of Iraqis report feelings of anger, depression and difficulty concentrating.

-More than half of Iraqis have curtailed activities like going out of their homes, going to markets or other crowded places and traveling through police checkpoints.

-Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops, and 86 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be a victim of violence.

-Slightly more than half of Iraqis - 51 percent - now say that violence against U.S. forces is acceptable - up from 17 percent who felt that way in early 2004. More than nine in 10 Sunni Arabs in Iraq now feel this way.

-While 63 percent said they felt very safe in their neighborhoods in late 2005, only 26 percent feel that way now.

The major cause for this sharp reversal in Iraqi attitudes is the continuing violence - bombings, attacks by roving gunmen and kidnappings - that has overwhelmed the country since the U.S. invasion four years ago this week.

Eighty percent of Iraqis surveyed reported some kind of violence nearby, according to the nationally representative survey conducted Feb. 25 to March 5 among 2,212 Iraqis, including oversamples - or additional interviews - in Anbar province, the Sadr City section of Baghdad, Basra and Kirkuk. Results were subject to a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Polling in a war-torn country can be more difficult because respondents are fearful. ABC pollster Gary Langer said the interviewers were experienced in polling in such situations and the questionnaire was extensive and carefully translated, adding that those who were afraid could just refuse to participate. The survey was done by D3 Systems, a pollster specializing in conflict countries.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000, possibly much higher. More than half of Iraqis surveyed said a friend or relative has been hurt or killed in the violence, while almost nine in 10 worried that a loved one will be hurt.

The levels of stress soar outside relatively peaceful Kurdistan, especially in Baghdad and the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, the poll found.

Fewer than half in the country, 42 percent, said that life in Iraq now is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, the late dictator accused of murdering tens of thousands during a brutal regime.

Iraqis pessimism about safety spills over into their views of most aspects of life - the economy, basic needs like power and clean water, even the risks of sending their children to school.

But views of the U.S. military presence are contradictory among Iraqis - just as they are in this country.

About four in five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops but only a third want those U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately.

Conducting the face-to-face poll was a difficult ordeal in such a violent country. More than 100 Iraqi interviewers conducted the poll and some reported seeing bombings, beatings and even a mass kidnapping. Several teams of interviewers were detained by police - but every interviewer made it home safely.

 

[Irvine511]

About four in five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. troops


but only a third want those U.S. troops to leave Iraq immediately.

gosh, reality is just SO COMPLICATED!!! we have to keep SEVERAL THOUGHTS IN OUR HEADS and ALL at ONCE!!! why can't we just boil things down to SINGLE SENTENCES and really SNAPPY soundbytes like MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!?!?!!? why is it so hard to do all this presidenting?

 

[deep]

Well, If I don't break it down

Hannity will.

2/3 do not want U S to leave.


We need to "honor" the sacrafices of America's bravest.

2/3 do not want U S to leave. immediately.

the rest wants us out in 30 days ?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Gee, Bush left out some of this stuff today...


by John Murtha

Our military men and women deserve the utmost praise and gratitude for their commitment and valor. I am inspired by their dedication and sacrifice. But the burden of a war that has been so costly in terms of dollars and lives cannot and should not continue to fall solely on them. We must honor our military by providing them with missions they can accomplish and with the equipment and training they need to fight and to protect their lives. We must insist that before we send our battle weary warriors back into intense combat, we give them the time they need to rest and reconstitute and the time they deserve to spend with family and loved ones.

During this year, the Bush Administration has requested $1 trillion for the Department of Defense. $9 billion a month is being expended for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a $2 billion a month logistic trail for transporting equipment and personnel into Iraq.

Over 3,200 of our sons and daughters have lost their lives in Iraq and close to 25,000 have been wounded, to include thousands of traumatic brain injuries and hundreds of limb amputations. The cost of disability benefits as a result of this protracted and intense war will be staggering. A recent report by the Harvard University School of Government put the total cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan at $350 to $700 billion.

While the U.S. continues to deplete its resources in Iraq, our ground forces in the United States are short on training, equipment and personnel. At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80% of all Army units and almost 100% of active combat units were rated at the highest levels of readiness. Just the opposite exists today. General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, said last week during a hearing on the Hill, "We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it." General Cody, the Vice Chief, said that the Army's readiness level is "stark."

Meanwhile in Iraq the situation remains dire. Benchmarks established by this Administration are elusive and routinely ignored. Official reports sent to Congress indicate that oil production and electricity remain below prewar levels and less than half of the Iraqi population is employed. Attacks on U.S. forces have increased by 10 more percentage points over the last four months and the Iraqi Security Forces are not taking over the fight as promised. Two million Iraqis, many of who made up the brain trust in Iraq, have fled to neighboring countries. A new BBC poll shows that only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in U.S.-led forces and 53% of Iraqis believe security will improve when the U.S. withdraws from Iraq. The Pentagon is finally coming around to the fact that Iraq is engulfed in its own civil war. In its most recent report to Congress, Pentagon analysts reported "some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a "civil war," including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements."

After four years of incompetence and mismanagement, this Administration must come to the realization that Iraq's civil war can only be solved by the Iraqi people and that stability in Iraq can only be accomplished when U.S. and coalition forces end the occupation and redeploy.

 

[AEON]

Yeah - very strange that Bush didn't quote Murtha...

 

[redhotswami]

I don't know if I should post this here or bump my Kucinich thread. But...I want to post this for open debate. This is more or less the same plan Dennis had in the previous election. I personally don't understand why it is so unpopular. It seems great to me! But, I wanted to hear some critique, another perspective on why it doesn't make sense...because right now I just don't see it. So can someone tell me why this isn't a good plan for the U.S. involvement in Iraq?:

These are the elements of the Kucinich 12-Point Plan for Iraq:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority fear they will not be allowed to government even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Yeah - very strange that Bush didn't quote Murtha...

So Murtha's just making all of that up? I'm talking about the stats he quoted there.

Bush slants it the way he wants to. Who is going to pay for all of that? What does he care, he'll be out of there anyway. And he can go around spouting "support the troops" forever and a day- won't change the fact that the care for the wounded soldiers is increasingly being exposed to be a complete disgrace.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Based on a TVEyes search of closed captioning transcripts by TVNewser, the number of mentions of the Iraq war's fourth anniversary between 6 A.M. and 3 P.M. yesterday were as follows: MSNBC - 153 mentions. CNN - 112 mentions. Fox News Channel - 42 mentions. Interesting numbers, especially given the rundown earlier this month of FNC's minimalist coverage of the Walter Reed scandal (compared to champion mentions of Anna Nicole).

 

[deep]

Iraqi VP: U.S. withdrawal will not help
By Carl Freire, Associated Press Writer

TOKYO — A quick withdrawal of American troops would not benefit Iraq or Western interests, Iraq's vice president said Saturday, after the House voted narrowly approved a cutoff deadline for the Iraq war.

Speaking to reporters in Tokyo, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi said the U.S.-led coalition troops operating in Iraq should not be withdrawn before the country's own armed forces are functioning autonomously and professionally.

"Many of the Democrats are now pushing the White House for a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is not going to benefit either Iraqi or Western interests," Hashimi said.

"The Americans have the resources and the manpower to help us stay in power and set up an economy that will be beneficial to America and Western Nations. If troops are pulled out on short notice, it will create a security vacuum in Iraq that cannot be filled by troops that have not been trained well enough and are not available in sufficient numbers," he said.

The comments from Hashimi, who was wrapping up a four-day visit to Japan, came after the House voted 218-212 to pull combat troops out before September 2008. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

 

[redhotswami]

I took Bailey to his first protest this past weekend

We had an okay turnout. What surprised me the most was there was a "counter protest" by 2 girlfriends of cadets. They were carrying posters saying "remember 9-11." I couldn't believe the ignorance. Did they miss something?

And of course, the cadets soon gathered around them, and made a big deal of thanking them in front of everyone.

As I left, I had to walk past them. The girls were yelling at me "This is the best country ever! I love that we have freedom of speech!"

I said "I remember 9-11. I also remember the floods that destroyed the Gulf more than a year ago. Thousands of people are wondering why we're spending billions of dollars on a war that was built on lies when they are still queuing up for their trailers, 18 months after the disaster."

I got more shouts of protecting freedom, supporting troops, etc. To be going to one of the most competitive schools in our state, these kids sure don't process information.

Anyway, Bailey was a star. He did well. I was proud of him.

 

[deep]

Saudi king slams 'illegitimate occupation' of Iraq

by Lydia GeorgiWed Mar 28, 8:10 AM ET

Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said.

He also said that Arab nations, which are planning to revive a five-year-old Middle East peace plan at the summit, would not allow any foreign force to decide the future of the region.

In the past, Saudi leaders including Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal have often criticised US policy in Iraq but have never described its presence there as "illegitimate."

Seriously

"President Bush once said he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side."

I guess it will be the same if the Iraqis ask us to leave.

Can anyone get to Barney and Laura?

 

[deep]

Monarch's remarks provoke rare US retort

By LEE KEATH and DONNA ABU-NASR
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia —

King Abdullah's harsh — and unexpected — attack on the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.

The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Mideast troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States.

The White House, in a rare public retort Thursday, rejected the king's characterization of U.S. troops in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation," saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.

"We disagree with them," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. "We were a little surprised to see those remarks."

 

[verte76]

I"m not surprised that the Saudis are pissed off at us over Iraq. After all, we've botched it over there.

 

[deep]

king wants a full time lover?

 

[BonosSaint]

Guess that's the smoking gun we were looking for that Bush is in bed with the Saudis (or at least one of them)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This is awesome

America’s ‘Seinfeld’ strategy in Iraq

By Michael Fullilove March 29th 2007

The history of US foreign policy is punctuated by a series of doctrines. The Monroe doctrine (1823) declared that European powers would not be allowed to intrude into the western hemisphere. The Truman doctrine (1947) committed Washington to assisting free peoples in the fight against communism. The Nixon doctrine (1969) warned that America’s allies would need to assume primary responsibility for their own defence.

In recent times US grand strategy has been guided by a new kind of doctrine, named after not its author but its exemplar: the Costanza doctrine.

This doctrine, which had its heyday in 2002-2004 but remains influential, recalls the classic episode of the TV comedy Seinfeld, “The Opposite”, in which George Costanza temporarily improves his fortunes by rejecting all the principles according to which he has lived his life and doing the opposite of what his training indicates he should do. As Jerry tells him: “If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”

Emboldened, he tries a counter-intuitive pick-up line on an attractive woman: “My name is George. I’m unemployed and I live with my parents.” At the end of their date, when she invites him up to her apartment, he demurs, cautioning that they do not know each other well enough. “Who are you, George Costanza?” the lady asks. Replies George: “I’m the opposite of every guy you’ve ever met.”

The Iraq policy pursued by the Bush administration satisfies the Costanza criterion: it is the opposite of every foreign policy the world has ever met.

The Costanza doctrine is most closely associated with President George W. Bush and his first-term confidants: the wild-eyed neo-cons and the dead-eyed ultra-cons. But there is a wider group, which includes most presidential candidates and many of Washington’s foreign policy elite, who are not fully paid-up subscribers to the doctrine but went along with it nonetheless. Allied governments in London, Madrid and Canberra also signed up.

In “The Opposite”, George breaches the most fundamental laws in his universe – for example, the age-old principle that “bald men with no jobs and no money, who live with their parents, don’t approach strange women”.

Similarly, in its geopolitical incarnation, adherents to the Costanza doctrine cast aside many of the fundamental tenets they learnt at staff college or graduate school. Let me name a few.

First, military and diplomatic resources are finite and should be directed towards your greatest priority. An example of the opposite approach would be for a country that has been attacked by a non-state terrorist group to retaliate by removing a state regime that had nothing to do with the attack.

Second, take care not to weaken your intimidatory powers through poor military performance. Aim for short, sharp victories (such as that in the 1991 Gulf war) that get your adversaries worrying about the extent of US power. The opposite would be to launch a war of choice involving the drawn-out occupation of an Arab country – the kind of thing that gets your allies worrying about the limits of US power.

Third, you get by with help from friends. Although the powerful are sometimes tempted to go it alone, international support helps determine the perceived legitimacy of an action, which affects its risk and costs. Building this support requires discussion and compromise. The opposite would be to spurn real negotiations, slough off your allies, bin multilateral agreements you do not like and declare that you are not bound by the rules that govern everyone else.

Fourth, state-building is hard. Few of the international efforts at state-building since the cold war’s end have succeeded. Luckily there are numberless reports identifying lessons learnt. The alternative would be to do the opposite of what those reports recommend, for example by deploying insufficient troops and dismantling any extant national institutions such as the army.

Fifth, democracy is a blessing that requires patient nurturing. The opposite approach would be to seek to impose democracy by force of arms on a population traumatised by decades of vicious and totalitarian rule.

Sixth, politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If two dangerous states are struggling for dominance of a strategic region, maintaining a balance between them may be the least worst option. The opposite would be to emasculate one of them, thereby greatly increasing the relative power of the other.

Finally, historians often cite the need for prudence in international relations, quoting the physician’s dictum: “First, do no harm.” The opposite would be: “Don’t think too much, just chance your arm and see what happens!”

There is a moment in “The Opposite” when George Costanza pre-empts some hooligans making a ruckus at the movie theatre: “Shut your mouths or I’ll shut ’em for ya. And if you think I’m kidding, just try me. Try me! Because I would love it!”

For a while, that kind of method worked – for both Georges. Then normal service resumed. The Costanza doctrine is all about hope, but when it comes to making your way, in New York or the world, experience is the better guide.

The writer directs the global issues programme at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney

The Financial Times Limited 2007

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

Whether we get out now, next year, or 10 years from now, the result is the same- the puppet government we support WILL fall and the country WILL fall into a multifactional civil war likely resulting in either a radical Taliban type government, or another Saddam. Only a dictator of his extemity could control a nation of such varied factions that never should have been forced together into one country in the first place. So I say GET OUT NOW. Why should even one more American die when you're not going to stop or change a thing.

I'm tired of people saying if we leave all will go to ruin. Sure it will, but that is going to happen eventually anyway so let's go now. There is no hope of installing and maintaining a government friendly to the US because that's not the nature of Iraq, their people and their culture and it will never happen.

 

[AEON]

Whether we get out now, next year, or 10 years from now, the result is the same- the puppet government we support WILL fall and the country WILL fall into a multifactional civil war likely resulting in either a radical Taliban type government, or another Saddam. Only a dictator of his extemity could control a nation of such varied factions that never should have been forced together into one country in the first place. So I say GET OUT NOW. Why should even one more American die when you're not going to stop or change a thing.

I'm tired of people saying if we leave all will go to ruin. Sure it will, but that is going to happen eventually anyway so let's go now. There is no hope of installing and maintaining a government friendly to the US because that's not the nature of Iraq, their people and their culture and it will never happen.

Actually, a part of me agrees with this. The direct threat has been removed. If we focus only a part of those resources currently being spent in Iraq on border protection and US extremist mosques - we will be relatively safe from the terrorists. You can never fully eliminate the threat, but we can certainly mitigate it.


Our Air Force and Navy planes combined with our Special Forces are more than capable of taking care of all future foreign threats (Iran, Syria, Lebanon..etc).

 

[deep]

Actually, a part of me agrees with this. The direct threat has been removed. If we focus only a part of those resources currently being spent in Iraq on border protection and US extremist mosques - we will be relatively safe from the terrorists. You can never fully eliminate the threat, but we can certainly mitigate it.


Our Air Force and Navy planes combined with our Special Forces are more than capable of taking care of all future foreign threats (Iran, Syria, Lebanon..etc).

Yes, but if, and I hate to say it,

but when you get stationed over there (if the Administration continues to have a free hand)

You won't be able to voice this opinion.


The thing is,
I believe if there was a pull out date
most of the violence would stop.


Each side ( or should I say the different sides) would just bide their time and try and consolidate power for the time when Iraq was left to Iraqis to struggle for the spoils.

Americans can stay there for ten more years,
and the insurgents or whatever you want to call them, also the Shiite death squads will keep on doing what they are doing, at times and places of their choosing.


How will it be better if we have a wall with 6000? 7000? 10,000 names on it
instead of 3300?

 

[STING2]

Whether we get out now, next year, or 10 years from now, the result is the same- the puppet government we support WILL fall and the country WILL fall into a multifactional civil war likely resulting in either a radical Taliban type government, or another Saddam. Only a dictator of his extemity could control a nation of such varied factions that never should have been forced together into one country in the first place. So I say GET OUT NOW. Why should even one more American die when you're not going to stop or change a thing.

I'm tired of people saying if we leave all will go to ruin. Sure it will, but that is going to happen eventually anyway so let's go now. There is no hope of installing and maintaining a government friendly to the US because that's not the nature of Iraq, their people and their culture and it will never happen.

So why not suggest the same policy for Afghanistan? After all Afghanistan has a real history of multifactional civil war and is much further removed from western standards of culture and government than Iraq is.

The same hopeless attitude was expressed about US intervention in Bosnia, a real civil war where nearly 10% of the population was slaughtered. Yet 12 years later, Bosnia is at peace with a rising standard of living that is better than Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and many of its neighbors.

Iraq will eventually develop a government and military force that will be able to handle its internal problems without foreign troops provided the international community does not walk away from it so early in the nation building process. The same can be said for Afghanistan.

 

[deep]

Hello Sting,



Each mission is different, with different difficulties, threats, costs and probabilities of success.


Reagan got out of Lebanon.

Clinton got out of Somalia


Bush 1 went so far with Desert Storm and contained Saddam and pulled back.

I realize that in most of the above and even Viet Nam you would have advocated more engagement

Well, those administrations and the overwelming sediment of the American people would not.

 

[STING2]

Yes, but if, and I hate to say it,

but when you get stationed over there (if the Administration continues to have a free hand)

You won't be able to voice this opinion.


The thing is,
I believe if there was a pull out date
most of the violence would stop.


Each side ( or should I say the different sides) would just bide their time and try and consolidate power for the time when Iraq was left to Iraqis to struggle for the spoils.

Americans can stay there for ten more years,
and the insurgents or whatever you want to call them, also the Shiite death squads will keep on doing what they are doing, at times and places of their choosing.


How will it be better if we have a wall with 6000? 7000? 10,000 names on it
instead of 3300?

Its military insanity to announce a pullout date for a military force of that size. It simply gives the enemy time to plan and execute attacks, particularly on logistical and transportation assets, that would be more exposed in any sort of a pull out, especially a rapid one as proposed by most democrats.

It was predicted by many that the Bosnia Croats, Serbs, and Muslims would fight for the next 1,000 years. That obviously did not and will not happen. Counter insurgency and nation building takes a long time and is very expensive, but provided the effort is not abandoned in any way, it will eventually succeed in bringing about stability which in this case is important to regional and global security.

The Taliban will continue to cause problems in Afghanistan for years to come, but no one is advocating a withdrawal from Afghanistan because of that fact. A responsible withdrawal will come once the Afghan and Iraqi governments no longer require foreign troops to insure their internal security.

Abandoning Iraq now will simply allow a Bosnian bloodbath on an Iraqi scale to happen, destabilize the region and create the conditions for a war that will be impossible for the United States to avoid with far greater risk and much heavier casualties. Iraq is not Somalia and the United States is not immune to the consequences of simply walking away as it was in Somalia. The United States and the rest of the planet will be dependent on energy from the region for the next couple of decades at a minimum, regardless of what happens in the search for alternative resources.

Its ironic that Democrats are so insistent on fighting in Afghanistan where non-Taliban Al Quada activity is near zero, but want to pull out of the country where Al Quada is launching the vast majority of its attacks.

 

[deep]

The United States and the rest of the planet will be dependent on energy from the region for the next couple of decades at a minimum, regardless of what happens in the search for alternative resources.

what is your point?

If a Shiite Iraqi government were in league with Iran
and they controlled the oil, what would they do with it?




The oil just gets put on the world market.

The price would probably come down.

Is Chavez impacting the oil market?

He controls quite a bit
and is probably more anti-Bush than Iran?


When an oil tanker sails across the Atlantic
ownership of the oil contained therein, changes ownership about 300 times.

 

[STING2]

Hello Sting,



Each mission is different, with different difficulties, threats, costs and probabilities of success.


Reagan got out of Lebanon.

Clinton got out of Somalia


Bush 1 went so far with Desert Storm and contained Saddam and pulled back.

I realize that in most of the above and even Viet Nam you would have advocated more engagement

Well, those administrations and the overwelming sediment of the American people would not.

Well, Iraq is NOT Lebanon or Somalia in regards to how it impacts United States security. Its not Vietnam either. Given the vital oil reserves that sit just across the border in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, vital to the survival of the global economy, stability in Iraq is not something that can simply be dismissed.

Bush 1 would have gone to Baghdad had Saddam continued to fight coalition forces. No one wants to engage in the kind of nationbuilding and counter insurgency warfare that is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan because it is enormously difficult, costly and takes an enormous amount of time to succeed. That is why with Saddam's acceptance of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire terms, it was felt containment was better than regime removal at that time. But containment fell apart and Saddam showed no signs he was serious about compliance or avoiding the types of policies he had engaged in in the 1980s and early 1990s which is why regime change became a necessity despite the cost.

Same with Afghanistan. Although many felt removal of the Taliban was necessary in order to get at Al Quada in the 1990s, it was not done because of the projected cost. But in both cases, events and the potential cost of not acting became far greater than the cost of actual action.

The majority of Americans actually supported the Iraq war for 2 and half years. But as always happens with many difficult counter insurgency efforts, the time and difficulty in engaging in such and effort causes division at home and eventually a majority of the population voting against the effort. If the Civil War had lasted longer and the Presidential election was a year later, Lincoln likely would have lost re-election which would have led to an administration that would have essentially surrendered to the confederacy. But the reality was, it was only a matter of time before the North would have won the civil war given the resources at its disposal versus what the South had. The only way the North could lose and the one thing that the South hoped for, was that North would give up the fight. That is precisely what Sunni insurgents, Al Quada, and other anti-coalition forces in Iraq are hoping will happen with the current conflict. They know that if the United States continues to expend the necessary resources in the conflict, they will never win, but if they can convince the majority of the domestic population that winning is not possible or not worth it, then the US population can accomplish in the next election what they could never do themselves, the removal of all coalition troops from Iraq.

But public opinion can change, and if over the next 18 months operations in Iraq are successful enough to change the public perception of the war, public opinion for a withdrawal may drop from 65% to below 55% which may be enough to allow a Republican victory in November 2008 or allow a Clinton campaign/administration to adopt a more moderate view about withdrawal and the war in Iraq.

 

[trevster2k]

what is your point?

If a Shiite Iraqi government were in league with Iran
and they controlled the oil, what would they do with it?




The oil just gets put on the world market.

The price would probably come down.

Is Chavez impacting the oil market?

He controls quite a bit
and is probably more anti-Bush than Iran?


When an oil tanker sails across the Atlantic
ownership of the oil contained therein, changes ownership about 300 times.

Stop talking sense!!

The oil companies are loving the conflict in the Middle East. Record profits continue to rise. It also encourages oil development in regions like the tar sands and offshore in Newfoundland which would be too expensive to produce at lower oil prices. Freaking "uncertainty" is what causes instability in oil prices. The oil companies could care less if a dictator runs the country where the oil comes from, ahem, Saudi Arabia, so long as the oil gets to the market. Which it will because not selling the oil would be stupid.