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.

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.

"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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“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.

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.

(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.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.