No matter the victor in November this will continue to be the perpetual year of the War Horse.
Both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ill conceived and poorly managed. The narrative of an early victory in Afghanistan was squashed under a lump of democratization goals the military cannot deliver and a hijacking of resources to Iraq. The narrative of the war in Iraq is that of victory with still unattainable goals of democratization along with the redeployment of troops to Afghanistan to patch and perpetuate the failed strategy there.
Blind support of Israel in the face of an uncooperative regime in Iran threatens to further destabilise the region with the potential of tanking the global economy.
All while a sovereign nation in the possession of nuclear weapons, with open and widespread support of both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, plays the two faced ally. Pakistan trains and supports Taliban against Afghan and US forces while providing safe haven and material support to al-Qaeda as they provide operators against Afghanistan, India and Kashmir.
In a repeat of the Soviet defeat to the Mujihadeen, the US is in imminent danger of having the economic rug swept out from under its feet while engaged in two very expensive and prolonged wars. The consequences for Russia were defeat, humiliation, loss of lives, and collapse. America is on the razor edge of the remaining potential to make hard choices and save itself.
A military solution is an impossibility in Afghanistan yet both Obama and McCain propose escalation. The lull between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, temporarily secured by a surge of disappearing US forces, is on the verge of collapse with both sides re-armed and re-grouped.
Pakistan is in political, financial and military crisis from both internal and external forces.
The cost of fighting two wars at once with the same small population of military volunteers is failure in both efforts. Conventional forces never belonged in this fight of international leverage and fights best left to the dark side. Terrorism is a method or tactic used in this case by non-state actors that cannot be defeated by a traditional military campaign.
Our insistence as a nation to persecute the wars under our terms and under the definitions of our narrative have led us to deceive ourselves about what we are fighting for (or against) as well as what the true cost of success (on our terms) will be to the nation.
The sure thing this election is that the wars will continue, hell or high water. The military will be bounced back and forth between hot spots until they are exhausted, we run out of money, or the local population is exterminated to the point of inability to function.
The fear of another attack on our soil is the driving force behind the rationalisation of anything and everything possibly covered under the umbrella of defense. The argument goes that it is better to have scores of civilians killed by us and them "over there" rather than over here. The perpetual war serves our leaders as well as their leaders. Wars against bad guys are popular (both side thinks the other is trying to rule them of kill them off so it is defense both ways). Nothing provides political will more than the fear of death or enslavement. The war machine there, and defense industry here, stand to make a lot of money from the conflict.
A new approach is risky to the careers of its proponents and costly in lives to implement. Our lack of will to undertake a holistic approach will doom these wars in the end. The commitment of both major party nominees to pursue endless war ensures no new top down leadership will be injected. This year, no matter who wins, the War Horse will continue to reign and history will continue to repeat itself.
A new approach, without the military face we have come to expect of these efforts, must be implemented now to save any hope of an outcome that the world and this nation can be proud of in these regions. A respect for the local population and customs must accompany the effort. The education, nutrition and infrastructure afforded the population must be the primary effort as their security is in their hands (our military campaign and efforts have proven incapable of doing what their tribesmen have done for centuries: keep the peace and enforce the law).
We must concede that neither place will look anything like America when the effort is completed. Only then can we start to make a true impact in the matters we have chosen to endeavor.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Why high gas prices are good
A report from the Department of Transportation revealed that in the past nine months Americans drove 53.2 billion miles less than they did in the same period a year ago. Urban travel dropped by 1.2% and rural travel by 4%.
Conservation in the US has the most impact globally in reducing demand. High gas prices produced voluntary conservation but they also enable investors to seek solutions to the oil addiction.
A drop in prices that allows somewhat of a resumption of "life as usual" will deflate momentum for alternative fuel investment. Corporate America will only take on the risk of expensive electric cars if they have stats to show they can profit from the endeavour.
A slump in gas prices can reverse conservation gains and delay a true solution to peaking fossil fuels in growing global demand.
Conservation in the US has the most impact globally in reducing demand. High gas prices produced voluntary conservation but they also enable investors to seek solutions to the oil addiction.
A drop in prices that allows somewhat of a resumption of "life as usual" will deflate momentum for alternative fuel investment. Corporate America will only take on the risk of expensive electric cars if they have stats to show they can profit from the endeavour.
A slump in gas prices can reverse conservation gains and delay a true solution to peaking fossil fuels in growing global demand.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Not Winning? Change the War
McCain claims he knows how to win wars but we must ask which ones? We need leaders that know how to win the peace. Our military can stomp any State on the globe into the ground but that is not the end of the mission nor is it the hardest part.
The war on terror isn't getting any political points for McCain as more truth becomes known so his campaign has created a position to gain from the Georgia-Russia conflict by opening up the cold war once again.
Our way or the highway, Russia. Don't mind our missile defense plans in your back yard. Don't mind our ring of puppet nations being built around your borders. Your oil and gas wealth will only get you so far (but we have no choice but to keep buying it so don't turn off that valve, please!).
Not such a stark wake up call for those of us fighting the war in Iraq, except that US soldiers aren't the tool this time.
This byte sounds great if it is 1945. Its hypocritical from a Republican Presidential candidate in 2008 who has taken a stance more militaristic than Bush-Cheney.
Who is the "we" you are talking about? US forces cannot participate as they are tied down in two other wars of choice. NATO and the UN cannot even fulfill their obligations in current conflicts let alone escalate their involvement. And who do you suppose should pay for all this? Ah, the GOP credit card of national debt.
While US home prices are in free fall and the economy is at historic lows you want taxpayers to put Georgia back together?
McCain's position on these matters has eroded the idea that he has an edge on the competition with regards to national security. His experience is not his asset, it is his weakness here. He has failed to shift his paradigm to the modern realities of war and peace. Iraq is not Vietnam, we won't win by staying longer (didn't work their either, bud) and reviving the cold war is counter productive to the true global threat facing the nation.
Georgia is a crisis of Foreign Affairs. The EU has a greater role and interest in resolution than the US. The placement of this issue by McCain is as much "wag the dog" as it is in ernest. The real object for those who wish to retain power is the shift Iraq to Iran. Georgia is a test tube for political strategy at the expese of real people who need actual solutions.
Georgia should have noted the lack of support for the Shia revolt in Iraq '93 before they tried cashing in on the rhetoric of current US politicians. Take notes Kazakhstan.
The war on terror isn't getting any political points for McCain as more truth becomes known so his campaign has created a position to gain from the Georgia-Russia conflict by opening up the cold war once again.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) welcomed French President Nicolas Sarkozy's mediation of the Russia-Georgia conflict, but expressed concern that the cease-fire agreement "omitted any reference to Georgia's territorial integrity." He also said the United States and NATO must "address the future of the alliance's partnership with Russia" and said the United States and its "G-7 partners" should "discuss whether it makes sense for Russia to continue its participation in the G-8."
Our way or the highway, Russia. Don't mind our missile defense plans in your back yard. Don't mind our ring of puppet nations being built around your borders. Your oil and gas wealth will only get you so far (but we have no choice but to keep buying it so don't turn off that valve, please!).
"For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call." - McCain
Not such a stark wake up call for those of us fighting the war in Iraq, except that US soldiers aren't the tool this time.
"The world has learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked." - McCain
This byte sounds great if it is 1945. Its hypocritical from a Republican Presidential candidate in 2008 who has taken a stance more militaristic than Bush-Cheney.
"We should work toward the establishment of an independent, international peacekeeping force in the separatist regions, and stand ready to help our Georgian partners put their country back together." - McCain
Who is the "we" you are talking about? US forces cannot participate as they are tied down in two other wars of choice. NATO and the UN cannot even fulfill their obligations in current conflicts let alone escalate their involvement. And who do you suppose should pay for all this? Ah, the GOP credit card of national debt.
While US home prices are in free fall and the economy is at historic lows you want taxpayers to put Georgia back together?
McCain's position on these matters has eroded the idea that he has an edge on the competition with regards to national security. His experience is not his asset, it is his weakness here. He has failed to shift his paradigm to the modern realities of war and peace. Iraq is not Vietnam, we won't win by staying longer (didn't work their either, bud) and reviving the cold war is counter productive to the true global threat facing the nation.
Georgia is a crisis of Foreign Affairs. The EU has a greater role and interest in resolution than the US. The placement of this issue by McCain is as much "wag the dog" as it is in ernest. The real object for those who wish to retain power is the shift Iraq to Iran. Georgia is a test tube for political strategy at the expese of real people who need actual solutions.
Georgia should have noted the lack of support for the Shia revolt in Iraq '93 before they tried cashing in on the rhetoric of current US politicians. Take notes Kazakhstan.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
al Qaeda Threatens Musharraf
It appears that what goes around comes around.
Al-Qaida Threatens Pakistan (Philadelphia Inquirer, August 12, 2008)
Pakistan's beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf, a U.S. ally, received a direct threat from al-Qaida as his political opponents convened parliament to begin impeachment proceedings against him. In a video, al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called for an uprising not only against Musharraf but also against the Pakistani state, which he said was "virtually ruled from the American Embassy."
Is this a planned move by the ISI as they see Musharraf on his way out and they feel they are losing control of the central government?
The center for militant extremists was and still is Pakistan. Until the Pakistan issue is resolved all the fighting on the peripherals will not win the war.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Tax payer not a crutch
At Fannie and Freddie, as at other financial firms, highly paid executives stoked profits during the housing bubble by piling into loans and mortgage-backed securities that were bound to tank — unless house prices rose forever and the economy never soured. Greed and poor management skills should not be rewarded with a government guarantee on their future. Private sector risks should shoulder the consequences of choice in bad times as it did in good.
Their higher quality assets, being mortgage related, also made them vulnerable to a housing downturn. In addition, the companies have been poorly supervised — by lawmakers who put a higher value on campaign contributions than on their duties, and by federal regulators who failed to stop the bad lending that fed the bubble.
In that event, taxpayer interests must come first. That implies wiping out the shareholders, so that available cash goes to taxpayers and their claims on the value of the companies take precedence. It should go without saying that taxpayer money should not be used to prop up private shareholders.
Fannie and Freddie may yet make it through without an explicit bailout. Their near-death experience seems to have wised them up. For instance, they are now putting a greater effort into modifying the mortgages of hard-pressed borrowers.
Regulators should clean house now and ensure that never again can so much be screwed up by so few.
Their higher quality assets, being mortgage related, also made them vulnerable to a housing downturn. In addition, the companies have been poorly supervised — by lawmakers who put a higher value on campaign contributions than on their duties, and by federal regulators who failed to stop the bad lending that fed the bubble.
In that event, taxpayer interests must come first. That implies wiping out the shareholders, so that available cash goes to taxpayers and their claims on the value of the companies take precedence. It should go without saying that taxpayer money should not be used to prop up private shareholders.
Fannie and Freddie may yet make it through without an explicit bailout. Their near-death experience seems to have wised them up. For instance, they are now putting a greater effort into modifying the mortgages of hard-pressed borrowers.
Regulators should clean house now and ensure that never again can so much be screwed up by so few.
Iraq Political Progress
Recent additions to the nations with envoys serving in Iraq:
- Jordan
- UAE
- Kumait
- Bahrain
The drive for deeper political ties is part of a balancing act playing out in capitals close to Baghdad. The moves come during a time of growing Iranian influence in the region. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq's Sunni Baathist leaders kept the regional ambitions of Shiite-dominated Iran in check; the two countries waged a bloody war in the 1980s that left both sides battered.
Iran is emerging as the real beneficiary of Saddam's fall.
The talk of a US time horizon for ending the occupation is forcing Gulf States to plan for the security void that is sure to follow.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Is Silver just the first loser?
Watching the Olympics brings a curious idea to mind. The USA women's 4 x 100m free swimming team just set a new record for Team USA but finished second to a near world record finish by the Netherlands team.
From the distraught faces of the women on the USA relay team you'd think they just finished last. Really? Is a silver medal at the Olympics not an accomplishment?
I know our culture and the nature of competition makes #1 the place to be but does that mean there should just be one medal awarded, the gold? The image should be of all competitors as Olympians, not just gold winners and losers.
From the distraught faces of the women on the USA relay team you'd think they just finished last. Really? Is a silver medal at the Olympics not an accomplishment?
I know our culture and the nature of competition makes #1 the place to be but does that mean there should just be one medal awarded, the gold? The image should be of all competitors as Olympians, not just gold winners and losers.
World interest in Iraq - the future
What if the real consequences of the US occupation of Iraq are still 10-20 years away? The damage of the invasion will always be the deepest wound no matter if we stay for 100 years or if we redeployed today. Troops or no troops, America has a lasting responsibility for the condition we created.
Iraq will have to struggle to find a balance of law, power and identity whether US troops are present or not. Our soldiers have provided a distraction for the aggression but at some point the Iraqis must deal with each other.
The future of Iraq is in the hands of a generation of youth who witnessed gore beyond most people's wildest imagination. A brutal occupation by foreign troops, merciless carnage imposed by other Muslims, an insurgency of the faithful not willing to let the ways of Saddam pass, and a solid mental branding of the Arab notion of retribution killings as the way to gain power, revenge and prominence.
No matter how the political struggle is waged, the world cannot allow the children of Iraq to fall out of favor. Their education and future must be a global priority. If not, the ideologies that brought us the Taliban and al Qaeda will have new footing in a generation of Iraqis that have very legitimate and real reasons to search for a mechanism to express their anger.
Some day the kids happy to swim in bomb craters will grow up and realize how their country was raped. Let's hope they don't feel it was also left for dead while being sucked dry of its oil.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Iraq - the Iran Set Up
The lesson for the media in the build up to the Iraq war is lost as we watch a virtual repeat in the current build up to conflict with Iran.
We swallowed the talking points whole before Iraq and that same administration is now serving Iranian flavored kool aid and we are all lining up for a swig.
As wrong as a US attack on Iran would be, using this time to build American support (and international support too) for an Israeli attack is worse.
Washington and Tehran are feeding off of each other and both stand to gain politically in one way or another if the other were to make a move and justify aggression. Those who stand to lose the most and who also happen to be the ones best positioned to stop the madness are the people. If only the people of these two countries at all mattered to the ruling regimes.
We swallowed the talking points whole before Iraq and that same administration is now serving Iranian flavored kool aid and we are all lining up for a swig.
We cannot at once condemn Iran for being a theocracy and then disregard the rulings of its theocrats. Though with an aggressive nuclear Israel and U.S regularly rattling their sabers who could blame Iran even if it did seek the security nuclear weapons seem to provide? Hillary Clinton recently threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran while John McCain sings about bombing Iran and president Bush called al Qaeda and Iran two of the greatest threats to America in the 21st century. This is slightly hyperbolic since al Qaeda's only successful attack against the U.S. on September 11 ago was a strategic pinprick, not to mention a lucky shot, and Iran has no global ambitions and no interest in attacking the U.S. and in fact has never invaded another country (Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war). [Source]
As wrong as a US attack on Iran would be, using this time to build American support (and international support too) for an Israeli attack is worse.
Washington and Tehran are feeding off of each other and both stand to gain politically in one way or another if the other were to make a move and justify aggression. Those who stand to lose the most and who also happen to be the ones best positioned to stop the madness are the people. If only the people of these two countries at all mattered to the ruling regimes.
Betting on the wrong horse in Iraq
Peace and stability in Iraq are functions of strategic waiting by Sunni and non-ruling Shia. Not Iraqi government progress.
The strategic pause by the Sunni and non-ruling Shia is best for the Iraqi people. The people have long been the greatest losers in this US gamble. With time their condition will improve and a moment in history will appear when they will and must fight for self determination.
The truth of the situation is in the waiting. All the blood and effort up to this point have been for nothing if our hand is called. Without the will of the people, the actual citizens and not the rulers or politicians, the smoke screen in Iraq that is allowing US political momentum will quickly fade.Moreover the dominant parties in the government and in those units of the security forces that battled their political rivals in Basra and elsewhere are the ones closest to Iran. The leadership of the Iraqi government regularly consults Iranian officials and is closer to Iran than any other element in Iraq today. Moreover, the Americans have always blamed their failures in Iraq on outsiders, Baathists, al Qaeda, Iranians, because they refuse to admit that the Iraqi people don't want them. So Iran is a convenient scapegoat to explain the strength of the Sadrists, a strength actually resulting from the fact that they are a genuinely popular mass movement. Blaming Iran also lets the Americans maintain the illusion that the Mahdi Army's ceasefire is still in effect. [Source]
The strategic pause by the Sunni and non-ruling Shia is best for the Iraqi people. The people have long been the greatest losers in this US gamble. With time their condition will improve and a moment in history will appear when they will and must fight for self determination.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Clinton Conspiracy
I took my crystal ball to the shop for a tune up yesterday and here's what it says today:
The Clintons are secretly with holding support from Obama in order to scuttle his campaign. Why? McCain wins in '08 and that opens up Hillary in 2012.
The proof? Hillary courting her supporters with "hang in there" speeches. Bill refusing to commit to helping Obama in the national media (refusing to say Barack is ready or qualified on GMA for example). Her campaign never conceded, only suspended, for this reason.
Hillary thinks she can beat a one term McCain in 2012. She's counting on his term looking like Bush's third which will make a democrat a shoe in (no really, this time they mean it. Too easy!).
Hillary's hurdle is image and gender. She was neck and neck with Obama in the primaries and now Obama is neck and neck (mostly and statistically) with McCain. Obama's hurdle? Experience (oh yeah, and race, but that's taboo). He cannot explain his way into the heart of Americans on how he is ready to be commander in chief. Maybe someone will invent a video game of the job and if he gets the high score we'll trust him...
The one area Hillary has ground on skinny pants? Experience.
Hillary and Barack are eye to eye on almost every real issue. People think she has the experience to do the job. Her plan is to watch Barack fail to win this election and then come back to the party in 2012 saying "see, if you'd voted for me we would've won in '08 and not had to suffer through McCain as Bush part III."
Depending on how the world is in 2012, it might just work for her. Too bad the Clintons are willing to turn their back to the country now for their own future political gain.
The Clintons are secretly with holding support from Obama in order to scuttle his campaign. Why? McCain wins in '08 and that opens up Hillary in 2012.
The proof? Hillary courting her supporters with "hang in there" speeches. Bill refusing to commit to helping Obama in the national media (refusing to say Barack is ready or qualified on GMA for example). Her campaign never conceded, only suspended, for this reason.
Hillary thinks she can beat a one term McCain in 2012. She's counting on his term looking like Bush's third which will make a democrat a shoe in (no really, this time they mean it. Too easy!).
Hillary's hurdle is image and gender. She was neck and neck with Obama in the primaries and now Obama is neck and neck (mostly and statistically) with McCain. Obama's hurdle? Experience (oh yeah, and race, but that's taboo). He cannot explain his way into the heart of Americans on how he is ready to be commander in chief. Maybe someone will invent a video game of the job and if he gets the high score we'll trust him...
The one area Hillary has ground on skinny pants? Experience.
Hillary and Barack are eye to eye on almost every real issue. People think she has the experience to do the job. Her plan is to watch Barack fail to win this election and then come back to the party in 2012 saying "see, if you'd voted for me we would've won in '08 and not had to suffer through McCain as Bush part III."
Depending on how the world is in 2012, it might just work for her. Too bad the Clintons are willing to turn their back to the country now for their own future political gain.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
McCain, if you win, I'll remember...
I'll remember the promises you made along the way in this campaign.
We'll win in Iraq by winning. Winning is only defined in your Vietnam mind by staying (if we never leave then I guess it is impossible to lose?), but you'll have troops out of Iraq by the end of your first term. 2013 you said.
Al Qaeda will have no safe haven in the world.
You will have captured, killed or followed Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.
You will not raise taxes.
Several years of robust economic growth.
A safe and stable southern border.
Drilling in the OCS will have lowered gas prices and freed us from foreign oil. We will not be subject to the dangers of an oil supply crash.
A balanced budget.
Nuclear power will fuel our energy needs and it is safe (we will have no accidents to worry about).
America will be safer for having you as our president.
The world food crisis is over.
Iraq was the right thing to do and you'd do it again and keep us there until the job is done, again.
You are campaigning against the brains and hope of a relative Washington outsider. By appealing to fear and stereotypes you might just pull this thing off (how unthinkable it was of another republican earning the office after the Bush / Cheney train wreck). I've listened to your words and marked them in my mind. I will not let you get away with anything less than the perfection you are selling to a comatose American public. You run for office as commander in chief based on your service credentials so if you spill the blood of my comrades in Iran needlessly, I will remember and hold you accountable as a traitor. That's right, fail and you are a traitor in my mind. You are not the man I knew 8 years ago. The world is in too precarious of a position now for America to not have the absolute smartest and best administration in office. I'll remember if you win, McCain, all that you said to get there.
We'll win in Iraq by winning. Winning is only defined in your Vietnam mind by staying (if we never leave then I guess it is impossible to lose?), but you'll have troops out of Iraq by the end of your first term. 2013 you said.
Al Qaeda will have no safe haven in the world.
You will have captured, killed or followed Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.
You will not raise taxes.
Several years of robust economic growth.
A safe and stable southern border.
Drilling in the OCS will have lowered gas prices and freed us from foreign oil. We will not be subject to the dangers of an oil supply crash.
A balanced budget.
Nuclear power will fuel our energy needs and it is safe (we will have no accidents to worry about).
America will be safer for having you as our president.
The world food crisis is over.
Iraq was the right thing to do and you'd do it again and keep us there until the job is done, again.
You are campaigning against the brains and hope of a relative Washington outsider. By appealing to fear and stereotypes you might just pull this thing off (how unthinkable it was of another republican earning the office after the Bush / Cheney train wreck). I've listened to your words and marked them in my mind. I will not let you get away with anything less than the perfection you are selling to a comatose American public. You run for office as commander in chief based on your service credentials so if you spill the blood of my comrades in Iran needlessly, I will remember and hold you accountable as a traitor. That's right, fail and you are a traitor in my mind. You are not the man I knew 8 years ago. The world is in too precarious of a position now for America to not have the absolute smartest and best administration in office. I'll remember if you win, McCain, all that you said to get there.
Energy Plan Crazy Pills
American politics disgust me. It seems like McCain and Obama are taking crazy pills and spouting anything anyone wants to hear.
The energy crisis is in our consumption that demands we import fuel from foreign sources.
Domestic drilling will never match domestic demand. By the government’s own reckoning, there are some 18 billion barrels of oil to be discovered in the restricted areas—enough to supply all America’s needs for only two-and-a-half years. Domestic drilling is not a policy solution, it is a red herring drawing America away from the cultural and behavioral changes we are all going to have to make to keep this country free.
Windfall profit taxes sound righteous for the here and now but should be an alarm bell to everyone in our free market capitalist society. When and how deep can government cherry pick our earnings? Any measure that reduces oil firms’ margins in America is likely to have the effect of diverting at least some investment to other countries—and so exacerbate the shortage of fuel produced at home.
The whole suspension of the gas tax idea should have been clue enough not to take those saying it seriously. That would encourage drivers to buy more, pushing up prices again while reducing Uncle Sam’s take. Seriously? You want to be the president of the United States but you think $0.18 a gallon will make a dent? P.S. Did you not see the reports on our dilapidated infrastructure? Pulling that tax money coupled with less consumption (the price of gas goes up but the tax stays the same so less consumption directly impact tax revenues) means unfunded highway and maintenance programs.
Selling oil from the strategic reserves? That is a primary indicator of a person not ready for the highest office. There is a reason that it is called a "strategic reserve." The government’s entire stockpile would keep America going for no more than a few weeks, and is supposed to be used only in dire emergencies.
What will we do when prices spike after Israel strikes Iran without a full reserve? What we will do when a hurricane knocks out vessels in the shipping lanes and we are faced with an American supply crunch? What will we do when we have an emergency and cannot run essential programs because we sold our STRATEGIC RESERVES to fat lazy whiners who refuse to change their lifestyle?
How about a candidate for president that has put some thought into the hard decisions that face the nation? Someone willing to lead? Someone with some character who doesn't float with the latest poll winds?
The energy crisis is in our consumption that demands we import fuel from foreign sources.
Domestic drilling will never match domestic demand. By the government’s own reckoning, there are some 18 billion barrels of oil to be discovered in the restricted areas—enough to supply all America’s needs for only two-and-a-half years. Domestic drilling is not a policy solution, it is a red herring drawing America away from the cultural and behavioral changes we are all going to have to make to keep this country free.
Windfall profit taxes sound righteous for the here and now but should be an alarm bell to everyone in our free market capitalist society. When and how deep can government cherry pick our earnings? Any measure that reduces oil firms’ margins in America is likely to have the effect of diverting at least some investment to other countries—and so exacerbate the shortage of fuel produced at home.
The whole suspension of the gas tax idea should have been clue enough not to take those saying it seriously. That would encourage drivers to buy more, pushing up prices again while reducing Uncle Sam’s take. Seriously? You want to be the president of the United States but you think $0.18 a gallon will make a dent? P.S. Did you not see the reports on our dilapidated infrastructure? Pulling that tax money coupled with less consumption (the price of gas goes up but the tax stays the same so less consumption directly impact tax revenues) means unfunded highway and maintenance programs.
Selling oil from the strategic reserves? That is a primary indicator of a person not ready for the highest office. There is a reason that it is called a "strategic reserve." The government’s entire stockpile would keep America going for no more than a few weeks, and is supposed to be used only in dire emergencies.
What will we do when prices spike after Israel strikes Iran without a full reserve? What we will do when a hurricane knocks out vessels in the shipping lanes and we are faced with an American supply crunch? What will we do when we have an emergency and cannot run essential programs because we sold our STRATEGIC RESERVES to fat lazy whiners who refuse to change their lifestyle?
Meanwhile petrol has been getting cheaper of late, thanks to the sliding price of oil. It still costs over $3.80 a gallon on average, $1 more than a year ago. But it is some 25 cents below its peak, and falling. Some Republican lawmakers, ludicrously, claim that the drop is a result of their drive for more drilling. Mere talk of opening up America’s coastal waters, the theory runs, has convinced traders of a big future boost to oil supplies and so pushed the price down. In fact, the gyrations on the oil market illustrate the opposite: they show that the price of oil is largely out of America’s politicians’ hands. [Source]
How about a candidate for president that has put some thought into the hard decisions that face the nation? Someone willing to lead? Someone with some character who doesn't float with the latest poll winds?
Commander in Chief B.S.
In the current election cycle, polls show many voters remain sceptical of Barack Obama's abilities to be a good commander-in-chief, while a much larger number say McCain would be a good commander.
History indicates that the "a vet will be a good president" mentality is not smart.
Being a "vet" (I think this term is wrongly applied here) no more helped Bush be a commander in chief than it helped Grant.
Not being a vet is no more a liability to Obama than it was to FDR.
America needs to see past the Fox News flag waiving and think. THINK.
Al Jazeera has a good piece here.
History indicates that the "a vet will be a good president" mentality is not smart.
Being a "vet" (I think this term is wrongly applied here) no more helped Bush be a commander in chief than it helped Grant.
Not being a vet is no more a liability to Obama than it was to FDR.
America needs to see past the Fox News flag waiving and think. THINK.
Al Jazeera has a good piece here.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Army expert on Afghan way forward
Ending the occupation of Iraq to escalate the war in Afghanistan is misguided politics.
Iraq is calming because opposition groups overplayed their capabilities.
The next commander in chief would do well to listen to what 7 years of fighting has taught the military.
LTC (Ret) John Nagl is a foremost expert and says "Foreign powers cannot win counterinsurgency campaigns, but they can enable and empower host nation governments to do so."
We'll have advisers in Iraq for a long time and would do well to apply those lessons to the challenge in Afghanistan before another politician wages lives for political capital.
Iraq is calming because opposition groups overplayed their capabilities.
The next commander in chief would do well to listen to what 7 years of fighting has taught the military.
LTC (Ret) John Nagl is a foremost expert and says "Foreign powers cannot win counterinsurgency campaigns, but they can enable and empower host nation governments to do so."
We'll have advisers in Iraq for a long time and would do well to apply those lessons to the challenge in Afghanistan before another politician wages lives for political capital.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A sign of the times
What does America's girth say about us as a nation?
Obesity is a sign of wealth in countries where only the rich can afford the excess.
Obesity can be a symptom of poverty in places where the poor cannot afford healthy food choices.
Fat people cannot serve in the military.
Obesity makes all of us pay more for health care.
In a world where countries face riots and starvation over food prices, our own military has been at war in at least two places for 7 years and health care costs threaten to bankrupt government: stay fat America.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Who wins in war?
Historically a society benefits economically during war with increased government spending on production and manufacturing. The American economy has interestingly slumped with a potential for chaos after 7 years of conflict paid for on credit.
Soldiers are paid better now than ever but their civilian contractor counter parts are being paid 6 times the pay for often a fraction of the work and responsibility.
To those who read history books it is known that war is a racket. It never hurts to see some data that supports that truth.
For all it was, 9/11 launched the Bush/Cheney empire plan into reality and enabled the thoughts that at one time seemed beyond their wildest dreams into a (no longer) secret and harsh reality.
A recent survey shows that 86% of Congress has financial stake in defense industry stock. A wild and blatant conflict of interest to be sure.
Only those who reap windfall profits from the blood of patriots win in war.
Ike warned us long ago: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Soldiers are paid better now than ever but their civilian contractor counter parts are being paid 6 times the pay for often a fraction of the work and responsibility.
To those who read history books it is known that war is a racket. It never hurts to see some data that supports that truth.
"I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster." So said President Franklin Delano Roosevelt about World War II, and President Harry Truman first made a name for himself as a Senator by crusading against war profiteering. The same cannot be said about the current wartime situation, as war profiteering seems to be the trend of the day according to the twelfth annual CEO compensation survey conducted by United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). [Source]
Lockheed’s Earnings Jump 13 Percent[Washington Post, July 23, 2008, Pg. D1] Lockheed Martin reported a strong second quarter yesterday, with profit up 13 percent compared with the corresponding period last year.
General Dynamics’ Quarterly Profit Up 24%[Washington Post, July 24, 2008, Pg. D4] General Dynamics’ second-quarter profit rose 25 percent, boosted by higher sales of armored vehicles and tanks. The company also raised its full-year earnings outlook.
Northrop, Others Win $10 Billion Contract[Washington Post, July 24, 2008, Pg. D4] Northrop Grumman is one of eight firms awarded a contract worth up to $10.12 billion to support weapons systems at U.S. military installations in America and abroad.
Pentagon Auditors Pressured To Favor Contractors, GAO Says[Washington Post, July 24, 2008, Pg. D1] Auditors at a Pentagon oversight agency were pressured by supervisors to skew their reports on major defense contractors to make them look more favorable instead of exposing wrongdoing and charges of over billing, according to a report released by the Government Accountability Office.
Military Contractors' Cost: $85 Billion(Philadelphia Inquirer, August 13, 2008) Military contracts in the Iraq theater have cost taxpayers at least $85 billion since the 2003 invasion, and, when it comes to providing security, they might not be any cheaper than using military personnel, the Congressional Budget Office reported. The study was released amid increased scrutiny of military contractors, some of whom are being investigated in the shooting deaths of Iraqis and the accidental electrocutions of U.S. troops.Beyond the monetary concerns there is political capital to be gained from the blood of patriots as well. McCain's campaign comes right out at acknowledges that their camp would benefit greatly from a terror attack between now and the election.
For all it was, 9/11 launched the Bush/Cheney empire plan into reality and enabled the thoughts that at one time seemed beyond their wildest dreams into a (no longer) secret and harsh reality.
A recent survey shows that 86% of Congress has financial stake in defense industry stock. A wild and blatant conflict of interest to be sure.
Only those who reap windfall profits from the blood of patriots win in war.
Ike warned us long ago: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Afghanistan Lie
Why are people falling for the lie that the true war on terror is in Afghanistan?
It is true that the war in Iraq has removed needed resources from the battle in Afghanistan but arguments to escalate the effort in Afghanistan are wrong. Both wars, as known and executed today, needed to stop.
There is no legitimate location for the US to vent its frustration at extremists. Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. Not the Philippines. Not Nigeria. Not Cuba. Not Venezuela.
So where should we send our troops? Home.
To understand how Afghanistan came to be the base (literally the base or al Qaeda in Arabic) for extreme militant Islam Americans need to pick up some history books and understand the enemy we face. The desire of citizens to not be involved but to hold their politicians responsible for a response to 9/11 created the situation where our country was coerced into an inappropriate response to terrorist attacks.
The mechanisms that allowed al Qaeda to flourish and grow from the late '80s to the present stem from state sponsored support in America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These mechanisms enabled and encouraged extremists to gather and train in Afghanistan to repel and defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
That is an over simplification to be sure but doing the homework is your responsibility. Catch up and then read on.
America has come full circle to a point where we are required to do something to counter the activity that we helped establish. After the Soviets fell and withdrew in the early '90s we simply left the country of Afghanistan for dead. The 4 million mujahideen that fought as our proxies against the Soviets were simply discarded and forgotten. Their families left to rebuild their lives all on their own.
I know, a real tear jerker for the average American, right? Well, it is the root of the generation of fighters we are now seeing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the source of much of the hatred for America seen in the Muslim world. Our enemies are fueled by our hypocrisy and complete disregard for life.
With the Iraq war now unpopular (we fight wars based on popularity and political capital, sick isn't it? Again, a source for our distrust and hatred in the Muslim world) but the American hunger for payback not yet satisfied, politicians are ranting about how we must re-focus efforts on Afghanistan.
In the middle of both these wars the American public has failed to reach any conclusions about the underlying reasons and rational for these wars and the reasons that we have not yet "won" against these "dirty, uneducated" enemies. How can our military, the greatest in the world, not have crushed and destroyed the opposition by now? Hasn't anyone wondered about this over the past 7 years?
America has gone about responding to the terrorist attacks in the wrong manner. The people of the US do not want to hear any ideas about tuning the other cheek, Christianity is for Sunday morning and bumper stickers, Jesus didn't know shit about changing the world or dealing with evil enemies... right?
The fight against our own foreign policy blunder soldiers is not in the conventional army, it isn't going to be solved by troops at the business end of a weapon. Armies are trained to fight armies. Al Qaeda and their cohorts are not an army. They are an organisation bound by ideology and common purpose.
The war on terror is flawed in its beginnings but to be sure it will only be successful when it is fought on the same plane in which it exists. Western governments must commit money and support to Muslim governments and organizations that are moderate and opposed to the militantism of the extremists.
US soldiers fighting on Muslim lands, and all the death and damage that brings, only acts to fuel the source of motivation and recruitment for these groups. Our bombing, shooting and disrespect for the average Muslim in these countries is enough to drive any moderate local against us. Our solution is creating the future generations of our enemies. So long as we create more extremist fighters, we will be perpetually bogged down in and endless fight.
The Soviets faced this same enemy. The end to their war came only when their war bankrupted their country. Is America in a financial position to wage an endless war? The US government hasn't even asked the average citizen to sacrifice to pay for the war. We are putting the cost of these wars on the backs of our kids, grand kids and so on. All to what end?
This war will be won with a moderate Muslim face challenging the extreme true believers.
In the '90s our only hope against feuding warlords was the Taliban. At the request of oil companies we actually recognised the Taliban and assisted to centralize their rule. Osama operated on their fringes and due to 9/11 we threw out all hope for stability and progress in the region by doing the one thing the Muslim world cannot and will not stand for: occupying their territory.
Focusing military might in Afghanistan and not Iraq is a false argument. Pulling back all military power is the true solution. Our culture and media have us so afraid of talking our way to a solution. Our wrongful belief in our just cause and our over blown notion of our military capacity has us thinking we can sit back and watch the military solve all our problems in the world.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan is the wrong answer. The Soviets made the same mistake in the late '80s. Our fate will look a lot like theirs but worse given the current situation in the world oil markets.
The coming disaster is written out from history on the wall for all to see. Americans would rather sit back and listen to politicians tell us what we want to hear rather than do our homework and demand a proper response from the government.
The Taliban can be dealt with in Afghanistan. Shia militias can be consolidated and put in charge of Iraq. Those who can do something about extremists, the moderates, can be held responsible and given the support they need to make a difference in the affairs of the Muslim world.
What the world needs now is American people who think for themselves and don't fall for the Afghan lie.
Contributing article: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750386
It is true that the war in Iraq has removed needed resources from the battle in Afghanistan but arguments to escalate the effort in Afghanistan are wrong. Both wars, as known and executed today, needed to stop.
There is no legitimate location for the US to vent its frustration at extremists. Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. Not the Philippines. Not Nigeria. Not Cuba. Not Venezuela.
So where should we send our troops? Home.
To understand how Afghanistan came to be the base (literally the base or al Qaeda in Arabic) for extreme militant Islam Americans need to pick up some history books and understand the enemy we face. The desire of citizens to not be involved but to hold their politicians responsible for a response to 9/11 created the situation where our country was coerced into an inappropriate response to terrorist attacks.
The mechanisms that allowed al Qaeda to flourish and grow from the late '80s to the present stem from state sponsored support in America, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These mechanisms enabled and encouraged extremists to gather and train in Afghanistan to repel and defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
That is an over simplification to be sure but doing the homework is your responsibility. Catch up and then read on.
America has come full circle to a point where we are required to do something to counter the activity that we helped establish. After the Soviets fell and withdrew in the early '90s we simply left the country of Afghanistan for dead. The 4 million mujahideen that fought as our proxies against the Soviets were simply discarded and forgotten. Their families left to rebuild their lives all on their own.
I know, a real tear jerker for the average American, right? Well, it is the root of the generation of fighters we are now seeing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the source of much of the hatred for America seen in the Muslim world. Our enemies are fueled by our hypocrisy and complete disregard for life.
With the Iraq war now unpopular (we fight wars based on popularity and political capital, sick isn't it? Again, a source for our distrust and hatred in the Muslim world) but the American hunger for payback not yet satisfied, politicians are ranting about how we must re-focus efforts on Afghanistan.
In the middle of both these wars the American public has failed to reach any conclusions about the underlying reasons and rational for these wars and the reasons that we have not yet "won" against these "dirty, uneducated" enemies. How can our military, the greatest in the world, not have crushed and destroyed the opposition by now? Hasn't anyone wondered about this over the past 7 years?
America has gone about responding to the terrorist attacks in the wrong manner. The people of the US do not want to hear any ideas about tuning the other cheek, Christianity is for Sunday morning and bumper stickers, Jesus didn't know shit about changing the world or dealing with evil enemies... right?
The fight against our own foreign policy blunder soldiers is not in the conventional army, it isn't going to be solved by troops at the business end of a weapon. Armies are trained to fight armies. Al Qaeda and their cohorts are not an army. They are an organisation bound by ideology and common purpose.
The war on terror is flawed in its beginnings but to be sure it will only be successful when it is fought on the same plane in which it exists. Western governments must commit money and support to Muslim governments and organizations that are moderate and opposed to the militantism of the extremists.
US soldiers fighting on Muslim lands, and all the death and damage that brings, only acts to fuel the source of motivation and recruitment for these groups. Our bombing, shooting and disrespect for the average Muslim in these countries is enough to drive any moderate local against us. Our solution is creating the future generations of our enemies. So long as we create more extremist fighters, we will be perpetually bogged down in and endless fight.
The Soviets faced this same enemy. The end to their war came only when their war bankrupted their country. Is America in a financial position to wage an endless war? The US government hasn't even asked the average citizen to sacrifice to pay for the war. We are putting the cost of these wars on the backs of our kids, grand kids and so on. All to what end?
This war will be won with a moderate Muslim face challenging the extreme true believers.
In the '90s our only hope against feuding warlords was the Taliban. At the request of oil companies we actually recognised the Taliban and assisted to centralize their rule. Osama operated on their fringes and due to 9/11 we threw out all hope for stability and progress in the region by doing the one thing the Muslim world cannot and will not stand for: occupying their territory.
Focusing military might in Afghanistan and not Iraq is a false argument. Pulling back all military power is the true solution. Our culture and media have us so afraid of talking our way to a solution. Our wrongful belief in our just cause and our over blown notion of our military capacity has us thinking we can sit back and watch the military solve all our problems in the world.
Escalating the war in Afghanistan is the wrong answer. The Soviets made the same mistake in the late '80s. Our fate will look a lot like theirs but worse given the current situation in the world oil markets.
The coming disaster is written out from history on the wall for all to see. Americans would rather sit back and listen to politicians tell us what we want to hear rather than do our homework and demand a proper response from the government.
The Taliban can be dealt with in Afghanistan. Shia militias can be consolidated and put in charge of Iraq. Those who can do something about extremists, the moderates, can be held responsible and given the support they need to make a difference in the affairs of the Muslim world.
What the world needs now is American people who think for themselves and don't fall for the Afghan lie.
Contributing article: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11750386
Friday, July 25, 2008
Should gays serve openly in the military?
A country that cannot fill its military ranks with qualified volunteers does not have the position to exclude qualified personnel simply because they are homosexuals. Every able bodied American has had 7 years of war to sign up and serve. The validity of the war to America was confirmed with Bush's re-election right in the middle of this illegal and immoral occupation. Yet to fill the ranks the military has had to continue to lower the standards for new recruits.
We'll take criminals and the uneducated as armed ambassadors for this nation but not gays?
Homosexuals serve now and statistically perform as honorably as their counterparts.
The reasons floating around as to why gays should not serve are unfounded and simply are the spawn of pop culture stereotyping and bigotry.
Civilian America has this mental image of troops in mass showers with a gay dude in the corner staring and lusting after straight, innocent comrades. When the majority of troops exit the shower the poor defenseless straight dude gets raped by the mean overpowering gay dude.
"Save the straight troops from B film prison rape scenes! Gays are monsters just waiting to pounce! Gays only join the military to gain access to the masses of troops in open bay showers so they can have their way with whomever they want!"
Mother fucker please.
First of all, the people in uniform are the least defenseless citizens of this nation. Isn't that the point of the military? Secondly, women are statistically more likely to be victimized in the military than any other population. Seems our straight men can't exactly control themselves in a gender integrated military. But we worry about integrating gays? They are already serving!
This logic has its roots in racial segregation. Remember back in the day: "if we allow blacks to be equals with whites then they will rape all the white women and kill any and every white guy they desire."
Pure bullshit. Get over yourself America.
Military personnel really only have open bay showers in training environments. Basic training is too busy for lust sessions. A typical shower only lasted about 2 minutes. Ranger school showers were open bay but they were as short as possible to get everyone through and they were wasted time that was better spent prepping for training or sleeping.
I spooned with 3 other rangers on an ambush firing line in late January because it was freezing and we were in danger of hypothermia. At no point in this unusual position for tough guy killer types was there even a concern of homosexual activity. Had one of that fire team been gay it wouldn't have mattered. We needed to stay alive and body heat was our only option.
I hear arguments of gays failing their buddies in combat floated around as well. Any person who has served in combat and had their life in danger of being snuffed will tell you that at that moment only the competency of their comrades was of concern. If Smith or Jones was gay I don't give a damn. Can you shoot? Can you make a decision under pressure? Can I count on you to do your job? Your duty?
Seriously America. For a nation at war the focus is on all the wrong areas. I think that is the root of the problem: America at large is not at war. They are worried about the economy and not the lives being lost while they complain about the cost of their latte or how much driving they have to cut back on.
The issue of homosexuals should serve as a wake up call to a country that has allowed false moral arguments to run the thought process for too long. Gays, abortion and religion have been allowed to masquerade as moral imperatives far too long. The same population has allowed patriotism, security and freedom to serve as covers for the death sentence given to Iraqis, Afghans and our troops for the longest and costliest war in recent times.
Calls to ban gays in the military because their open service is a kin to condoning their lifestyles are absurd. Are you willing to leave America because there are openly gay people in the country? Isn't staying in America with openly gay people the same as condoning their behavior?
This language in America would be an eye opener to all the gay bashing, Iran haters if they learned that homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran. Is that what they want for America? Do these American realize they sound just like Ahmedinajad? The Nazis also anted to purify their society. Is that what this anti-gay movement is striving for?
The time has come for all people to be treated as equals. Military service is not a forum for politicians and mass media to play out their agenda. In appropriate behavior is an issue addressed when it happens, gay or straight. Let's bring back the rule of law and not the rule of opinion.
We'll take criminals and the uneducated as armed ambassadors for this nation but not gays?
Homosexuals serve now and statistically perform as honorably as their counterparts.
The reasons floating around as to why gays should not serve are unfounded and simply are the spawn of pop culture stereotyping and bigotry.
Civilian America has this mental image of troops in mass showers with a gay dude in the corner staring and lusting after straight, innocent comrades. When the majority of troops exit the shower the poor defenseless straight dude gets raped by the mean overpowering gay dude.
"Save the straight troops from B film prison rape scenes! Gays are monsters just waiting to pounce! Gays only join the military to gain access to the masses of troops in open bay showers so they can have their way with whomever they want!"
Mother fucker please.
First of all, the people in uniform are the least defenseless citizens of this nation. Isn't that the point of the military? Secondly, women are statistically more likely to be victimized in the military than any other population. Seems our straight men can't exactly control themselves in a gender integrated military. But we worry about integrating gays? They are already serving!
This logic has its roots in racial segregation. Remember back in the day: "if we allow blacks to be equals with whites then they will rape all the white women and kill any and every white guy they desire."
Pure bullshit. Get over yourself America.
Military personnel really only have open bay showers in training environments. Basic training is too busy for lust sessions. A typical shower only lasted about 2 minutes. Ranger school showers were open bay but they were as short as possible to get everyone through and they were wasted time that was better spent prepping for training or sleeping.
I spooned with 3 other rangers on an ambush firing line in late January because it was freezing and we were in danger of hypothermia. At no point in this unusual position for tough guy killer types was there even a concern of homosexual activity. Had one of that fire team been gay it wouldn't have mattered. We needed to stay alive and body heat was our only option.
I hear arguments of gays failing their buddies in combat floated around as well. Any person who has served in combat and had their life in danger of being snuffed will tell you that at that moment only the competency of their comrades was of concern. If Smith or Jones was gay I don't give a damn. Can you shoot? Can you make a decision under pressure? Can I count on you to do your job? Your duty?
Seriously America. For a nation at war the focus is on all the wrong areas. I think that is the root of the problem: America at large is not at war. They are worried about the economy and not the lives being lost while they complain about the cost of their latte or how much driving they have to cut back on.
The issue of homosexuals should serve as a wake up call to a country that has allowed false moral arguments to run the thought process for too long. Gays, abortion and religion have been allowed to masquerade as moral imperatives far too long. The same population has allowed patriotism, security and freedom to serve as covers for the death sentence given to Iraqis, Afghans and our troops for the longest and costliest war in recent times.
Calls to ban gays in the military because their open service is a kin to condoning their lifestyles are absurd. Are you willing to leave America because there are openly gay people in the country? Isn't staying in America with openly gay people the same as condoning their behavior?
This language in America would be an eye opener to all the gay bashing, Iran haters if they learned that homosexuality is punishable by death in Iran. Is that what they want for America? Do these American realize they sound just like Ahmedinajad? The Nazis also anted to purify their society. Is that what this anti-gay movement is striving for?
The time has come for all people to be treated as equals. Military service is not a forum for politicians and mass media to play out their agenda. In appropriate behavior is an issue addressed when it happens, gay or straight. Let's bring back the rule of law and not the rule of opinion.
West Point graduates and professional sports
Nothing sickens me more than the thought of comparing the sacrifice Pat Tillman made for his country and the push to allow a West Point grad (or any academy graduate for that matter) to skip active duty service to play in the pros.
The Army screwed up in the first place by ever allowing this issue to be contemplated. Service to the nation should come first, period.
West Point is caught in the academy crisis of recruiting. Top players might not come to the academies if they know up front that they will have to serve before being allowed the chance to play professional sports. So?
Roger Staubach did "ok" in the pros after 4 years in the military - including a stint in Vietnam.
If the academies are this confused as to what their greater purpose is to this nation then the tax payer's money would be better spent commissioning officers through other means.
It is inexcusable that while at war the academies have their heads this far up their asses.
It is more discouraging that these graduates have such a low sense of duty to serve. They may be following the rules but they had a choice and chose a lesser path.
Rest in peace, Pat.
The Army screwed up in the first place by ever allowing this issue to be contemplated. Service to the nation should come first, period.
West Point is caught in the academy crisis of recruiting. Top players might not come to the academies if they know up front that they will have to serve before being allowed the chance to play professional sports. So?
Roger Staubach did "ok" in the pros after 4 years in the military - including a stint in Vietnam.
If the academies are this confused as to what their greater purpose is to this nation then the tax payer's money would be better spent commissioning officers through other means.
It is inexcusable that while at war the academies have their heads this far up their asses.
It is more discouraging that these graduates have such a low sense of duty to serve. They may be following the rules but they had a choice and chose a lesser path.
Rest in peace, Pat.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Iraq is not about winning or losing
The one thing Bush got right in Iraq was that the mission was accomplished in May 2003. Everything from then on has been the US occupying Iraq and trying to mitigate the damage from poor planning.
The US will leave Iraq. The consequences might very well be the same no matter if it is sooner or later.
Remember that guy named Saddam who ran Iraq before we invaded it? Ever wonder why he had to rule it with an iron fist to keep peace and order? Iraq is far too fractured a country with a culture that favors loyalty and relationships rather than state and national identity for any one, even the mighty USA, to think the country can be miraculously left in a cohesive national government that rules under law in a democracy.
It will take generations to forget the socialist ways they lived under for decades and it will take more generations than that to forgive the treatment Iraq has received from US forces during this war.
So if we leave we lose. To whom?
The terrorists? Nope. Neither Sunni nor Shia will tolerate al Qaeda on their land indiscriminately blowing up their people. The Sons of Iraq and Mahdi Army have both rejected the foreign al Qaeda operatives.
To Iran? Nope. Remember that whole Iran - Iraq war in the '80's? Other than being Shia Muslims the Persians have no favor in the eyes of Iraqi Shia or Sunni. Sunni already see Shia militia as extensions of Iran (the Badrs actually are and we put them in charge of the Iraqi Army and government via SCIRI). Muqtada al Sadr comes from a long history of hatred and angst toward the Iranians. The Iranian relationship with Iraq right now is bound by a common hatred for the foreign policy of the US.
So we are left to win in Iraq. First, from McCain to Bush to Obama to anyone... the definition of a "win" must be made explicitly clear. The only definition of a win that is out there today is "we win by not leaving."
So who gains by us not leaving? The defense industry for certain. MRAPs and eSAPI to KBR and Blackwater have all benefited from this war beyond reason. Israel also wins if you believe that our presence in Iraq will prevent a possibly nuclear Iran from firing missiles at Israel. Wait, they just performed missile tests last month so that theory is bunk.
We lose the war in Iraq if we stay. The US economy has not yet felt the full weight of the war time deficit spending and that train is coming home soon. Just as Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviets, staying in Iraq will dethrone America. The same population of troops have paid the full price of this war. An entire generation of leaders for the military will be lost, along with all their combat experience, if this nation requires them to face endless deployments and endless danger while the rest of the country worries about the economy.
America has lost its moral high ground already but we face the danger of growing new and more diverse international enemies if we colonize Iraq. With the obvious grip oil has on the US economy it would be foolish indeed to risk the consequences of an endless occupation on Arab soil.
Therefore we win the war in Iraq when we leave.
The US will leave Iraq. The consequences might very well be the same no matter if it is sooner or later.
Remember that guy named Saddam who ran Iraq before we invaded it? Ever wonder why he had to rule it with an iron fist to keep peace and order? Iraq is far too fractured a country with a culture that favors loyalty and relationships rather than state and national identity for any one, even the mighty USA, to think the country can be miraculously left in a cohesive national government that rules under law in a democracy.
It will take generations to forget the socialist ways they lived under for decades and it will take more generations than that to forgive the treatment Iraq has received from US forces during this war.
So if we leave we lose. To whom?
The terrorists? Nope. Neither Sunni nor Shia will tolerate al Qaeda on their land indiscriminately blowing up their people. The Sons of Iraq and Mahdi Army have both rejected the foreign al Qaeda operatives.
To Iran? Nope. Remember that whole Iran - Iraq war in the '80's? Other than being Shia Muslims the Persians have no favor in the eyes of Iraqi Shia or Sunni. Sunni already see Shia militia as extensions of Iran (the Badrs actually are and we put them in charge of the Iraqi Army and government via SCIRI). Muqtada al Sadr comes from a long history of hatred and angst toward the Iranians. The Iranian relationship with Iraq right now is bound by a common hatred for the foreign policy of the US.
So we are left to win in Iraq. First, from McCain to Bush to Obama to anyone... the definition of a "win" must be made explicitly clear. The only definition of a win that is out there today is "we win by not leaving."
So who gains by us not leaving? The defense industry for certain. MRAPs and eSAPI to KBR and Blackwater have all benefited from this war beyond reason. Israel also wins if you believe that our presence in Iraq will prevent a possibly nuclear Iran from firing missiles at Israel. Wait, they just performed missile tests last month so that theory is bunk.
We lose the war in Iraq if we stay. The US economy has not yet felt the full weight of the war time deficit spending and that train is coming home soon. Just as Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviets, staying in Iraq will dethrone America. The same population of troops have paid the full price of this war. An entire generation of leaders for the military will be lost, along with all their combat experience, if this nation requires them to face endless deployments and endless danger while the rest of the country worries about the economy.
America has lost its moral high ground already but we face the danger of growing new and more diverse international enemies if we colonize Iraq. With the obvious grip oil has on the US economy it would be foolish indeed to risk the consequences of an endless occupation on Arab soil.
Therefore we win the war in Iraq when we leave.
Look at Iraq's future, not the surge
Let the history books fight over credit and success for the surge. Our next commander in chief needs to understand the situation as it is now and plan for the future.
Military and civilian deaths are down for now. A look at how we got here will provide a glimpse of where Iraq might go next.
Shia militias, especially the Mahdi Army, were a home grown Iraqi solution to the chaos the followed the US occupation. US forces did not use tactics, nor did they have the personnel, to secure the safety of the local population. Rather, the US response to enemy activity resulted in further placing shia populations in danger from the US, or if the shia helped the US, from Sunni insurgent groups.
The shia are now and have always been viewed in Iraq as traitors (to Iraq) and rejectionists (of Islam as defined by Sunni). Their religous ties with Iran often lump all shia to be called Iranians by Iraqi sunni. Shia in government are a kin to Iranians in control to the sunni, and that is un-Iraqi. To the shia they share faith with the Iranians but have a historic distaste for them. As a matter of convenience they bought weapons and sought training from Iranian groups. In desperate times the "enemy of my enemy" is often your only friend. Iran was not in a position to refuse the money from arms sales and it is a matter of debate as to the degree of state sponsorship in the weapons sales.
Where the US could not provide protection to shia, and often when the US was doing the damage to them, the result was local militia. As a result of their beliefs, the banner of the Sadr movement was a natural common ground. These militia fought both the US, who unjustly (in their view and sometimes actually) attacked and incarcerated Shia, and the Sunni who include insurgents and al Qaeda who see the value of shia lives as worthless.
With the organization of the shia militia came a path to political power. As Muqtada centralized the militia under his banner the collective began to warrant political power. Their claim to political power earned them a different level of respect from the US, though they were still hunted as terrorists when applicable.
The Shia path to political power sparked some soul searching in the sunni bloc. If the shia gained political power and recognition then they could take control of the government and that would leave the sunni outside the power structure, again. In addition to this front, the sunni were facing more horrendous and less discriminate violence from their allies of convenience, al Qaeda. The Anbar tribes determined they were going to disappear from relevance if they faced attacks from US troops, al Qaeda crazies and the shia militia.
The calculated best hope for sunni survival was an alliance with the foreign occupiers (US) in order to gain legitimacy politically and favor in the struggle against shia and al Qaeda.
What is lost in Western media is that the situation was so dire that in AUG '06 the sunni initiated the Sons of Iraq movement on their own. 6 months before the thought of a US troop surge the sunni figured that their survival depended on collaborating with "the enemy of my enemies."
The US response was overwhelming. Weapons, material support and money all poured into the effort for the hearts and minds of the sunni. On their word, the US was now supporting the men who only days and hours ago were their sworn enemy to the death.
In the middle of all of this is the Iraqi government. A Shia based faction with ties to the Iranian supported resistance group of the '80s and '90s, the Badrs, the now US backed governing Shia are a minority and largely unpopular group. Their Shia ties to the Sadrs are not enough to overcome their differences in goals and priorities. The Us backed Badr influence is most visible in the Iraqi Army.
As all three sides escalated their efforts for security, position, retribution and control the world watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were wounded or killed in sectarian violence. Millions of Iraqis were internally displaced as neighborhoods were purified and many more millions were forced to flee the country as refugees.
The minimal US presence still had a priority of hunting terrorists and keeping their own asses out of the fire at this time. Only after the violence peaked did the US gain enough political capital to send in a surge of troops to secure the peace after the blood bath. The surge troops had it tough, make no doubt. The Shia militia, Sunni insurgents, terrorists, and Iraqi government all had interests to protect against US intervention in the developing situation on the ground.
As US surge troops fought their way to a shaky equilibrium within Baghdad primarily, a combination of factors brought an end to the blood letting.
The sunni awakening was now in full implementation as an ally to the US. This fact continues to push al Qaeda out of operational areas.
The shia militias under Sadr recognized they could make more progress via political means than they could in a direct confrontation with fighting the US and Iraqi Army coalition. Muqtada's order for a cease fire, twice renewed now, did more for the peace of Iraq than any one other factor. His departure from confrontation with sunni and the US might still fracture the shia militia into multiple sects not all loyal to Sadr but it holds mostly for now.
The Iraqi Army has enjoyed successful operations (although poorly conducted and dependant on the US to avoid embarrassing failure) in the calm derived from the Sadr cease fire and the sunni halt on the insurgency.
In the so called success of the surge the world must recognize the truth as it is. The US props up the Iraqi Army both logistically and (more and more less so) operationally. The sunni Sons of Iraq are being armed and supported by the US. This is defeating al Qaeda tactically but is actually building a strategic powder keg in terms of Iraq;s future. The shia militia are still stockpiling weapons from Iran and their cease fire is loyal to Sadr, not the Iraqi peace process.
So can we call the surge a success when all sides are being allowed weapons and time to improve their position in the lull that is allowing the US and Iraqi politicians to talk of a US withdrawal? The critical point for a peaceful Iraq in a post US occupation is gone. The future of Iraq in a post US occupation will depend on the reconciliation efforts of the Iraqis themselves. Not all is lost if a miracle can be worked which folds all the armed groups into an accountable and centralized power structure (like a national guard). But peace depends on a lot of hope and prayers.
The seeds of hate might not be buried deep enough and we will likely see a return of violence. This time from groups armed and trained by the US that fail to find common ground (with the common enemy of the US gone) and turn on each other.
If Iraq collapses into chaos and genocide months or years from now will Americans still look at the time of the surge where they armed all the waring groups to buy a false peace and still call it a success?
Military and civilian deaths are down for now. A look at how we got here will provide a glimpse of where Iraq might go next.
Shia militias, especially the Mahdi Army, were a home grown Iraqi solution to the chaos the followed the US occupation. US forces did not use tactics, nor did they have the personnel, to secure the safety of the local population. Rather, the US response to enemy activity resulted in further placing shia populations in danger from the US, or if the shia helped the US, from Sunni insurgent groups.
The shia are now and have always been viewed in Iraq as traitors (to Iraq) and rejectionists (of Islam as defined by Sunni). Their religous ties with Iran often lump all shia to be called Iranians by Iraqi sunni. Shia in government are a kin to Iranians in control to the sunni, and that is un-Iraqi. To the shia they share faith with the Iranians but have a historic distaste for them. As a matter of convenience they bought weapons and sought training from Iranian groups. In desperate times the "enemy of my enemy" is often your only friend. Iran was not in a position to refuse the money from arms sales and it is a matter of debate as to the degree of state sponsorship in the weapons sales.
Where the US could not provide protection to shia, and often when the US was doing the damage to them, the result was local militia. As a result of their beliefs, the banner of the Sadr movement was a natural common ground. These militia fought both the US, who unjustly (in their view and sometimes actually) attacked and incarcerated Shia, and the Sunni who include insurgents and al Qaeda who see the value of shia lives as worthless.
With the organization of the shia militia came a path to political power. As Muqtada centralized the militia under his banner the collective began to warrant political power. Their claim to political power earned them a different level of respect from the US, though they were still hunted as terrorists when applicable.
The Shia path to political power sparked some soul searching in the sunni bloc. If the shia gained political power and recognition then they could take control of the government and that would leave the sunni outside the power structure, again. In addition to this front, the sunni were facing more horrendous and less discriminate violence from their allies of convenience, al Qaeda. The Anbar tribes determined they were going to disappear from relevance if they faced attacks from US troops, al Qaeda crazies and the shia militia.
The calculated best hope for sunni survival was an alliance with the foreign occupiers (US) in order to gain legitimacy politically and favor in the struggle against shia and al Qaeda.
What is lost in Western media is that the situation was so dire that in AUG '06 the sunni initiated the Sons of Iraq movement on their own. 6 months before the thought of a US troop surge the sunni figured that their survival depended on collaborating with "the enemy of my enemies."
The US response was overwhelming. Weapons, material support and money all poured into the effort for the hearts and minds of the sunni. On their word, the US was now supporting the men who only days and hours ago were their sworn enemy to the death.
In the middle of all of this is the Iraqi government. A Shia based faction with ties to the Iranian supported resistance group of the '80s and '90s, the Badrs, the now US backed governing Shia are a minority and largely unpopular group. Their Shia ties to the Sadrs are not enough to overcome their differences in goals and priorities. The Us backed Badr influence is most visible in the Iraqi Army.
As all three sides escalated their efforts for security, position, retribution and control the world watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were wounded or killed in sectarian violence. Millions of Iraqis were internally displaced as neighborhoods were purified and many more millions were forced to flee the country as refugees.
The minimal US presence still had a priority of hunting terrorists and keeping their own asses out of the fire at this time. Only after the violence peaked did the US gain enough political capital to send in a surge of troops to secure the peace after the blood bath. The surge troops had it tough, make no doubt. The Shia militia, Sunni insurgents, terrorists, and Iraqi government all had interests to protect against US intervention in the developing situation on the ground.
As US surge troops fought their way to a shaky equilibrium within Baghdad primarily, a combination of factors brought an end to the blood letting.
The sunni awakening was now in full implementation as an ally to the US. This fact continues to push al Qaeda out of operational areas.
The shia militias under Sadr recognized they could make more progress via political means than they could in a direct confrontation with fighting the US and Iraqi Army coalition. Muqtada's order for a cease fire, twice renewed now, did more for the peace of Iraq than any one other factor. His departure from confrontation with sunni and the US might still fracture the shia militia into multiple sects not all loyal to Sadr but it holds mostly for now.
U.S. military and intelligence officials say there are at least twenty-three militias in operation, according to the Washington Post. They range in capability and effectiveness, and the majority of them are Shiite.
The Iraqi Army has enjoyed successful operations (although poorly conducted and dependant on the US to avoid embarrassing failure) in the calm derived from the Sadr cease fire and the sunni halt on the insurgency.
In the so called success of the surge the world must recognize the truth as it is. The US props up the Iraqi Army both logistically and (more and more less so) operationally. The sunni Sons of Iraq are being armed and supported by the US. This is defeating al Qaeda tactically but is actually building a strategic powder keg in terms of Iraq;s future. The shia militia are still stockpiling weapons from Iran and their cease fire is loyal to Sadr, not the Iraqi peace process.
This is not something that American soldiers can fix. The institution into which we've poured the most time and money—the Iraqi Army—is the most effective one in the country. (So much so that more than one Iraqi politician expressed concern to me about the possibility of a coup.) But we're not likely to have a similar impact on the ministries of housing, or transport, or electricity. No one doubts that U.S. troops have been crucial to establishing what calm does prevail in Iraq. But we're not the ones who can ensure that it lasts. [Source]
So can we call the surge a success when all sides are being allowed weapons and time to improve their position in the lull that is allowing the US and Iraqi politicians to talk of a US withdrawal? The critical point for a peaceful Iraq in a post US occupation is gone. The future of Iraq in a post US occupation will depend on the reconciliation efforts of the Iraqis themselves. Not all is lost if a miracle can be worked which folds all the armed groups into an accountable and centralized power structure (like a national guard). But peace depends on a lot of hope and prayers.
The seeds of hate might not be buried deep enough and we will likely see a return of violence. This time from groups armed and trained by the US that fail to find common ground (with the common enemy of the US gone) and turn on each other.
If Iraq collapses into chaos and genocide months or years from now will Americans still look at the time of the surge where they armed all the waring groups to buy a false peace and still call it a success?
Friday, July 18, 2008
The success of the surge?
The given reason and objectives of the US escalation, or surge, in Iraq are as misleading as those for the invasion itself.
Let's not even talk of the impact of 15 month tours on the soldiers for now.
The surge is the result of the initial forces in Iraq being too few to secure the Iraqi population and too ill prepared at sorting out the local culture to effectively fight the terrorists, insurgents and crooks at the same time.
US forces could not indiscriminately kill Iraqis simply upon suspicion of insurgent activity. They wore no uniforms, hid in the shadows, and enjoyed a degree of protection from the silence of the local population. How then to combat these ghosts without committing unthinkable war crimes?
The same people who brought death squads to El Salvador and Central America brought their craft to Baghdad. The Interior Ministry was trained in small unit tactics to do the job of killing the people in Iraq that America needed killed but could not justify doing themselves.
Iraqi on Iraqi violence was allowed to continue until such a point as the US felt it had served its purpose. Iraqis were able to identify and kill foreigners, former regime elements, criminals and members of political parties that were competing for power from the US backed parties.
Only after the death squads served their purpose did the US administration commit additional US forces to secure neighborhoods for the common Iraqi. While all of this was happening the US forces in proper uniforms were unable, as they were too few, to do anything about the genocide that was happening under their noses. Their number one priority, and some would say rightly so, was to stay alive and just make it home. Deep down, at a level not talked about in coffee shops and waiting rooms, no one in America believes that Iraqis are worth the lives of Americans.
When Iraqis kill Iraqis America wins. By surging additional us forces in to Baghdad after the mass killings the US was indeed able to provide enough security to bring a relative peace. A huge portion of the killing had been done for them. What was left for the American forces was to erect concrete barriers to segregate the waring neighborhoods and route out any left over hot heads.
The Sunni reaction to Shia death squads and indiscriminate killing by foreign al Qaeda cells was an overdue coupling to the US forces in the form of the Son's of Iraq. They are in fact a large portion of the insurgency but now enjoy US weapons, training and funds as they improve their position to seize power when their chance presents itself.
Shia have always been portrayed as the collaborators and traitors in Iraq. Badr Shia formed the center of the Interior Ministry death squads but their hate extended beyond former regime elements (Sunni) and also brought them in conflict with the Sadr Shia. This Shia on Shia fighting meant that no one was safe which secured the position of the Mahdi Army.
The true success of the surge is the emergence of the Shia grassroots Sadr movement to secure themselves. Muqtada is hardly qualified to serve as a leader of Iraq on a national level but his movement has filled a void created by the Coalition Forces. The US commitment to squash Sadr, as he is not part of the US doctored and puppet ruling party, has US troops fighting for the "freedom" of Iraqis against a group that emerged and resists America in the name of freeing the Iraqis.
To free the Iraqis the Americans are fighting and killing the Iraqis who are fighting to free the Iraqis from foreign occupation. The continued presence of US troops on the ground in Iraq is the main obstacle to lasting peace within Iraq itself. The surge has succeeded in guaranteeing a need for our continued occupation because we have now armed and trained the Badrs (Iraqi Army and police), we have armed and provided limited resources to the Sunni (Sons of Iraq), we permit the Kurds to arm themselves and enjoy relative autonomy in the north, and we are declaring war on Shia who rose up against Saddam in 1993 and now took it upon themselves to arm and protect themselves in the pre-surge void of security.
Iraq is at present a masterfully constructed symphony of chaos that benefits only the interests of the defense industry and corporate America.
Let's not even talk of the impact of 15 month tours on the soldiers for now.
The surge is the result of the initial forces in Iraq being too few to secure the Iraqi population and too ill prepared at sorting out the local culture to effectively fight the terrorists, insurgents and crooks at the same time.
US forces could not indiscriminately kill Iraqis simply upon suspicion of insurgent activity. They wore no uniforms, hid in the shadows, and enjoyed a degree of protection from the silence of the local population. How then to combat these ghosts without committing unthinkable war crimes?
The same people who brought death squads to El Salvador and Central America brought their craft to Baghdad. The Interior Ministry was trained in small unit tactics to do the job of killing the people in Iraq that America needed killed but could not justify doing themselves.
Iraqi on Iraqi violence was allowed to continue until such a point as the US felt it had served its purpose. Iraqis were able to identify and kill foreigners, former regime elements, criminals and members of political parties that were competing for power from the US backed parties.
Only after the death squads served their purpose did the US administration commit additional US forces to secure neighborhoods for the common Iraqi. While all of this was happening the US forces in proper uniforms were unable, as they were too few, to do anything about the genocide that was happening under their noses. Their number one priority, and some would say rightly so, was to stay alive and just make it home. Deep down, at a level not talked about in coffee shops and waiting rooms, no one in America believes that Iraqis are worth the lives of Americans.
When Iraqis kill Iraqis America wins. By surging additional us forces in to Baghdad after the mass killings the US was indeed able to provide enough security to bring a relative peace. A huge portion of the killing had been done for them. What was left for the American forces was to erect concrete barriers to segregate the waring neighborhoods and route out any left over hot heads.
“It’s a myth to say the militias are bad for Iraq,” says Abbas Kadhim, assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. “They are the only ones providing anything meaningful for Iraqis. The problem [for Iraqis] is choosing between anarchy and a militia that protects you for a price.”The success of the surge is purely from the American point of view. Additional forces were sent in too late to stop the killing. Iraqis paid the price in the time before the surge and the Americans step in to the blood soaked streets to claim that their presence brought peace. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that could have been saved with a sound US strategy from the start.
The Sunni reaction to Shia death squads and indiscriminate killing by foreign al Qaeda cells was an overdue coupling to the US forces in the form of the Son's of Iraq. They are in fact a large portion of the insurgency but now enjoy US weapons, training and funds as they improve their position to seize power when their chance presents itself.
Shia have always been portrayed as the collaborators and traitors in Iraq. Badr Shia formed the center of the Interior Ministry death squads but their hate extended beyond former regime elements (Sunni) and also brought them in conflict with the Sadr Shia. This Shia on Shia fighting meant that no one was safe which secured the position of the Mahdi Army.
The true success of the surge is the emergence of the Shia grassroots Sadr movement to secure themselves. Muqtada is hardly qualified to serve as a leader of Iraq on a national level but his movement has filled a void created by the Coalition Forces. The US commitment to squash Sadr, as he is not part of the US doctored and puppet ruling party, has US troops fighting for the "freedom" of Iraqis against a group that emerged and resists America in the name of freeing the Iraqis.
To free the Iraqis the Americans are fighting and killing the Iraqis who are fighting to free the Iraqis from foreign occupation. The continued presence of US troops on the ground in Iraq is the main obstacle to lasting peace within Iraq itself. The surge has succeeded in guaranteeing a need for our continued occupation because we have now armed and trained the Badrs (Iraqi Army and police), we have armed and provided limited resources to the Sunni (Sons of Iraq), we permit the Kurds to arm themselves and enjoy relative autonomy in the north, and we are declaring war on Shia who rose up against Saddam in 1993 and now took it upon themselves to arm and protect themselves in the pre-surge void of security.
Iraq is at present a masterfully constructed symphony of chaos that benefits only the interests of the defense industry and corporate America.
What is surrender in Iraq?
McCain says that a withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be to surrender. The question is a surrender to whom?
Surrender to the terrorists? No. As a matter of proximity they travel to the nearest location they can in order to perform their duty to Islam of repelling occupying forces. They did it (on the US dollar) to the Soviets in Afghanistan, they are doing it to us now in Afghanistan, they did it to us in Lebanon, they did it to us in Saudi Arabia, they did it to us in Yemen and they are now still doing it to us in Iraq.
Leaving Iraq yields no terrain or power to terrorists. It removes the opportunity for them to strike at an American target. Fighting them over there does nothing to prevent them from fighting us over here. The terrorists we face in Iraq are the poor bastards that could only afford to walk to Jihad. It does nothing to preempt a strike from the cells of international terrorists with plans and abilities to do damage on American soil.
Iraq has proven to be a great training ground for the foot soldier terrorists. Look at the migration of tactics from Iraq to Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon and the Philippines. They are learning our ways and weaknesses in Iraq and exploiting those lessons elsewhere in the world. Fighting in Iraq has weakened our military advantage globally.
Surrender to the Iraqi people? Yes. Well isn't that the ultimate goal of Operation IRAQI Freedom? To turn the country over to the hands of the Iraqis and allow them self determination? To give them the freedom from Saddam to succeed or fail as a sovereign nation? Yes, pulling out of Iraq would in fact be a surrender of American power to the Iraqi people returning power, control and possession of their country and fate to their hands.
Missing from all US coverage and commentary on the war in Iraq is the Iraqi perspective. A majority of them have wanted the US to leave from the beginning. As Cheney points out, opinion does not matter. We stayed and changed our definition of success to go so far in stabilizing the country that by our own definition of success we can never leave.
Surrender to the defense industry? No. Leaving Iraq would be freeing the US from the grip of the defense industry. It is in their interests to keep us at war as long as possible. IEDs are killing soldiers? Rather than change tactics (walk instead of drive) and deploy more troops (the Army was already spread too thin) the solution is more money to the defense industry to develop a vehicle (MRAP) that allows us to continue to occupy too much area with too few troops.
The $12b monthly bill for the war has gone to equipment improvements that are great all of themselves but do nothing to change the dynamic of the war to a strategic end. MRAPs, e-SAPI plates, improved helmets in the ACH, a new uniform and a burst of nice gadgets for the piece-of-crap M-4 all help the soldier but do nothing to decisively change the reality on the ground.
Rather than fight the war to win it we have accepted fighting the war to grow the defense industry and prolong the length of the occupation. No worries for the senior officers that have developed this reality. In the revolving doors of the defense industry those officers that sell out the soldiers for the sake of a follow-on-career are surely rewarded. Rank now and another job later.
The only scenario that US the indeed surrenders something in Iraq is in our refusing to leave the country and prolonging the occupation. We surrender our moral authority as we continue to place the value of Iraqi life below all others. We surrender our ability to respond and pursue true terror threats worldwide as our forces are bogged down in a quagmire. We surrender our economic future as a country to the black hole of debt this war has created. We surrender our national will to an executive office that stands in the face of our constitution. We surrender to corporate interests that lose nothing in the deaths of American service members but gain everything in lengthy multi-million and billion dollar contracts. By remaining in Iraq we surrender our future as a nation to the short term interests of unscrupulous politicians and corporations.
Surrender to the terrorists? No. As a matter of proximity they travel to the nearest location they can in order to perform their duty to Islam of repelling occupying forces. They did it (on the US dollar) to the Soviets in Afghanistan, they are doing it to us now in Afghanistan, they did it to us in Lebanon, they did it to us in Saudi Arabia, they did it to us in Yemen and they are now still doing it to us in Iraq.
Leaving Iraq yields no terrain or power to terrorists. It removes the opportunity for them to strike at an American target. Fighting them over there does nothing to prevent them from fighting us over here. The terrorists we face in Iraq are the poor bastards that could only afford to walk to Jihad. It does nothing to preempt a strike from the cells of international terrorists with plans and abilities to do damage on American soil.
Iraq has proven to be a great training ground for the foot soldier terrorists. Look at the migration of tactics from Iraq to Afghanistan, Sudan, Lebanon and the Philippines. They are learning our ways and weaknesses in Iraq and exploiting those lessons elsewhere in the world. Fighting in Iraq has weakened our military advantage globally.
Surrender to the Iraqi people? Yes. Well isn't that the ultimate goal of Operation IRAQI Freedom? To turn the country over to the hands of the Iraqis and allow them self determination? To give them the freedom from Saddam to succeed or fail as a sovereign nation? Yes, pulling out of Iraq would in fact be a surrender of American power to the Iraqi people returning power, control and possession of their country and fate to their hands.
Missing from all US coverage and commentary on the war in Iraq is the Iraqi perspective. A majority of them have wanted the US to leave from the beginning. As Cheney points out, opinion does not matter. We stayed and changed our definition of success to go so far in stabilizing the country that by our own definition of success we can never leave.
Surrender to the defense industry? No. Leaving Iraq would be freeing the US from the grip of the defense industry. It is in their interests to keep us at war as long as possible. IEDs are killing soldiers? Rather than change tactics (walk instead of drive) and deploy more troops (the Army was already spread too thin) the solution is more money to the defense industry to develop a vehicle (MRAP) that allows us to continue to occupy too much area with too few troops.
The $12b monthly bill for the war has gone to equipment improvements that are great all of themselves but do nothing to change the dynamic of the war to a strategic end. MRAPs, e-SAPI plates, improved helmets in the ACH, a new uniform and a burst of nice gadgets for the piece-of-crap M-4 all help the soldier but do nothing to decisively change the reality on the ground.
Rather than fight the war to win it we have accepted fighting the war to grow the defense industry and prolong the length of the occupation. No worries for the senior officers that have developed this reality. In the revolving doors of the defense industry those officers that sell out the soldiers for the sake of a follow-on-career are surely rewarded. Rank now and another job later.
The only scenario that US the indeed surrenders something in Iraq is in our refusing to leave the country and prolonging the occupation. We surrender our moral authority as we continue to place the value of Iraqi life below all others. We surrender our ability to respond and pursue true terror threats worldwide as our forces are bogged down in a quagmire. We surrender our economic future as a country to the black hole of debt this war has created. We surrender our national will to an executive office that stands in the face of our constitution. We surrender to corporate interests that lose nothing in the deaths of American service members but gain everything in lengthy multi-million and billion dollar contracts. By remaining in Iraq we surrender our future as a nation to the short term interests of unscrupulous politicians and corporations.
Military Credentials Given Too Much Weight in Politics
Service is best as an experience but must at the least be an item of genuine empathy. You don't have to be a veteran to understand the use and misuse of military power. The views and advice from career military can be far worse than that of those who study history but have not served.
McCain's remark that the Obama trip to the Middle East will be OK simply because Obama is taking Hagel and Reed with him is preposterous. The idea that any person's opinion on world affairs doesn't count unless they have military experience is absurd.
My military service has opened my eyes to many things in the world and it gives me a perspective that I think 99% of America can not appreciate. However, it has not made me an expert on politics, strategy, diplomacy or the executive branch... all things that the military needs the Commander in Chief to be, know and do.
The argument that a President should be a veteran goes in the face of history. Our past presidents who were vets have run the spectrum in terms of performance. Simply being in the military does not make a person more qualified to be a Commander in Chief or even in a leadership position in the nation.
Kissinger's World War II experience failed to bring him to his senses in '68 when he intervened and derailed the Vietnam peace process (prompting the South to pull out of the talks) resulting in an additional 25,000 troops getting killed before the end of that war.
People are people. McCain's service no more qualifies him for the job of President than Obama's lack of military experience disqualifies him from the same.
Grant won the civil war and turned out to be what some might call the worst President in our history (in terms of administration accomplishments and policy).
Today's soldiers do not need a President that supports them by damning them to an endless death in a wasted war. No matter who wins the Presidency the troops need a person who will place politics in line with strategic objectives and make all the military effort to change the world be for a net gain.
As things on the ground do and must constantly change, so should the opinion and policy from the politicians. The tragedy is when a politician will not change his stance in the face of the ever changing conditions on the ground. A war evolves: so should the policy and politics.
The power of the office of the president is in the other means the President has to shape world outcome. The military is a very narrow and limited portion of that power and it has been abused and wrongly used by the Bush administration.
America should think of how it should respond to the next terrorist attack and think that if we now elect a McCain that is committed to repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration response we will have learned nothing of the nature of the current conflict and we are in fact sentencing our troops (and our military institutions) to death.
Our focus on Obama should not be his lack of military service as Commander in Chief, but we should focus on who has his ear in terms of military affairs. The potential for Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzs and Feiths behind the curtain should be of greater concern to a country that continually falls for the false argument when contemplating military action.
McCain's remark that the Obama trip to the Middle East will be OK simply because Obama is taking Hagel and Reed with him is preposterous. The idea that any person's opinion on world affairs doesn't count unless they have military experience is absurd.
My military service has opened my eyes to many things in the world and it gives me a perspective that I think 99% of America can not appreciate. However, it has not made me an expert on politics, strategy, diplomacy or the executive branch... all things that the military needs the Commander in Chief to be, know and do.
The argument that a President should be a veteran goes in the face of history. Our past presidents who were vets have run the spectrum in terms of performance. Simply being in the military does not make a person more qualified to be a Commander in Chief or even in a leadership position in the nation.
Kissinger's World War II experience failed to bring him to his senses in '68 when he intervened and derailed the Vietnam peace process (prompting the South to pull out of the talks) resulting in an additional 25,000 troops getting killed before the end of that war.
People are people. McCain's service no more qualifies him for the job of President than Obama's lack of military experience disqualifies him from the same.
Grant won the civil war and turned out to be what some might call the worst President in our history (in terms of administration accomplishments and policy).
Today's soldiers do not need a President that supports them by damning them to an endless death in a wasted war. No matter who wins the Presidency the troops need a person who will place politics in line with strategic objectives and make all the military effort to change the world be for a net gain.
As things on the ground do and must constantly change, so should the opinion and policy from the politicians. The tragedy is when a politician will not change his stance in the face of the ever changing conditions on the ground. A war evolves: so should the policy and politics.
The power of the office of the president is in the other means the President has to shape world outcome. The military is a very narrow and limited portion of that power and it has been abused and wrongly used by the Bush administration.
America should think of how it should respond to the next terrorist attack and think that if we now elect a McCain that is committed to repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration response we will have learned nothing of the nature of the current conflict and we are in fact sentencing our troops (and our military institutions) to death.
Our focus on Obama should not be his lack of military service as Commander in Chief, but we should focus on who has his ear in terms of military affairs. The potential for Rumsfelds, Wolfowitzs and Feiths behind the curtain should be of greater concern to a country that continually falls for the false argument when contemplating military action.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
(Lack of) Officer Retention
The best article I've read to date:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.tilghman.html
It really does almost say it all.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.tilghman.html
It really does almost say it all.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Why Iraq is "Mission Accomplished"
Looking back at the less than last decade the truthfulness of Bush's words are surprisingly obvious. As it turns out he falls far short of the capacity to lie his way through his command of office. It turns out the fault is with us, the people, who failed to take him at his word all along. When he does what he says he was going to do we all fool ourselves and act surprised.
So if we look at what would lead Bush to proclaim mission accomplished in May 2003 we see he was telling the truth.. as he saw it.
So if we look at what would lead Bush to proclaim mission accomplished in May 2003 we see he was telling the truth.. as he saw it.
- Saddam's regime was and is in fact disposed. Iraq is in such dire straights that it will be decades or centuries before we (the US and Israel) are in danger of WMD attacks from the soil of Iraq.
- America has secured future access to known oil reserves. Is the price of gas high enough yet to justify our military action that secured for the US the largest known oil reserves behind Saudi Arabia? Well, when the price is near $6 per gallon this fall and Americans still demand to drive what, when and how they want, more people will wake up to the benefit of war for oil. Morals go out the window in America once the pocket books are affected.
- Remember the Axis of Evil speech? Nothing secret or classified about the State of the Union address where Bush told everyone, EVERYONE, exactly what his intentions were. The media clouds our military success in defeating the ruling powers of sovereign nations in Afghanistan and Iraq with an idealistic, and uniquely American, version of mission success. The objective and fact is that US forces are freely mobile on either side of the big target for any American alive during the Regan era: Iran.
An easy mistake for any God loving Christian to make is to think that the people of Iraq or Afghanistan have anything to do with what America calls mission success. Just as support for American forces has been defined as slapping a magnet on the back of your car to profess support rather than actively participate in the democratic process and demand accountability, the fate of the people of the countries America invades and ruins are of no consequence.
I was patrolling in Baghdad when bush said to the world that "we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here." That sounds great from your soft couch in small town USA but look the people of that nation in the eye while it is being said and you understand that it really means "your lives mean less than ours." So long as it is Iraqi kids caught in the crossfire and left with no hope for a future then America says that is OK.
There modern marvel of mass media is in its ability to cloud an issue with emotion and divert the audience from and type of decision making process. The lines used by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney (insert every member of the establishment's name here ____ ) that brought ideals of nobility, freedom, justice and righteousness to the cause in Afghanistan or Iraq were smoke to stop Americans from thinking. Bush never lied about his intentions for war, to destroy the Axis of Evil, people just lost the reality of that message when they let mass media divert attention to lesser issues.
In the long run does America care if Iraq is a democracy? Our relations with the Saudis indicates the answer is no. Are liberties and rights for Iraqis a concern of our occupation forces? The subjugation of Iraqi security and protection to that of the American forces also says no. We took over their country and were responsible for law and order but we barely had enough forces to keep our own patrols safe from harm. We still have no ability to extend and form of 24/7 universal security to the general population of Iraq or Afghanistan. The needs of the Iraqis have always been second to that of the Americans in Iraq.
So is Iraq a success? Saddam, that secular dictator who did what America asked of him in a land of Muslim extremists, is gone and dead. America has occupied ground and had more success in Afghanistan than the Soviets ever enjoyed (if the significance of that is lost to you read Ghost Wars by Coll). The Us military machine is poised to strike as deep as ever historically possible into the heart of the Persian Empire.
So what if the infrastructure of the countries are a mess? Not a problem for the average American forced to contemplate changing their lifestyle to put gas in their car for the first time since 1973 when we missed out on our first wake up call. "Our forces are bogged down in a quagmire and unable to take on the next challenge (Iran)" only if you don;t think we couldn't cut our losses and just move on (remember that we don't care or feel responsible for the fate of the people).
What's the big deal about Iran? Well, a few years back they decided they didn't like the government imposed by the US (a terrible fate for many Central American countries as well) so they booted him and took a bunch of our boys and girls hostage. Nothing will piss and American off more than the idea of one of our own being held against their will and possibly tortured (answers why Muslims are so emotional about Gitmo and Abu Gharib doesn't it?). So for their defiance of American will for 30 years it is time Iran be taught a lesson. And they threaten our 51st state: Israel. And they also sit on very under developed oil reserves that our oil man rulers would just love to write the development contracts for (as we are now doing in Iraq).
Saddam did most everything we asked (the stuff he didn't comply on was just a show to his neighbors that he wasn't a total puss) and that got him the business end of the noose. The Taliban is the product of US money funneled through the Pakistani ISI in the post Soviet Afghanistan and just about a decade later we return the favor of post Soviet stability with our boys invading and killing the Army we trained and created. Except that they are true believers and are just as hard for us to destroy as they were for the Soviets, Doh!
Iraq is a done deal if you look at the objectives and outcomes (not ideals and fantasy). The ensuing chaos is what the military-industrial complex calls "job security" so why should anyone speed up bringing this thing to a close while Uncle Sam has his pocketbook open and writing blank checks?
So long as soldiers sign up voluntarily and America continues to sleep at the wheel this thing will in fact go on forever as the ONLY thing that has defined defeat is the US leaving Iraq.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Ideas on a way forward in the energy crisis
- Tax breaks to companies producing plug-in cars (electric). Tax exemptions for people purchasing plug-ins.
- Increase taxes on petrol. This will boost tax income to maintain roads in the face of reduced petrol purchase volume. On top of the oil price this maintains the incentive for people to switch to plug-ins. The rich will continue to do what they want, and they can afford it, so government subsidies will be made available on an income basis for plug-in purchases.
- Overhaul the power grid. Enable it with smart controls (software managing the load). Provide capability for DC tie-ins to allow for future expansion of renewable sources (wind and solar farms which are often far from the consumer).
- Sell diesel and petrol permits to commercial and small business drivers that depend on transportation for their business model. This is to enable the commerce sector access to affordable fuel and prevent the economy from seizing. Businesses that can use plug-ins should also do so.
- Overhaul the mass transportation systems. Capacity must be based on population and paid for by taxes as such. Residents that pay for the system in taxes must have access to the system in a practical manner.
- Mandate garbage sorting for recyclables at the landfill and reuse/export the materials as necessary. Subsidize post consumer products as needed until it is a common business model.
- Tax all the little plastic crap that costs consumers less than a few bucks but uses precious petroleum that must now be allocated to more necessary uses.
- Tax all petrol based entertainment racing. NASCAR, moto GP, off road, Indy car, short track, drag racing, water sports, all or them: cars, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and boats. Every single needless and excessive use of petrol for entertainment purposes must cost their true value in oil or cease to be.
- Allow airfare to cost the price of the service. Bailing out poorly run airlines only prolongs the end result which is that flying costs too much to be used in the current form.
- Mandate conservation education at all levels of the education system.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Obey Orders or Vote With Your Feet
Careerist officers in the military are not open to questions or suggestions as to how they preserve their retirement checks and follow-on defense industry jobs.
"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He noted that "part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests."
What to do in a Vietnam or Iraq where it is clear you are ordered to participate in an immoral and illegal act that is clearly not in the national interest?
Military personnel are obligated to give their unvarnished, even critical, advice to their civilian leaders, Mullen said.
"If it's followed, great," Mullen said. "If it's not, we only have two choices: obey the orders we have been given, carrying them out with the professionalism and loyalty they deserve, or vote with our feet."
It takes equal amounts of moral courage to make either choice. For a careerist officer staying in is the easy route and speaks to acting in individual interest. Serving the greater good requires placing morals above all else and acting on option two.
Great advice Admiral.
However, isn't the net effect of your "obey or walk" theory just the opposite of an apolitical military? Those who remain are more likely to be like-minded or agreeing personnel while those who are of the "other party" are called upon to separate themselves from the service.
Your advice leaves the Nation with a military that is in fact deeply partisan and is not open to ideas or diversity. It looks much like the military we have right now.
The test for the current military and all of it's self righteous leaders, apolitical by self description only, will come when there is a change in party leadership and the tide for decision making has turned.
Where will senior leaders come from in the years after the likes of Mullen called on all the young talent to vote with their feet because they didn't agree with the civilians in charge? Will the type of leaders who feel "only republicans can lead the military" have the moral courage that Mullen is demanding of today's combat tested military to "obey or walk"?
With the likely hood that Obama will have the Presidency it is an obvious preemption on the part of the military-industrial complex to silence the combat veterans who have paid the price under the Bush administration and keep them from speaking out of the truths they know and stop their participation in regime change within their own country.
The net result of this type of approach to politics and service is a degraded military capability. Rather than assimilation the brass should be seeking and coveting the dissenters as a balance to the group think that got us to where we are today.
"The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times," wrote Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He noted that "part of the deal we made when we joined up was to willingly subordinate our individual interests to the greater good of protecting vital national interests."
What to do in a Vietnam or Iraq where it is clear you are ordered to participate in an immoral and illegal act that is clearly not in the national interest?
Military personnel are obligated to give their unvarnished, even critical, advice to their civilian leaders, Mullen said.
"If it's followed, great," Mullen said. "If it's not, we only have two choices: obey the orders we have been given, carrying them out with the professionalism and loyalty they deserve, or vote with our feet."
It takes equal amounts of moral courage to make either choice. For a careerist officer staying in is the easy route and speaks to acting in individual interest. Serving the greater good requires placing morals above all else and acting on option two.
Great advice Admiral.
However, isn't the net effect of your "obey or walk" theory just the opposite of an apolitical military? Those who remain are more likely to be like-minded or agreeing personnel while those who are of the "other party" are called upon to separate themselves from the service.
Your advice leaves the Nation with a military that is in fact deeply partisan and is not open to ideas or diversity. It looks much like the military we have right now.
The test for the current military and all of it's self righteous leaders, apolitical by self description only, will come when there is a change in party leadership and the tide for decision making has turned.
Where will senior leaders come from in the years after the likes of Mullen called on all the young talent to vote with their feet because they didn't agree with the civilians in charge? Will the type of leaders who feel "only republicans can lead the military" have the moral courage that Mullen is demanding of today's combat tested military to "obey or walk"?
With the likely hood that Obama will have the Presidency it is an obvious preemption on the part of the military-industrial complex to silence the combat veterans who have paid the price under the Bush administration and keep them from speaking out of the truths they know and stop their participation in regime change within their own country.
The net result of this type of approach to politics and service is a degraded military capability. Rather than assimilation the brass should be seeking and coveting the dissenters as a balance to the group think that got us to where we are today.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Is Being A Veteran Enough To Be An Authority on War?
Sen Lieberman suggests that to question Sen McCain's position on war is to question his service and experience.
McCain should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as was Kerry, Murtha, Inouye, Webb and Hagel. None of them were given a free pass to pontificate about the strategy for the Iraq war simply because they are veterans. Nor does the fact that a family member served in Iraq or Afghanistan ease the outcry of dire consequences for the troops from their suggestions.
This nation has a mentality that the war and the troops are one and the same. Mullen's recent comments requiring service members to remain apolitical should serve as a reminder to the civilians of this country that, in theory, the troops have no choice in the wars they are sent to participate in. Their responsibility is in how the wars are fought.
Wars are the responsibility of the civilian leadership and population alone. When a war is unjust it is the responsibility of the people, through their representatives, to do something about it. The armed forces will follow their orders.
Being a veteran should i theory provide a person with insight to the true cost of war. For all the powerful tools present for a US president military action should not be an option until all other means have been exhausted or in the face of a dire situation.
Americans should be aware of the veteran's search for meaning. No one wants their service and sacrifice to be in vain. Admitting that the civilians that sent you to war were wrong (Vietnam, Iraq) can be a hard thing for a veteran who has built an identity on their honorable service in that war.
Some Vets accept reality and move forward from their experience while others harbor ideals and notions and are lost to opening their minds. We should respect past service on its own merit and not confuse that with present and future understanding. Service in a war does not inherently mean knowledge and understanding of all wars.
McCain should be subject to the same level of scrutiny as was Kerry, Murtha, Inouye, Webb and Hagel. None of them were given a free pass to pontificate about the strategy for the Iraq war simply because they are veterans. Nor does the fact that a family member served in Iraq or Afghanistan ease the outcry of dire consequences for the troops from their suggestions.
This nation has a mentality that the war and the troops are one and the same. Mullen's recent comments requiring service members to remain apolitical should serve as a reminder to the civilians of this country that, in theory, the troops have no choice in the wars they are sent to participate in. Their responsibility is in how the wars are fought.
Wars are the responsibility of the civilian leadership and population alone. When a war is unjust it is the responsibility of the people, through their representatives, to do something about it. The armed forces will follow their orders.
Being a veteran should i theory provide a person with insight to the true cost of war. For all the powerful tools present for a US president military action should not be an option until all other means have been exhausted or in the face of a dire situation.
Americans should be aware of the veteran's search for meaning. No one wants their service and sacrifice to be in vain. Admitting that the civilians that sent you to war were wrong (Vietnam, Iraq) can be a hard thing for a veteran who has built an identity on their honorable service in that war.
Some Vets accept reality and move forward from their experience while others harbor ideals and notions and are lost to opening their minds. We should respect past service on its own merit and not confuse that with present and future understanding. Service in a war does not inherently mean knowledge and understanding of all wars.
The Relationship Betweens Troops and Length of the Iraq War
The purpose of Operation Iraqi Freedom has always been reported as that of freeing the Iraqi people (the sole reason Bush still thinks disposing of Saddam is alone enough reason to justify the war) with most all other reasons not standing the test of truth (WMDs, terrorists, Iran, oil).
The interests of the Iraqi people have never been placed at the top of the priority list.
Invasion troop numbers were kept low to decrease losses (politically fatal US troop deaths) and reduce the calls for the draft to boost the ranks (the draft is political suicide). Bush referred the decision to send more troops to the "commanders on the ground" who remained silent of their resource needs. The number one reason for their silence? Asking for more troops would blow the rotation plan out of reason and expose the shortage of resources in the US military.
Better to just keep on getting by than to admit the military needed help.
The history of the surge explains the error in John McCain's position on reducing casualties rather than accomplishing the mission and planning our with drawl.
We went in to Iraq with too few troops to accomplish the military objectives and secure the country properly. When we transitioned from an invasion force to an occupying force we inherited the burden of law and security for the local population (a detestable mission to any combat arms soldier).
Our rules of engagement and internal processes of accountability, however small and inadequate, prevented reluctant US troops from finding and diminishing the threats against the success of our mission. We simply could not identify and kill or capture all the bad guys. They did not wear uniforms to provide positive ID and we collectively did not know enough of the local language or customs to determine the way forward on our own.
The answer to our shortcoming was in the form of creating death squads through the Interior Ministry to do the dirty work that no God fearing, subject to law and UCMJ, honorable American soldier could do without penalty of law.
The aftermath of death squads carrying out the killings and justice that Americans could not was a destabilisation of the Iraqi society. Retribution killings and sectarian violence also flourished in the situation we created that nearly brought the country to civil war.
With a large number of "bad" Iraqis dead or in prison from the death squads the stage was set for the US troop surge to bring order back to the good Iraqis that remained. US commanders finally had higher numbers of troops to provide better security to the Iraqi population. The task shifted to disbanding the death squads and militias we allowed to flourish.
Calling the surge a success is a very USA centric look at a tragic result of Iraqi efforts. Where the US could not provide security the locals formed militias for their own protection. Where the US could not route al Qaeda the Iraqis said enough is enough and stood up to the foreign mujaheddin. Where the US could not train a self sufficient national force (ING, ICDC, IA or other) locals were able to take initiative and support internal forces.
The success of the surge is due to the Sunni uprising (most notably in Al Anbar) against the lawless and counter productive al Qaeda. The success of the surge is due to the security and relative stability brought by local militias who provided the only source of security for most neighborhoods. The success of the surge is due to the fact that America as a force of occupation allowed gangs, mafias, warlords, vigilantes, militias and otherwise normal citizens of Iraq to do the dirty work of killing other Iraqis in ways we could not justify ourselves.
So US forces step in after the bloodbath and violence with the task of killing the killers and we get away with calling the surge a success.
So back to the original statement of "when has Operation Iraqi Freedom ever been about Iraq?" The surge was the result of placing the welfare of our troops above that of the country we occupied. No red blooded American will ever criticize this as wrong. But it is at the root of the issue of how long US forces will remain in Iraq.
So long as the safety of our troops is above the objective of getting Iraq on its feet the negative correlation will continue. In counter-insurgency doctrine it is said that the more protection occupying forces have the less safe they are from threats.
Placing casualty reductions above a plan to withdrawal from Iraq might win McCain some votes as it sounds like a noble intention on TV here in America. However, to the just over 1 million Americans who have actually been involved in fighting the war it sounds more like the promise of a career filled with trips back to Iraq. The only noble cause to stop the repeat tours to Iraq is to commit to actually ending the war.
So who can know the future? Americans are scared of the unknown consequences if we commit to pulling out of Iraq. The best answer I can guess is that the Kurds, Sunni and Shia will continue with their grassroots solutions to a weak central government by retreating along sectarian lines into self determined safe zones. The violence that brings them to a place of relative peace and equilibrium can be fast without a US presence or can drag out as it is now with a small, relatively ineffective US force standing on the sidelines in MRAPs wishing they could do a little more than occasionally contribute to the blood bath.
Iraq will flatten out the death curve. With US support behind the proper parties (Sadr for instance) the killing could be a lot less. There is a lot of Muslim cohesion and nationalism in Iraq that will bind the Iraqis together against the worse case scenario in their minds: permanent occupation by US forces.
Our commitment to ending the occupation as it exists today is the single catalyst that will unify Iraq and start the process of rebuilding that country. America must get past the idea that a Middle Eastern democracy will look like a little America. History tells us it will look much more like a little Iran.
Americans must also stop casting their fears of Iran onto the Iraqi condition. There is no love between the two nations. The history of their disdain for each other spans a thousand years. All relations with Iran at present are simply out of convenience and necessity. Weapons to fight the Americans must come from somewhere. So when the Americans are gone we will see the return of the adversarial relations between the Arabs and the Persians.
A greater outcome of the US withdrawal is the forced action of Iraqi neighbors to stabilize the country. Beyond the refugee crisis which already exists, other mid east countries will feel the need to support Iraq to prevent outbursts from Iran and Israel. The belief that only the US can solve the problems of the world is strictly a concoction of the US media and military-industrial complex.
So long as the reduction of US casualties is our strategic objective in the Iraq war we must then concede that the ultimate way to reduce US casualties is to remove them from the war. McCain's own position is the argument against it.
The interests of the Iraqi people have never been placed at the top of the priority list.
Invasion troop numbers were kept low to decrease losses (politically fatal US troop deaths) and reduce the calls for the draft to boost the ranks (the draft is political suicide). Bush referred the decision to send more troops to the "commanders on the ground" who remained silent of their resource needs. The number one reason for their silence? Asking for more troops would blow the rotation plan out of reason and expose the shortage of resources in the US military.
Better to just keep on getting by than to admit the military needed help.
The history of the surge explains the error in John McCain's position on reducing casualties rather than accomplishing the mission and planning our with drawl.
We went in to Iraq with too few troops to accomplish the military objectives and secure the country properly. When we transitioned from an invasion force to an occupying force we inherited the burden of law and security for the local population (a detestable mission to any combat arms soldier).
Our rules of engagement and internal processes of accountability, however small and inadequate, prevented reluctant US troops from finding and diminishing the threats against the success of our mission. We simply could not identify and kill or capture all the bad guys. They did not wear uniforms to provide positive ID and we collectively did not know enough of the local language or customs to determine the way forward on our own.
The answer to our shortcoming was in the form of creating death squads through the Interior Ministry to do the dirty work that no God fearing, subject to law and UCMJ, honorable American soldier could do without penalty of law.
The aftermath of death squads carrying out the killings and justice that Americans could not was a destabilisation of the Iraqi society. Retribution killings and sectarian violence also flourished in the situation we created that nearly brought the country to civil war.
With a large number of "bad" Iraqis dead or in prison from the death squads the stage was set for the US troop surge to bring order back to the good Iraqis that remained. US commanders finally had higher numbers of troops to provide better security to the Iraqi population. The task shifted to disbanding the death squads and militias we allowed to flourish.
Calling the surge a success is a very USA centric look at a tragic result of Iraqi efforts. Where the US could not provide security the locals formed militias for their own protection. Where the US could not route al Qaeda the Iraqis said enough is enough and stood up to the foreign mujaheddin. Where the US could not train a self sufficient national force (ING, ICDC, IA or other) locals were able to take initiative and support internal forces.
The success of the surge is due to the Sunni uprising (most notably in Al Anbar) against the lawless and counter productive al Qaeda. The success of the surge is due to the security and relative stability brought by local militias who provided the only source of security for most neighborhoods. The success of the surge is due to the fact that America as a force of occupation allowed gangs, mafias, warlords, vigilantes, militias and otherwise normal citizens of Iraq to do the dirty work of killing other Iraqis in ways we could not justify ourselves.
So US forces step in after the bloodbath and violence with the task of killing the killers and we get away with calling the surge a success.
So back to the original statement of "when has Operation Iraqi Freedom ever been about Iraq?" The surge was the result of placing the welfare of our troops above that of the country we occupied. No red blooded American will ever criticize this as wrong. But it is at the root of the issue of how long US forces will remain in Iraq.
So long as the safety of our troops is above the objective of getting Iraq on its feet the negative correlation will continue. In counter-insurgency doctrine it is said that the more protection occupying forces have the less safe they are from threats.
Placing casualty reductions above a plan to withdrawal from Iraq might win McCain some votes as it sounds like a noble intention on TV here in America. However, to the just over 1 million Americans who have actually been involved in fighting the war it sounds more like the promise of a career filled with trips back to Iraq. The only noble cause to stop the repeat tours to Iraq is to commit to actually ending the war.
So who can know the future? Americans are scared of the unknown consequences if we commit to pulling out of Iraq. The best answer I can guess is that the Kurds, Sunni and Shia will continue with their grassroots solutions to a weak central government by retreating along sectarian lines into self determined safe zones. The violence that brings them to a place of relative peace and equilibrium can be fast without a US presence or can drag out as it is now with a small, relatively ineffective US force standing on the sidelines in MRAPs wishing they could do a little more than occasionally contribute to the blood bath.
Iraq will flatten out the death curve. With US support behind the proper parties (Sadr for instance) the killing could be a lot less. There is a lot of Muslim cohesion and nationalism in Iraq that will bind the Iraqis together against the worse case scenario in their minds: permanent occupation by US forces.
Our commitment to ending the occupation as it exists today is the single catalyst that will unify Iraq and start the process of rebuilding that country. America must get past the idea that a Middle Eastern democracy will look like a little America. History tells us it will look much more like a little Iran.
Americans must also stop casting their fears of Iran onto the Iraqi condition. There is no love between the two nations. The history of their disdain for each other spans a thousand years. All relations with Iran at present are simply out of convenience and necessity. Weapons to fight the Americans must come from somewhere. So when the Americans are gone we will see the return of the adversarial relations between the Arabs and the Persians.
A greater outcome of the US withdrawal is the forced action of Iraqi neighbors to stabilize the country. Beyond the refugee crisis which already exists, other mid east countries will feel the need to support Iraq to prevent outbursts from Iran and Israel. The belief that only the US can solve the problems of the world is strictly a concoction of the US media and military-industrial complex.
So long as the reduction of US casualties is our strategic objective in the Iraq war we must then concede that the ultimate way to reduce US casualties is to remove them from the war. McCain's own position is the argument against it.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Why not make a career as a military officer?
MG Geoffrey D. Miller was allowed to retire with rank instead of being demoted and sent to prison for his role in removing the moral base of America in the eyes of the world with his role as the General responsible for tactics at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_D._Miller
He is not the only war criminal from current and past members of this White House Administration but he is a vivid military example of why junior officers are not sticking around.
Junior officers are tired of watching the lower enlisted and junior officers be held to a different set of duty and moral conduct standards than those who out rank them.
Why does this matter America? Young innovators with combat experience, some the best and very skilled, some not so much, are leaving the service at a time where the civilian leadership of this nation are inclined to use military power at will.
How will we win future wars with yes men of mediocrity out numbering the good apples? Junior officers have discovered that even in a peace time Army those who make General aren't necessarily the best of the officers in a particular year group. They are in fact the pick of the litter from those who stayed in long enough.
Innovative, adaptive leaders will not excel in an environment of assimilation and evaluative inbreeding that only rewards time and those who look the most like their boss.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_D._Miller
He is not the only war criminal from current and past members of this White House Administration but he is a vivid military example of why junior officers are not sticking around.
Junior officers are tired of watching the lower enlisted and junior officers be held to a different set of duty and moral conduct standards than those who out rank them.
Why does this matter America? Young innovators with combat experience, some the best and very skilled, some not so much, are leaving the service at a time where the civilian leadership of this nation are inclined to use military power at will.
How will we win future wars with yes men of mediocrity out numbering the good apples? Junior officers have discovered that even in a peace time Army those who make General aren't necessarily the best of the officers in a particular year group. They are in fact the pick of the litter from those who stayed in long enough.
Innovative, adaptive leaders will not excel in an environment of assimilation and evaluative inbreeding that only rewards time and those who look the most like their boss.
Where is the breaking point for gas prices?
Oil prices will continue to climb until demand for cheap gasoline is curbed in all markets.
Fuel prices must get two to three times the current price in order for investments in alternative solutions to gain progress on the scale of cultural change. That's right: $10-$15 USD per gallon. Imagine the impact that will have on your lifestyle and you'll see how only a culture change will start producing results.
A slack in demand from American markets (single digit decline over the last two years) is now already exceeded in demand increases from emerging markets (currently 2m barrels short per day, and growing fast). That means that no matter how much Americans cut back, or buy hybrids, the price will continue to climb.
America is the nation (25% of market) in a place to make the most significant contribution to conservation and that is important by itself. However, markets in the rest of the world must pick up from where we are right now by not starting their economies with the cars and standards of 20-30 years ago.
China and India should not pick up gas guzzlers from GM and Ford to fill their current demand. Highly fuel efficient cars must be the standard for all nations now. America cannot lead by example in this respect when the government and corporations refuse to set such standards as those in the Kyoto treaty.
When the world sees that America is not willing to be accountable or make sacrifices, where do we expect their motivation to do the same to come from? America is the only nation in a position to make this standard work and we refuse to take the responsibility.
Fuel prices must get two to three times the current price in order for investments in alternative solutions to gain progress on the scale of cultural change. That's right: $10-$15 USD per gallon. Imagine the impact that will have on your lifestyle and you'll see how only a culture change will start producing results.
A slack in demand from American markets (single digit decline over the last two years) is now already exceeded in demand increases from emerging markets (currently 2m barrels short per day, and growing fast). That means that no matter how much Americans cut back, or buy hybrids, the price will continue to climb.
America is the nation (25% of market) in a place to make the most significant contribution to conservation and that is important by itself. However, markets in the rest of the world must pick up from where we are right now by not starting their economies with the cars and standards of 20-30 years ago.
China and India should not pick up gas guzzlers from GM and Ford to fill their current demand. Highly fuel efficient cars must be the standard for all nations now. America cannot lead by example in this respect when the government and corporations refuse to set such standards as those in the Kyoto treaty.
When the world sees that America is not willing to be accountable or make sacrifices, where do we expect their motivation to do the same to come from? America is the only nation in a position to make this standard work and we refuse to take the responsibility.
Democratic Iraq? America must demand the same of Israel.
How can politicians demand that Iraq maintain a secular and democratic constitution against the will of its majority when the same government and politicians are ranting at the AIPAC meeting that Israel must remain a Jewish State with an undivided Jerusalem?
This hypocrisy is the source of motivation for the modern Jihad and also pays respect to the generations of thinking that got the world in this mess to begin with.
As goes Palestine, so goes the global effort against extremism. Extremism is Muslim and Jewish. Both types must be addressed. The candidates for President of the US all made clear that the favored and unaccountable position of the Israelis will not be changed.
In the modern strategy for the Middle East no other country is afforded the privileges of the Israelis. If this were not so then Iraq would have been divided among ethnic groups in 2003 and we wouldn't have the mess American soldiers have been left with today (we would have a whole different mess, however).
Change one can believe in is not the continued placement of the nation of Israel above international standards. Candidates pander to the AIPAC in stronger language that they ever used toward any internal American cause.
When will America accept International Law and recognize human rights and then in turn demand that its allies do the same.
Progress against extreme Islam will never be made so long as the countries providing the driving force continue in their policy of radicalizing their antagonist.
This hypocrisy is the source of motivation for the modern Jihad and also pays respect to the generations of thinking that got the world in this mess to begin with.
As goes Palestine, so goes the global effort against extremism. Extremism is Muslim and Jewish. Both types must be addressed. The candidates for President of the US all made clear that the favored and unaccountable position of the Israelis will not be changed.
In the modern strategy for the Middle East no other country is afforded the privileges of the Israelis. If this were not so then Iraq would have been divided among ethnic groups in 2003 and we wouldn't have the mess American soldiers have been left with today (we would have a whole different mess, however).
Change one can believe in is not the continued placement of the nation of Israel above international standards. Candidates pander to the AIPAC in stronger language that they ever used toward any internal American cause.
When will America accept International Law and recognize human rights and then in turn demand that its allies do the same.
Progress against extreme Islam will never be made so long as the countries providing the driving force continue in their policy of radicalizing their antagonist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
