"Win the peace"...

Bang, reality strikes again:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Five U.S. soldiers were killed and five others wounded Friday afternoon when an explosion ripped through a Humvee in eastern Baghdad, a U.S. military spokesman said.
…………………………………….
The deaths bring the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to 825 since the war began, including 605 in combat. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/04/iraq.main/index.html
By the looks of it the Humvee is really quite a crappy vehicle in Iraq. But the violence hasn’t seemed to have stopped in Iraq. Although in Iraq things are getting more restive, and that scares me to a certain extent. These new Iraqi forces (as stated in the article) are taking over the reigns from the US in Najaf. But are they effective? If the 100 police men who ran away in Southern Iraq, and certainly some of these Iraqi forces are dualistic in their motives, and loyalties. If the Iraqi’s are unable to secure security (on their own), and disregarding the interim govt in Iraq, there will be problems.
 
Al Q is at it again:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two suicide car bombs detonated Sunday morning killing eight Iraqis and wounding 48 others near a coalition base north of Baghdad, according to Iraqi police Brig. Gen. Jamal Abdulla.
-----------------------
A statement from the Unification and Jihad Group, posted on an Islamist Web site, said two Iraqi "martyrs" blew themselves up in attacks on the base and an adjacent Iraqi police station.
------------------
The statement said bombers targeted the police station because the officers there were "working hand-in-hand with the crusaders and the occupiers."
------------------------
Meanwhile, a convoy attack Saturday near the Baghdad airport killed two Polish civilian contractors and two Americans, and left another slightly wounded, according to Polish officials.
--------------
The Polish contractors were employees of Blackwater Security Company, according to the Polish Charge D'Affaires in Iraq, Tomasz Gielzecki.
-----------------------
Four Blackwater employees were killed and their corpses mutilated by a mob in Fallujah, Iraq, on March 31.
----------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/06/iraq.main/index.html

Three things about this article, firstly we have a new name in the lexicon of the American invasion “game” the UJG, or “Unification and Jihad Group”. Seems to be an affiliate of OBL’s Al Q. The second thing is about the targeting of Iraqi security forces, it is a stroke of genius for the insurgency, but could blow up in their faces if they aren’t careful. To make too many Iraqi’s victims will make the insurgents look bad, and they will lose popular support. But in response the attacks against the Iraqi security forces should cause much apprehension from an Iraqi society to join these forces. In order for this “war” to be successful for the US she has to make the Iraqi security forces truly relevant and powerful in face of the insurgency. It’s not unlike that of Afghanistan this situation, central governmental authority is lacking in Afghanistan and the Karzai govt is dependant on the US and NATO for its mere survival. Like in Afghanistan Iraq could quickly compartmentalize if Iraqi’s are unable to provide security for themselves and then create the stage for a civil war (which looks like it may happen anyways). Thirdly we have the thing with these contractors/mercenaries in Iraq. I’ll leave that to your imaginations.
 
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) – The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a resolution on the June 30 transfer of power in Iraq.
------------------------
"There were some who said we'd never get one," President Bush said of the resolution earlier Tuesday during a photo opportunity at the G-8 economic summit in the southern U.S. state of Georgia.
--------------------------
He called a free Iraq a "catalyst for change" in the Middle East.
--------------------
The most recent draft of the resolution makes clear that the interim Iraqi government will have the authority to order the multinational force to leave at any time.
-----------------
Late Monday, a last-minute compromise offered by the United States got a positive reaction from France and Germany.
--------------------
The U.S. change addresses concerns over control of the multinational force in Iraq and says an Iraqi committee will work with the force to reach agreement on security "including policy on sensitive offensive operations."
----------------------
In remarks Tuesday to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said "the significance of the resolution is really to take away the concept of occupation, which I would say is the reason for many of the difficulties we've been going through since liberation on April 9."
---------------------
He said the resolution will enhance the government's legitimacy.
--------------------
"It will not be seen as purely an American-led administration."
---------------------
On subject of the need for coalition or multinational forces in Iraq, Zebari said: "We need these forces. It is an Iraqi need, more than an American or coalition need. The consequences would be catastrophic."
-----------------------
Zebari said "withdrawal would create a vacuum and we, the Iraqis, are not ready to fill it. There would be the possibility of a junior Saddam coming up again."

Let’s start on this one shall we, this resolution is very important because it does to a certain extent legitimatize the plan for a transfer of power, the occupation is still illegal mind you, but the transfer of power is now officially endorsed by the world community. This is a victory for the administration, but I believe one that simply came too late. This administration has already bungled the Iraqi experiment. The problem as I have constantly said is the idea of giving the Iraqi’s some semblance of control over foreign troops is one full of pot holes. If this interim govt council wants to seem legitimate it has to stand up to the US for real. I wouldn’t be surprised when another large insurgent period begins, and American forces begin to use overwhelming firepower against cities, the population of Iraq will start to mumble of getting rid of the occupation. If this interim govt stands a chance it has to not seem to be a US puppet and represent the interests of the Iraqi ppl. Giving power now to the interim govt is risky business. This new govt needs legitimacy, and although a UN resolution helps significantly it won’t be enough in this context. Also the occupation force will still be US lead, which imo a very big mistake. But overall it is good news...
 
Article Source: Washington Post
Article Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html
Article Title: "Ashcroft Denies Senators '02 Memo," by Susan Schmidt
Article Date: June 9, 2004

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee heard from Attorney General John Ashcroft that he will not release the full text of a 2002 policy memo regarding the legally acceptable degree of pain and suffering endured by suspected terrorists during interrogations. Mr. Ashcroft also told the committee that he knew of no presidential order that would allow al Qaeda suspects to be tortured by American personnel.

Angry Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Ashcroft to provide the document. They said portions that have appeared in news reports suggest the Bush administration is reinterpreting U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the memo on interrogation techniques permissible for the CIA to use on suspected al Qaeda operatives "appears to be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions against it." The document was prepared by the Justice Department's office of legal counsel for the CIA and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales . . . .

. . . . Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has taken a tough line against terrorism suspects, alluded to the "high dudgeon" of his Democratic colleagues, saying he wanted to "interject a note of balance here.

"We ought to be reasonable about this," he told the crowded committee room. "I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."

Bush, Schumer told Ashcroft, "can hardly be blamed for asking you or his White House counsel or the Department of Defense to figure out when it comes to torture, what the law allows." But, Schumer said, the debate and decisions should be public.


Source: Washington Post

Comment:

Schumer has a point, on the one hand. It is good to ask around and figure out what you can do if you absolutely have to. To the other the issue is broader than that simple question. What has the Judiciary Democrats so upset is that every appearance seems to be, as Feinstein has it, a question of whether there was an effort to redefine torture and the limits. Some of the known language of the Justice memorandum appears to justify the use of torture, despite Bush administration and Justice Department declarations condemning torture. Mr. Ashrcroft went so far as to say, "I condemn torture. I don't think it's productive, let alone justified."

It's enough of a statement that I'm willing to hold him to it, though I wonder what the brouhaha is about if torture isn't productive. If it isn't productive, the Justice Department would not have any need to advise the president that torture may be justified and that international laws against torture may be unconstitutional. What's the point? "Okay, Mr. President, you're all clear to use an unnecessary, non-productive techniques in case you're so inclined."

I'm not sure that's a license you want to give to a president whose God tells him to invade the country that tried to kill his Daddy after his Daddy invaded them.

Cheap shots aside, I am concerned at the notion that, while they were looking, various parts of the executive decided that torture might just be okay, and that our Constitution could not necessarily stop it. Of a related controversy swirling around the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, we read:

, , , , the class of those unprotected by the Geneva Conventions includes not only well-known leaders thought to have information about terrorist attacks, but also any person suspected of being an Al Qaeda or Taliban member . Effectively, the logic of Yoo's memo strips all persons deemed to be possible terrorists of Geneva Convention protections (unless, as in Iraq, the President has specifically deemed the Conventions to apply).

Human rights attorneys have complained that Yoo's Geneva Conventions argument, with respect to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, is not only wrong, but, in their view, specious - a misreading of the law. They have also noted that Yoo's memo ignores the protections of an important treaty that the U.S. has ratified: The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.


Source: Writ

It's the idea of misreading, rewriting, reinterpreting, or otherwise distorting the boundaries of acceptability that has Senate Judiciary Democrats--and others--fuming. In deference to Schumer's sage advice, it might then be phrased that the White House only undertook the necessary exploration of figuring what the boundaries were in order to bend over backwards to stretch them even broader, render them even more faintly in the windblown dust.

At some point, though, the whole thing seems ridiculous. None of this should be surprising; leaks, editors, partisans and pundits alike have been hinting after this situation at least since the beginning of the American War on Terror. It continues to feel as if the headlines are being recycled because, in our rage following 9/11, we looked right past them the first time.
____________________

Works Cited:

• Hilden, Julie. "Did a Government Lawyer "Aid and Abet" Possible War Crimes By Writing a Crucial Memo?" Writ, June 8, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040608.html
• Schmidt, Susan. "Ashcroft Denies Senators '02 Memo." Washington Post, June 9, 2004; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html

See Also

• Priest, Dana and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture." Washington Post, June 8, 2002; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
 
"We ought to be reasonable about this," he told the crowded committee room. "I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."

Unless, say, you have principles. How many human rights treaties say "unless you really, really have to. .". Given that anyone arrested* for terrorism can be thought to have information that may save thousands of lives, this seems a bad idea. Given that people have been arrested for enquiring about the arrests of other <a href="http://web.amnesty.org/pages/usa-190803-action-eng">detainees</a> and given that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15492-2004May10?language=printer">70-90% </a>of the people detained in Iraq are likely innocent and given that the admin shouldn't be trusted to take care of a house plant, I think this is an atrociously bad idea. How 'bout we don't torture anyone. Ever.

* or nabbed, more accurately, since arrests involve quaint little things like courts and lawyers and rights.
 
Article Source: New York Times
Article Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/international/middleeast/14ABUS.html
Article Title: "Unit Says It Gave Earlier Warning of Abuse in Iraq," by Andrea Elliot
Article Date: June 14, 2004


Read it while it's hot!

Beginning in November, a small unit of interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison began reporting allegations of prisoner abuse, including the beatings of five blindfolded Iraqi generals, in internal documents sent to senior officers, according to interviews with military personnel who worked in the prison.

The disclosure of the documents raises new questions about whether senior officers in Iraq were alerted about serious abuses at the prison before January. Top military officials have said they only learned about abuses then, after a soldier came forward with photographs of the abuse.

"We were reporting it long before this mess came out," said one of several military intelligence soldiers interviewed in Germany and the United States who asked not to be identified for fear they would jeopardize their careers.

The Red Cross has said it alerted American military commanders in Iraq to abuses at Abu Ghraib in November. But the disclosures that the military's own interrogators had alerted superiors to abuse back then in internal documents has not been previously reported.


Source: New York Times

Well, okay. The issue is not going to go away. But the link will, after a few days.

Comment:

This isn't surprising. One need not be clairvoyant to have figured this likely. As the facts come out, we should not be surprised. Drip-drip-drip ... George, thy cup runneth over.
____________________

• Elliott, Andrea. "Unit Says It Gave Earlier Warning of Abuse in Iraq." New York Times, June 14, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/14/international/middleeast/14ABUS.html

Note: Registration required for New York Times links.
 
Undee,

The HUMVEE is a great vehicle. However, it is NOT designed to take bomb blasts. It is not a tank, its a general 4x4 transportation vehicle. I suggest you go for a ride in one, theyre are alot of fun :)
 
The HUMVEE is a great vehicle.

Yes for camping, it seems it sucks ass in war.

However, it is NOT designed to take bomb blasts.

Seems kind of stupid doesn’t it? I mean it was supposed to replace the M-113’s as a military vehicle, and I thought (I may be wrong) that military vehicles should be able to withstand a bomb blast?

I suggest you go for a ride in one, theyre are alot of fun

The great Satan can wait…
 
Undee,

The HUMVEE was designed to replace the Jeep and the various dodge pickups the military was using, not the 113. The closet replacement for the 113 would be the Bradley. Personally I like the 113's alot better than the Bradleys. There is more room in side and some of the Bradley guys think that the bradleys are tanks *lol*
Also, the 113's have a much smaller profile.
The 113's would get smoked just like the HUMVEE's in the majority of these attacks. The insurgents are using Artillery rounds and a 113 wont have a chance. If you want a armored wheeled Vehicle we have the Stryker's but I wouldnt ride in one.
 
The HUMVEE was designed to replace the Jeep and the various dodge pickups the military was using, not the 113.

My bad…

The 113's would get smoked just like the HUMVEE's in the majority of these attacks. The insurgents are using Artillery rounds and a 113 wont have a chance. If you want a armored wheeled Vehicle we have the Stryker's but I wouldnt ride in one.

Firstly, at least with the 113 you would have somewhat better chance of surviving. If generals are calling for the 113 to come to replace the HUMVEE something is wrong with the HUMVEE. About the Stryker, why wouldn’t u ride in it?
 
More bad news…but this time from Afghanistan the neglected vassal:

As Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, visits Washington, security in his country worsens. Many now doubt whether NATO can make voting in September’s elections safe beyond Kabul without more troops
------------------------------
But in his Washington visit he told his hosts that more NATO soldiers are needed (though he said on Monday that he would not specifically ask for American troops), so that his Kabul government can assert its authority beyond the city limits. Without them, the delayed parliamentary elections, currently scheduled to take place in September, might have to be postponed again.
--------------------------
Rick Hillier, the Canadian general in command of ISAF, told NATO ambassadors this week that the September elections might have to be postponed for a second time. He worries that the polls, which are supposed to provide a new political dispensation for Afghanistan, might fall prey to warlords and criminal gangs, “determined to protect their fiefdoms”, as he puts it. Some of the parties who will contest those elections share his concerns. In a recent report by the International Crisis Group (ICG), a well-informed think-tank, Sebghatullah Sanjar, the liberal leader of the Republican Party of Afghanistan, complains that “young parties like ours won’t be able to take part in the election if ISAF is not expanded to ensure our security outside Kabul. Obviously, we can’t compete with provincial governors who have guns.”
-------------------------------
Despite these flaws and Mr Hillier’s warnings, however, a second delay in the elections seems unlikely. After all, Mr Bush has an election of his own to fight in November.
------------------------------
Meanwhile, efforts to build an Afghan national army have spluttered from the beginning. The minister of defence, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a Tajik, is in charge of building a force that, it was hoped, might number 40,000 troops. But Mr Fahim initially stuffed the army with his fellow Tajiks. The Americans have since widened the recruitment drive, but with limited success. Only about 7,500 have been enlisted. And not all of those who sign up stay for long. Last summer, 10% deserted
--------------------------
The warlords, including those, such as Mr Fahim, who sport ministerial titles, are predictably reluctant to disband the militias that provide the real basis of their authority. But the Americans too find the militias useful for their own purposes.
----------------------
In a country such as Afghanistan, law and order must be backed by force of arms. But that force is hopelessly dispersed among the American counter-terrorists, the ISAF peackeepers, the Afghan militias and the ragtag army. If the defining characteristic of a state is the monopolisation of violence, Mr Karzai heads a state lacking all definition.
--------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2764329

Interesting, Afghanistan is in more of mess then the mute media leads us to believe. The country is still controlled by the sword, and it’s not an American or nationalist Afghani sword either. So what now? The election in Afghanistan was supposed to be in this month believe it or not? So what happened to the inevitable train of democracy? Is this what we should expect in Iraq?
 
Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10281-2004Sep9.html
Title: "A Failed Investigation"
Date: September 10, 2004

A DAY OF congressional hearings yesterday confirmed two glaring gaps in the Bush administration's response to hundreds of cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The first is one of investigation: Major allegations of wrongdoing, including some touching on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials, have yet to be explored by any arms-length probe. The second concerns accountability. Although several official panels have documented failings by senior military officers and their superiors in Washington, those responsible face no sanction of any kind, even as low-ranking personnel are criminally prosecuted. To use the phrase of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), this "is beginning to look like a bad movie."

Mr. Rumsfeld has frequently boasted of the number of Pentagon investigations into the abuse scandal and has maintained that no others are necessary. Yet the senior officer in charge of one of those probes, Gen. Paul J. Kern, told the Senate Armed Services Committee of two major areas that remain unexplored. One is the Army's accommodation of dozens of "ghost prisoners" held by the CIA and deliberately hidden from the International Red Cross in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Army regulations . . . Gen. Kern reported that the CIA had flatly refused to provide his team with information about the ghost prisoners or their handling -- prompting Mr. McCain's acerbic comment . . . .

. . . . Gen. Kern also acknowledged that the Pentagon has never answered the critical question of how harsh interrogation techniques promoted by Mr. Rumsfeld and other political appointees at the Pentagon and the Justice Department "found their way into documentation that we found at Abu Ghraib," the notorious prison outside Baghdad. As Sen. Lindsay O. Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out, those techniques were "way out of bounds"; "inappropriately" classified memos, he said, show that professional military lawyers opposed them from the beginning because "they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, they violated international law and they would get our people in trouble."


Source; Washington Post

An editorial critical of the Bush administration's handling of the Abu Ghraib scandal represents the latest crisis of leadership that bears absolutely no weight with the American people. With every piece of bad news that comes in, Bush's poll numbers go up.

The Post editorial stings, picking at ghost prisoners, memoranda including improper holding and interrogation techniques, and also the Bush administration's reluctance to hold senior officers accountable: senior commanders, knowing of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, are not facing the courts-martial seemingly reserved for the low-level soldier. Despite General Kern referring to Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez as "a hero", Sen. John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Kern and his associates to reexamine the cases of certain senior officers, and pledged to investigate the ghost prisoner stories.

And the editors have their ideas for the future:

The best solution is that recommended this week by eight retired generals and admirals, including a former U.S. commander in the Middle East: an independent commission like the one that which studied the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The former officers said the panel was needed "to investigate and report on the truth about all of these allegations, and to chart a course for how practices that violate the law should be addressed." As yesterday's hearings showed, the Bush administration has failed at both those tasks.

Source; Washington Post

This is disturbing in more than one way. Not only has the Bush administration shown that Bush's third-attempt (third-tier) apology is insincere, and the words of comfort and pledge of justice given to the Iraqi people was mere lip service, but the American people seem to eat it up. The cultural testament of a society so addicted to warfare that one can raise their poll numbers by sanctioning war crimes is discouraging at least.

This is not the way to win the peace. This is not the way to any Pax Americana. This is not a solution to the War on Terror. This is a farcical tragedy of the most garish mode. Once again, we see the need to throw fuel on the fire in order to keep passions burning.

I wonder if Mr. Bush has figured out yet why "they" hate "us".
____________________

• Editorial. "A Failed Investigation". Washington Post, September 10, 2004; page A28. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10281-2004Sep9.html

See Also -

• Graham, Bradley and Josh White. "General Cites Hidden Detainees". Washington Post, September 10, 2004; page A24. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8946-2004Sep9.html
 
What kills American soldiers in Iraq? Here’s your answer:

The sophisticated weaponry and training of the U.S. military are sometimes no match for a soda can bomb detonated from a distance by a garage door opener.
--------------------
Homemade bombs in Iraq, known as IEDs, or improvised explosive devices, have reshaped aspects of warfare in Iraq...A study done under the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority earlier this year concluded that IEDs were one of the major sources of injury and death of U.S. service personnel in Iraq.
--------------------------------
IEDs are "the most common casualty producing weapon" in Iraq, said Metz, who served with the Army 75th Ranger Regiment and was a trainer at the Ranger school at Fort Benning, Ga.
---------------------
The jury-rigged explosive devices have been concealed in everything from ready-to-eat meal boxes to animal carcasses and can be detonated by cell phones, pagers and remote control toys.
------------------------
The devices are growing increasingly sophisticated, Metz said.
-----------------------
"What the situation now is that they are digging underneath the berm. The road looks just like road you drove to work on."
-----------------------------------
Those who plant bombs sometimes burn a tire to melt the pavement so that the device can be pushed directly into it, leaving no sign. Empty vehicles are increasingly used as containers. and IEDs are thrown from overhead passes or wrapped in plastic bags to look like roadside trash. Because they can be detonated remotely, convoys won't see any people hovering around to warn of possible problems. Sometimes, multiple explosives are rigged in a "daisy chain," wired together so that a single signal will detonate all of them.
--------------------------
But the increasing craft of those who make and plant the bombs has turned them into formidable weapons.
----------------------------
In July, 15 of 58 deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq were directly attributed to IEDs.
--------------------------------
A Coalition Provisional Authority study of a 90-day period that ended in December found that U.S. forces in Iraq suffered 708 attacks involving IEDs, and 298 of those IED attacks caused 718 casualties, more than those injured by rocket-propelled grenades and mortar rounds combined.
--------------------------
GlobalSecurity.org...reported that 40 percent to 60 percent of all attacks on U.S. forces begin with an IED.
-------------------------
"If they had an anti-tank missile, they'd use that," he said. "IEDs are things that can be made on kitchen table. It's a little harder to make an anti-tank weapon in the kitchen."
-------------------------
After more than two decades of warfare, Iraq is jam-packed with the raw materials and the expertise for bomb-making.
---------------------------
As of early 2003, it was estimated that there were more than 10 million mines in the ground in Iraq. The guts of a bomb are at nearly everyone's fingertips, and becuse the other components are everyday items -- batteries, nails, cell phones, electronic devices, wires -- there are few obstacles to building cheap, effective bombs.
-----------------------
But the risk of IEDs is only going to increase, he said.
---------------------------
When the United States troops arrived last year, the Iraqis "were on their hind heels," Metz said. "Now the people who were running for their lives are coalescing. There is popular support [for resistance] more than it was when the war started. There are a lot of disenfranchised police, officers. The threat is more dangerous now than it was at the beginning of the war."
---------------------------------
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040829-iraq-danger.htm

I emphasized the last portion for good reason, there is popular discontent with the US occupation in Iraq. America the greatest military force the world has ever known, is being tamed by bombs we could all make in our homes! The absurdity of that statement symbolically shows the callousness and absurdity of this whole adventure in Iraq. What I’ve noticed is that Iraq for the US may be a very bad thing in the long run. Unlike in the Cold War, insurgents cannot count on the USSR to provide the support needed to destroy the US’ will to fight. Now instead we have a country like Iraq who has millions upon millions of scattered munitions, and people who aren’t afraid to use them. The fact that the US today is facing an enemy that totally self-sufficient says a lot about the future of warfare. I would advise the US to reconsider any further idiotic actions like Iraq, because Iraq is a cake walk compared to what would happen in Iran. You know over time drops of water can erode a rock…think about it.
 
The Bleak future of Iraq:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A highly classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by some of the government's most senior analysts this summer provided a pessimistic assessment about the future security and stability of Iraq.
-----------------------------
The National Intelligence Council looked at the political, economic and security situation in the war-torn country and determined -- at best -- the situation would be tenuous in terms of stability
--------------------------------
At worst, the official said, were "trend lines that would point to a civil war." The official said it "would be fair" to call the document "pessimistic."
---------------------------
The intelligence estimate, which was prepared for President Bush, considered the window of time between July and the end of 2005.
-----------------------------
The estimate contrasts with public comments of Bush and his senior aides who speak more optimistically about the prospects for a peaceful and free Iraq. "We're making progress on the ground," Bush said at his Texas ranch late last month.
----------------------------
Senate Republicans and Democrats on Wednesday denounced the Bush administration's slow progress in rebuilding Iraq, saying the risks of failure are great if it doesn't act with greater urgency.
-------------------------------
It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond embarrassing, it's now in the zone of dangerous," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, referring to figures showing only about 6 percent of the reconstruction money approved by Congress last year has been spent.
------------------------------
But Hagel said the shift in funds "does not add up in my opinion to a pretty picture, to a picture that shows that we're winning. But it does add up to this: an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble."
--------------------------------
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration -- what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd,' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," Lugar said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent."
----------------------------
Schlicher said the department hopes to create more than 800,000 short- and long-term jobs over two years, saying, "When Iraqis have hope for the future and real opportunity, they will reject those who advocate violence."
----------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html

This raises so many more questions then it does answers, the biggest question is how can Americans say that Bush handles Iraq better then Kerry would? Honestly now it is getting to the point of retardation, and I cannot believe that literate human beings would not see the reality of the situation. Are Americans so confident in their abilities, that they have forgotten the folly of that way? When Iraqis have hope for the future and real opportunity, they will reject those who advocate violence." Well sir you need security first, security comes before any economic development, that is the basic prerequisite of development, all else comes second. Unless America starts re-think her position in the world, change leadership, and understands that this war is unwinnable (because it’s not even a war in a sense) America will have many years of Iraq left.
 
We have no idea how Kerry will handle Iraq; that's part of the problem. I'm sorry, but I can't settle for an "anybody but Bush" approach to dealing with Iraq. Is it f'ed up? You bet. Could it be worse? FAR. Your own post shows it -- "trend lines that point to civil war". That means things could be worse than they are right now.

Kerry is full of contradictions and lack of plans when it comes to Iraq. He says we haven't sent enough troops there, and he would send more, but he also says he would end the "back door draft" of guard/reserve duty. How does he intend to resolve this contradiction? And what's the point in even sending more troops anyway if you're just going to pull them out in six months regardless of the situation there?

I give Kerry some leeway on this issue for the simple reason that it's difficult if not impossible for Kerry to give us a detailed plan for Iraq. The enemy is listening, and all that. But the logic of the situation is such that I really don't see a lot of options here that are substantially different from what Bush is doing right now. If he's just going to reverse everything because he's "different from the last guy", that's not a good enough reason for me. I need more.

So Iraq is not a deal-breaker for me in terms of whether or not I will vote for him. But I'm willing to debate the issue anyway because to me the above post looks way too focused on "ABB", not solving the problems in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see the argument there, if we all agree that Bush’s handling of Iraq is horrible then why do we want to prolong it? Wouldn’t it be more logical to have a change in policy in the White House? How can Kerry honestly hope to spell out a plan that will actually fix the situation in Iraq that doesn’t involve “pull out?” The problem in Iraq transcends Democrat and Republican in the sense that this is a war against the US not a party. It is true that Kerry needs to get a position on this and stick to it, but we must remember that this debacle was a result of Bush not Kerry. This is a position of anyone but Bush because he has shown himself to be completely incompetent, and it looks like on the verge of dementia. How can one say that they would rather vote for Bush on Iraq when empirical evidence shows he’s a bull shitter? You must understand elections are full of talking points on both sides, and just because they utter something doesn’t mean is it going to happen. I don’t think Kerry is this great president in the making, but he is surely better then Bush. We gave Bush about two years to fix the situation, he’s failed. Time for a new tact.
 
Oh I'm sorry, you wanted to make an ABB stump speech, and here I am interrupting you to talk about the future of Iraq! My bad, I thought this was the World Events board; I didn't realize it was actually the Politics board. ;-)

I don't think we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. But as with your point about the handling to date, it's not really the issue. The issue is the best way to handle it from this point forward.

Put another way, if the Democratic candidate for president was Satan, and his plan for Iraq was a purge, say, all the Sunnis, then throwing Bush out would hardly be a step forward, now would it?
 
But as with your point about the handling to date, it's not really the issue. The issue is the best way to handle it from this point forward.

What are you talking about Pangloss? It has everything to do with it; Bush says “stay the course” has that course worked? Are you telling me Bush’s handling of Iraq is irrelevant? Because that’s what you just did, all you care about is the future; well the future is in the past. No matter what Kerry does, or Bush for that matter, they cannot control Iraqi’s so really their “plans” are irrelevant. The question is who would have more respect to get the US out?

Put another way, if the Democratic candidate for president was Satan, and his plan for Iraq was a purge, say, all the Sunnis, then throwing Bush out would hardly be a step forward, now would it?

Let’s avoid the hyperbolic idiocy please…
 
I don't have a problem with you suggesting that another candidate might be better at the job. I have a problem with you saying that *anybody* else would automatically be better at the job. That conjecture is not supported by your own assessment.
 
Back
Top