Iraq Revisited

[ArtificialOne]

You assumed I haven't been in the mil, I was and I was out before 01'.

[Drake Dun]

I assumed that you are not a trigger-puller in Iraq at this very moment, which is the position into which you want to force other people.

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

No, the point I'm making is that western life is too decadent and no one but a few are willing to fight for what we have and what will be.

It's far to easy these days for people to enjoy other peoples hard work.

Wether you like the war or not. I haven't yet seen a good counter argument to my opinion.

Call me a fascist. But I almost like the idea of "earning" your citizenship. By earning, I mean do a civil service job. That could entail a huge gambit of stuff, from being a Janitor to heading a large govt department or serving in the military. This might give people a better respect or understanding for how the govt works and also make people have a little better ownership of what goes on.

My point it also made the number of people voting.

The other point is, you have allot of whiners and not allot of doers.

And not being a "trigger puller" in your book makes me less of something? Ever think I might have a better understanding of how the mil works and what the soldiers in Iraq are thinking?

Life experience trumps any opinion you might form from reading a biased blog or news article.

Also if you are so right in your opinion, why wasn't the vote better in november? It wasn't a slaughtering of incumbents that's for sure. The dems only have a one vote majority.

And I have done something you will never do, or can never experience. The feeling of brotherhood, comradery, and knowing you stand for something greater than yourself. I have the confidence and knowledge needed to get myself out of any situation. I've proven myself to other and most importan to me. When you can put yourself through hell and come out stronger and tougher than the next guy, you know you're on top. Bet you haven't experienced anything like that. Yes you are entitled to an opinion. But I have no need for opinions of people who want to whine and snivel their way through life.

You must be one of those people who hate the military and the govt., you think they're to blame for all the evils in the world.

What responsibilty have you taken? What have you done to make anyplace better for someone other than yourself. Here's a term you might learn if you actually try and help anyone else out or volunteer for anyhting. Selfless Sacrifice or Selfless Service. Can you put asside your selfishnesh for one minute?

I find your "lies and dreams of hegemony" statement laughable. You wouldn't be enjoying Tokyo the same way right now if it wasn't for a certain President lieing and sneaking around to build up for a war that 90% of the US didn't want. Public opinion is very fickle and easily manipulated, a few bad news stories, certain phrases constantly repeated day in and day out in certain venues is all it takes.

I don't agree with everything any politician says or does. But, like I stated earlier, just because someone else has caused a problem, doens't mean you walk away without fixing that. And few problems are fixed by turning around and walking away.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

No, the point I'm making is that western life is too decadent and no one but a few are willing to fight for what we have and what will be.

I agree about the decadence, but if "what we have" is a lower price at the pump, and fighting for what we have means killing people way across some huge ocean who present absolutely no threat to us just so that we can avoid having that price go higher...

The point at hand is not whether duties or perks are distributed in an equitable fashion among Americans. It is unprovoked American aggression abroad.

Call me a fascist. But I almost like the idea of "earning" your citizenship. By earning, I mean do a civil service job. That could entail a huge gambit of stuff, from being a Janitor to heading a large govt department or serving in the military. This might give people a better respect or understanding for how the govt works and also make people have a little better ownership of what goes on.

Actually, I am sympathetic to that. And I do see what you are saying about people sitting on their couches watching CNN and complaining about things. I think there's a big difference, though, between complaining because you think the government owes you more healthcare or lower taxes, and complaining because your government is enacting a program of murderous imperialism. It's not like I'm whining that I want a bigger cut of the pie, for crying out loud.

And not being a "trigger puller" in your book makes me less of something?

No, not being a trigger-puller alone is no crime (happily for me). Nor, perhaps, is supporting a draft (other considerations aside). What is a crime in my eyes is supporting a draft without being in active service (absent some excuse, of course). Think about it. What I am saying comes from pretty much the exact same attitude you just expressed... no forcing other people to do your work for you. The difference is, your garden variety brain-dead liberal only wants other people's money. You want their lives. Am I missing something, here?

Ever think I might have a better understanding of how the mil works and what the soldiers in Iraq are thinking?

If forced to guess, I would put my money on you, over me, based on the disparity in personal experience. But again, it's irrelevant. The point: war of aggression.

Also if you are so right in your opinion, why wasn't the vote better in november? It wasn't a slaughtering of incumbents that's for sure. The dems only have a one vote majority.

I do not understand the connection here. What are you talking about?

And I have done something you will never do, or can never experience. The feeling of brotherhood, comradery, and knowing you stand for something greater than yourself. I have the confidence and knowledge needed to get myself out of any situation. I've proven myself to other and most importan to me. When you can put yourself through hell and come out stronger and tougher than the next guy, you know you're on top. Bet you haven't experienced anything like that.

That sounds great, and I do envy you the experience. You said two things that made me suspicious, though. First, you said not only that I haven't experienced it (which is true), but that I can't. I also notice that you said "stronger and tougher than the next guy" and not "than you were before" or "than you thought you could be" or anything like that. So I have to wonder whether all of this doesn't just come down to some testosterone-poisoned superiority complex.

Yes you are entitled to an opinion. But I have no need for opinions of people who want to whine and snivel their way through life.

Right. File those with veracity, facts, and humanity, in the "useless" folder.

You must be one of those people who hate the military and the govt.

Leaving aside the fact that this is, once again, irrelevant - it's close to being correct. I hate militaries and governments, categorically, whether those of the United States or those of other countries.

...you think they're to blame for all the evils in the world.

Hardly all, but many, including the worst one (war).

I find your "lies and dreams of hegemony" statement laughable. You wouldn't be enjoying Tokyo the same way right now if it wasn't for a certain President lieing and sneaking around to build up for a war that 90% of the US didn't want.

I want you to come out and say that in plain English:

"Yes, Bush and his people lied. Lying was the right thing to do."

Then we can talk about whether it's a good argument or not. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify what it is that you are saying.

But, like I stated earlier, just because someone else has caused a problem, doens't mean you walk away without fixing that. And few problems are fixed by turning around and walking away.

My response here is similar to my response on the previous point. Come out and say it:

"Yes. The war was a complete mistake. Bush fucked us."

Then we can talk about how we might handle the mess he left in our laps.

Drake

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

This might give people a better respect or understanding for how the govt works...

Which is to say, very slowly with some agencies. DHS jobs in particular tend to involve a lot of bureaucracy. Just figuring out how your retirement benefits and pention plan works is an axiomatic set question straight of the SAT test. :P

[Drake Dun]

This might give people a better respect or understanding for how the govt works...

Originally Posted by Binkie

Which is to say, very slowly with some agencies.

Well, notice that he said respect *or* understanding.

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

I have a smidgen more respect for you dun since you put forth a weel thoiught out opinion this time.

I'm not the one who did wrong so I'm not the one who needs to come out and confess to anyhting. Not saying anyones done any wrong.
Why will I not come out and say anything? It's not my place. I don't have all the facts the politicians get to see and am not under the same pressure. If I said you house might burn down and oyu need to buy a fire alarm..or more correctly I bought one for you. Would I be guilty of acting with aggresion or lieing?

And yes I might have a lack of compassion and what not. But I give it when it's nessescary. I don't believe in giving out compassion and sympathy like condoms at a rave.... I don't think it's a good practice.

[Drake Dun]

If you're not in a position to have the facts, you are not in a position to support a draft. Right?

Drake

[ArtificialOne]

So what you're basically saying is... that if someone asks you to help, you wouldn't do it.

The draft is compulsory of course. But you wouldn't feel compeled anyway to help your country? You might not know everything about a company you wrok for but you do your job anyways right? Even if you don't have the entire facts of how the company operates or why it's there?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

The draft is compulsory of course. But you wouldn't feel compeled anyway to help your country? You might not know everything about a company you wrok for but you do your job anyways right? Even if you don't have the entire facts of how the company operates or why it's there?

I would not, for two reasons. First, considering that "helping" means trying to kill people (and maybe getting killed), I would have to count any doubt as running against the government, not for it. That's not the sort of thing you just take on faith. This is in addition, of course, to the fact that I consider government basically untrustworthy.

Second, in this particular case, the facts are clear enough and are available to everybody. America launched an unprovoked war of aggression.

Drake

[CptSternn]

Art -

It sounds scary, but in yer last few posts, I agree with a few things you said.

First off, I think people would value their citizenship more if they participated in the government. I don't think it should be mandatory, but do feel more should be done to get people involved BEFORE a crisis which divides a country gets to the point where people feel the HAVE to be involved due to the mismanagement of such an important issue arises.

Second, I never questioned what YOU did for your country - I read your earlier posts. That remark was aimed at binkie. She continues to drone on and on about my views and how she is so opposed to them, however, even with all those strong sentiments she displays online have yet to compel her to do anything in the real world.

I also fully agree with you that America is currently full of whiners, not do'ers - on both sides of the issue and that life experiences do trump things you read on an internet blog.

I too think they should bring back the draft. Much like the earlier comment on having people participate more, although I don't like mandatory participation, I do feel in times of war EVERYONE has to do their part. If more people were FORCED into not only the debate but the actual DYING part of the war, feelings would be MUCH more focused and this war would be over FASTER. As it stands now, only those who were unlucky enough to be enlisted before bush took office are involved and those who have made a conscious choice to go to Iraq and joined after. If the ranks contained more average people who were being forced to fight against their will, this war would be over alot faster.


And finally, of course I have to agree with your assessment of a president who was involved in lying and sneaking to start an unpopular war.

Here is the problem though that I now see. The bush administration along with the congressional republican now keep pushing 'support our troops' as their new selling point on the war. They admit it was a mistake, they admit its going badly, but they say pulling out is bad for the troops and that sure, now everyone is against the war but pulling out is bad because it somehow 'hurts' the troops.

This is tripe. The best way to support the troops is to make sure they don't put themselves in the line of fire for lies and false accusations. Too late for that, so the best thing to do is get them home before they DIE for those lies.

Trying to once again wave the flag and claim patriotic duty to stay in a failed cause built on lies is no way to honour anyone.

Another thing that is starting to come to light with the current fight over funding is this -

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/...ies&eref=yahoo

Polls show 70%+ are now opposed to the war. Congress was given a mandate last election season - kicking the repubs out of congress was a clear sign of the peoples discontent.

Even with a majority in congress, an over-whelming majority of the people, a majority of the U.N. and most every world leader now opposing the war, nothing is happening.

This means one man, and his small cadre of insiders in the U.S. government are currently running the show against the will of pretty much the world. Since WW2 there has never been such agreement on everyone everywhere that one government needs to change course.

Yet even with all those factors now lining up, bush still is bucking the system and going his own way - and there is nothing that has been thought of that can stop him.

One thinks back to Russia during the cold war and it's war machine, which ironically enough was also in Afghanistan at the time. They did what they wanted - a small group of well-to-do people in the selected government running the lives of millions with little regard for their thoughts or feelings.

Today, we see the same on the other side of the ocean, however people claim it's a 'democracy'. I would say it's not - as if a president who was elected without the popular vote can start a war that is opposed by the majority there and opposed by a majority of the legislative branch and yet cannot be stopped, what good is the voice of dissent?

Sure Americans can complain, whine if you will, but in reality, today - it has no real bearing on the course of government. The government won't have you killed over it, they will probably just ruin your career like they have done in numerous cases to date (U.S. and UK), call you a whacko, and then still push forward with their own agenda.

Is that the same democracy they want to bring to Iraq? Isn't that exactly what they claim to be fighting?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I also fully agree with you that America is currently full of whiners, not do'ers

Right. The sweet irony is that you're, yet again, the sole victim of your own remarks. You say Americans are fat and it turns out your overweight. You say Americans armchair quarterback and obviously you're the biggest waste of space on the planet Earth. You think being pro-active is shooting teenagers in the subway with a paintball gun and having an outdoor BBQ to protest the war in Iraq. Your job is what? You're a bouncer at a bar? Woooooooooooooooooow. Sure are gonna change the world by kicking out old man O'Doyle when he has a few too many.

Aside from that you join internet forums and fantasize about being things you're not: A US soldier, an IRA member, a Hezbollah staff member, a politician, etc.

I like the quote, "Why do people who never take advice keep on giving it?"

Drop the Big Mac and do something that actually matters for once instead of watching reruns of, "The Leprechaun," and trying to mimic your speech patterns to a tiny green troll.

[CptSternn]

...and once again nothing about the topic, more personal attacks on my nationality, but hey, thats what we come to expect from binkie - no real thoughts, personality, or substance to her or her posts.

While you were wasting your time spewing forth the same, droll, tripe you do post, after post, after post, I once again was out there making a difference.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81583

But its good to see your consistent.

[Binkie]

Your nationality? What? American? Ooooh, you still THINK you're Irish. THAT'S why you over-compensate by living the stereotype.

Aww... you made a difference, huh? What difference is that? What's different? Is Ireland no longer helping to facilitate the Iraq War now that 20-25 people came out and laid a wreath at the airport? You keep hoping your activism actually does something. The rest of the world will continue to make careers out of change and commit themselves in a serious manner rather than be the occassional weekend activist.

[CptSternn]

Heh, the fact my whole family is from Ireland and I travel on an Irish passport would lead me to believe I am Irish, but hey, you believe what you want.

Once again, not a single on topic response, yet more personal attacks, aimed again at my nationality for some reason. Ye don't think yer bleeding that well dry yet? Or is it thats the best ye can come us with? I mean, the last 20+ posts in yer profile are all a few lines personal attacks, all on my nationality. Seriously, looks like ye need to hire some new writers there.

And once again I prove you sit at home and do nothing while the rest of us make a difference. Lots of wasted words from a person who sits back and does nothing.

Heheh, funny thing you with all the pro-bush/pro-war talk but we have yet to see ANYTHING that says you are anything but a mindless voice on a gothic discussion board who has done less than nothing to 'support' your alleged views.

But hey, feel free to lob more personal attacks if thats what makes you feel like a big person. I'll read them when I get back from, you know, actual participation in real life protest and action.

Stay tuned...

...what am I saying - I know you will. You log in daily to read what I post and then talk about me personally. I swear - one might call you obsessed.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Heh, the fact my whole family is from Ireland and I travel on an Irish passport would lead me to believe I am Irish, but hey, you believe what you want.

Once again, not a single on topic response, yet more personal attacks, aimed again at my nationality for some reason. Ye don't think yer bleeding that well dry yet? Or is it thats the best ye can come us with? I mean, the last 20+ posts in yer profile are all a few lines personal attacks, all on my nationality. Seriously, looks like ye need to hire some new writers there.

And once again I prove you sit at home and do nothing while the rest of us make a difference. Lots of wasted words from a person who sits back and does nothing.

Heheh, funny thing you with all the pro-bush/pro-war talk but we have yet to see ANYTHING that says you are anything but a mindless voice on a gothic discussion board who has done less than nothing to 'support' your alleged views.

But hey, feel free to lob more personal attacks if thats what makes you feel like a big person. I'll read them when I get back from, you know, actual participation in real life protest and action.

Stay tuned...

...what am I saying - I know you will. You log in daily to read what I post and then talk about me personally. I swear - one might call you obsessed.

Aww... the Troll is having an identity crisis WITHIN the same post.

Aww... and you think you've contributed something to mankind. That's cute. No really. You think that somehow, someway, you've changed something. That somehow history would be changed if you never existed. Hmm... then you come to realize your life has been marked by mediocrity, if even that. Hence the pathological lying. Hence the identify crisis everyone sees unfolding here in it's own pathetic right.

No one knows anything you've done musically, no one knows you for your weekend activism, no one knows you for anything you've done in your life, and when you get right down to it... no one cares.

About the only thing you've amounted to here, on this site, is being the community hacky sack. Everyone kicks you around for shits and giggles.

[ArtificialOne]

Ha... Binkie!

I thought I was the only one who says "shits and giggles"..

I am slightly less alone in the world...lol

[CptSternn]

Once again binkie, proving my point. 15 minutes after my post, you once again reply, all personal attacks, nothing on topic, proving that you really have nothing to contribute to the topic. Again.

Also avoiding the fact you have done nothing to support said troops. Won't they be glad when they do get home and surf the net and find this thread.

They will know the right-wing has fat bodies do-nothings like yourself acting as online cheerleaders and nothing more are the reason they had to say behind and die for no reason.

Yet another reason you should be ashamed, and another reason I know you are.

[Binkie]

Aww... does someone need a tissue? Baby Huey is upset.

What's funny is that this tit-for-tat is like a game of battleship. You've given me the coordinates to sink all of your ships and you're just sitting there returning fire at random and missing everytime. That's where guestimation gets you.

Truth about it though is that no one gives a shit about you, Sternn. Not here anyways. In all likelihood, in your real life either. S'prolly why you're so angry all the time around here. You've accomplished nothing in your life and at age 33, you act like a 12 year old and have about the same to show as one too.

[CptSternn]

Like I said earlier, most American's have made little or no contributions to help the troops. Those who even claim to support them, only do so in conversations - not with any REAL support. Seems I'm not the only one who thinks that...

Few Americans share Iraq war's sacrifices



By Gordon Lubold, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Ask Navy corpsman Adam Shepherd what he wants Americans to know about his service in Iraq and he says it boils down to one thing. "Just don't forget that we sacrificed a lot to be out here," says the medic, stationed at Camp Taqaddum, Iraq.

It's a sentiment that many servicemen and women express. Five years after
President Bush declared war on Islamic extremism, the military has lost 3,599 troops and spent $503 billion in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Yet unlike past wars, even unpopular ones, most Americans have contributed little directly. Tire and paper drives of World War II are a dim memory. An increasingly narrow slice of the population serves in the military.

Now, a growing number of observers question whether Americans should make some kind of sacrifice for what Bush himself calls the "decisive ideological struggle of our time." Despite the billions spent on defense, which represents 4 percent of the gross domestic product, many inside the administration and conservatives outside it believe it's time to spend more. But raising defense spending at a time when Americans are frustrated with the Iraq war is problematic. It also raises questions for the growing number of Americans who don't support the president's war strategy. So what should citizens do – if anything – to support US troops?

Aside from sending care packages or volunteering to help those in uniform, Americans seem to have no ready answers.

All this comes at a time when lawmakers, analysts, and many current and former military officials blame Bush for failing to mobilize the nation by calling on Americans to join the military or creating national service programs or even raising additional resources to help pay for the war effort. Instead, he has doled out tax cuts and suggested Americans can be true patriots by keeping the economy going strong.

Says one retired general: "Marines are at war, America is at the mall."

http://news.**********/s/csm/2007032...TGdXleRc_MWM0F


But I have to admit the BEST article today was about comments from the Senates 2nd highest ranking republican leader.

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070325...H5Xn1OFA6MwfIE

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

It says something when your own parties highest ranking members begin suggesting impeachment of the president.

[CptSternn]

Former top election strategist breaks up with Bush: report

http://news.**********/s/afp/uspolit...DgT4Q4T0us0NUE

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A man who played a key role in securing George W. Bush's reelection has become the first member of the president's inner circle to publicly break up with him insisting that Bush's 2004 rival, Democratic Senator John Kerry, was right on Iraq, The New York Times reported on its website late Saturday.

The newspaper said Matthew Dowd, who was the president'’s chief campaign strategist in 2004, now says his faith in Bush was misplaced and that Kerry was correct in calling for a withdrawal from Iraq.

In a wide-ranging interview in Austin, Texas, Dowd criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq, the report said.

He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Bush still approached governing with a "my way or the highway" mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides, the paper said.

"If the American public says they'’re done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," The Times quotes Dowd as saying. "TheyÂ’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Dowd, who in 2004 helped cast Senator Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," the report said.

"I really like him, which is probably why IÂ’m so disappointed in things," Dowd is quoted as saying of Bush. "I think heÂ’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

He said his decision to step forward had not come easily, The Times pointed out.

But he said his disappointment in Bush'’s presidency was so great that he feels a sense of duty to go public given his role in helping Bush gain and keep power, the report said.


Wow - the man who invented the idea of Kerry as a 'flip-flop' candidate now apologises and claims he was wrong for doing so.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Wow - the man who invented the idea of Kerry as a 'flip-flop' candidate now apologises and claims he was wrong for doing so.

Lousy flip-flopper.

Drake

[CptSternn]

Saddam, documents indicate no Iraq-Qaeda cooperation

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007040...bTX4yYYGas0NUE

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Interrogations of former Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein and documents seized after the 2003 US-led invasion confirmed that his regime had not been cooperating with Al-Qaeda, the Washington Post reported on its website Friday.

The report contradicted a strong argument for the invasion made by the administration of
President George W. Bush that Baghdad had a working relationship with Al-Qaeda, the
Afghanistan-based group led by
Osama bin Laden blamed for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The Post reported that a newly released declassified
Department of Defense report said information obtained after the fall of Saddam confirmed the prewar position of the US
Central Intelligence Agency and
Pentagon intelligence that the Iraqi government had had no substantial contacts with Al-Qaeda.

This position was shored up by interrogations of Saddam and other top officials captured by the US-led coalition forces in
Iraq, said report, obtained by the Post.

The report noted that the office of then-undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith, one of the foremost advocates for invading Iraq after the 2001 attacks, had ignored the CIA's position and characterized the Al-Qaeda-Iraq relationship as "mature" and "symbiotic" in a September 2002 briefing to the chief of staff of Vice President
Dick Cheney.

The Feith briefing alleged that the two cooperated in 10 areas, including training, financing and logistics.

But the new report, the Post says, said the US intelligence community had concluded at the time that there were "no conclusive signs" of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and that "direct cooperation ... has not been established" between the two.

Prior to the war there was little public dispute inside the United States over the Bush administration's linking Iraq and bin Laden's group.

But since the invasion, a number of intelligence officials have alleged that the White House and its backers ignored their intelligence and "cherry picked" information that supported their campaign to persuade Americans of the need to go to war.

In a radio interview Wednesday Cheney insisted on a prewar link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, saying that the group was working in Iraq "before we even arrived on the scene."

"As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq," Cheney told conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.


Yet another lie by the bush administration is exposed. Most people did already know this, but this report by the 'U.S. intelligence' (talk about an oxymoron) community is the final say-so by the various agencies.

[CptSternn]

I thought these two articles really brought out the Iraqi's feelings to date...

Iraqi Shiites burn US flags on regime fall anniversary

http://news.**********/s/afp/2007040...CY1il0OGzMWM0F

NAJAF, Iraq (AFP) - Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Shiites burned and trampled on US flags in the holy city of Najaf on Monday at an anti-American rally called by firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Large crowds of men, women and children holding Iraqi flags and anti-US banners massed in Najaf and the nearby city of Kufa to protest against what they said was an American occupation of
Iraq...


And of course, this brilliant piece about the new book written by an Iraqi insider who has watched this whole fiasco first hand.

Insider: Missteps soured Iraqis on U.S.

http://news.**********/s/ap/20070409...ovII6Z00vMWM0F

NEW YORK - In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country — a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."
ADVERTISEMENT

"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of
Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.

Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.

The U.S.- and British-educated engineer and financier is the first senior Iraqi official to look back at book length on his country's four-year ordeal. It's an unsparing look at failures both American and Iraqi, an account in which the word "ignorance" crops up repeatedly.

First came the "monumental ignorance" of those in Washington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.

What followed was the "rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance" of the occupation, under L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which took big steps with little consultation with Iraqis, steps Allawi and many others see as blunders:

• The Americans disbanded Iraq's army, which Allawi said could have helped quell a rising insurgency in 2003. Instead, hundreds of thousands of demobilized, angry men became a recruiting pool for the resistance.

• Purging tens of thousands of members of toppled President
Saddam Hussein's Baath party — from government, school faculties and elsewhere — left Iraq short on experienced hands at a crucial time.

• An order consolidating decentralized bank accounts at the Finance Ministry bogged down operations of Iraq's many state-owned enterprises.

• The CPA's focus on private enterprise allowed the "commercial gangs" of Saddam's day to monopolize business.

• Its free-trade policy allowed looted Iraqi capital equipment to be spirited away across borders.

• The CPA perpetuated Saddam's fuel subsidies, selling gasoline at giveaway prices and draining the budget.

In his 2006 memoir of the occupation, Bremer wrote that senior U.S. generals wanted to recall elements of the old Iraqi army in 2003, but were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Bremer complained generally that his authority was undermined by Washington's "micromanagement."

Although Allawi, a cousin of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister in 2004, is a member of a secularist Shiite Muslim political grouping, his well-researched book betrays little partisanship.

On U.S. reconstruction failures — in electricity, health care and other areas documented by Washington's own auditors — Allawi writes that the Americans' "insipid retelling of `success' stories" merely hid "the huge black hole that lay underneath."

For their part, U.S. officials have often largely blamed Iraq's explosive violence for the failures of reconstruction and poor governance.

The author has been instrumental since 2005 in publicizing extensive corruption within Iraq's "new order," including an $800-million Defense Ministry scandal. Under Saddam, he writes, the secret police kept would-be plunderers in check better than the U.S. occupiers have done.

As 2007 began, Allawi concludes, "America's only allies in Iraq were those who sought to manipulate the great power to their narrow advantage. It might have been otherwise."

Funny thing - that book was published by Yale University Press. I wonder if this is some attempt to apologise for the actions of one of their graduates?

[CptSternn]

I don't know which of these are better. The Red Cross coming out and saying that the bush admin is lying about conditions in Iraq, something most people now know, or the fact not one general wants to lead American troops in this war.

Red Cross warns of 'ever-worsening' crisis for Iraqi civilians

http://news.**********/s/afp/iraqicrc

GENEVA (AFP) - The Iraqi people face an "ever-worsening" humanitarian crisis, the International Committee of the Red Cross said Wednesday in a report on civilian misery four years after the US-led invasion.

"The suffering that Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable. Their lives and dignity are continuously under threat," said the ICRC's director of operations, Pierre Kraehenbuehl.

"It's clear for us that the humanitarian situation is steadily worsening and affecting in one way or another, directly or indirectly, all Iraqis today," he told journalists.

He was speaking at the launch of an ICRC report entitled "Civilians Without Protection -- The Ever-Worsening Humanitarian Crisis in
Iraq," which highlights the plight of civilians four years after the regime of
Saddam Hussein was toppled.

The ICRC urged all those involved in the conflict to urgently respect international humanitarian law and not target civilians.

Internal displacement remains a key concern, with some 106,000 families forced to flee their homes since the bombing of the sacred Shiite shrine of Samarra in February 2006, the report said.

"The outlook is bleak, particularly in Baghdad and other areas with mixed communities, where the situation is likely to worsen," it added.

US
President George W. Bush's "surge" strategy of sending thousands more troops to Baghdad to boost security has yet to yield any noticetable improvement for civilians, Kraehenbuehl said.

"We're certainly not seeing an immediate effect in terms of stabilisation for the civilians currently," he said...


And of course this article, previously mentioned...

White House seeks war "czar" for Iraq

http://news.**********/s/nm/iraq_afg...trwy_WFr2s0NUE

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Help Wanted: White House seeks high-profile manager of wars in
Iraq and
Afghanistan to coordinate competing agencies and make sure
President George W. Bush's unpopular strategy is implemented.

In a tradition of presidential trouble-shooting, the White House is considering creating a "war czar" post in the National Security Council and has put out feelers to some retired generals to see if they would be interested.

But no takers so far. The Washington Post said at least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks had turned down the position.

Retired Marine Gen. John "Jack" Sheehan, a former top
NATO commander who rejected the White House overture, told the Post: "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going."

*snip*

Portrait of a Flailing White House

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

A Washington Post report this morning about President Bush's futile search for a war czar provides one of the most fascinating and revelatory looks into the inner workings of the White House in a long time.

It is the portrait of a White House flailing around to salvage its disastrous war -- while still refusing to acknowledge just how disastrous it's been.

..."At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said. . . .

"'The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going,' said retired Marine Gen. John J. 'Jack' Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. 'So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, "No, thanks," ' he said. . . .


It's pretty bad when you can't find a general in your own country to lead the troops. It also speaks volumes about the mission.