The news out of the Middle East has been hot and heavy during this, the final week of year five in the Iraq war.
And it comes at a time when interest in the war is waning, according to a survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center. The center's recent poll found that only 28% of the public knows that nearly 4,000 Americans have died in the war. The survey also revealed that the number of news stories that are about the war have also dropped in recent months.
Symbolically, perhaps, the former top British commander in Iraq said that winning the hearts and minds in Western-occupied nations, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, is an impossible goal. Addressing an international security conference in Stockholm, Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb challenged the mantra that we have often heard, saying that, among the people of any occupied country, were "some who need us, albeit for a short time, others that will accommodate us, albeit for a short time, and others that will hate us simply for all time."
In further news, Navy Admiral William J. Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, resigned on Tuesday, one week after the publication of an Esquire article by Thomas P. M. Barnett, that was said to have annoyed the president.
Fallon had never been a "yes" man for the Bush administration. He has pushed for an accelerated reduction of our forces in Iraq and has been in constant opposition to the positions advocated by Army General David Petraeus who, unlike Fallon, was described in the Esquire article as "eager to please" his commander-in-chief.
But Fallon's main opposition to the policies of the administration seem to have involved Iran. The passage in the Esquire article that may have particularly irked Bush, Cheney and company was this:
"...well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way."
On the day before Fallon's resignation, the administration, in fact, did renew its drumbeat of accusations against Iran. Much of the information presented, however, was described as having been "gleaned" from Iranian detainees, which may mean that it was obtained during interrogation sessions involving torture. On Wednesday, the efforts of Congress to ban waterboarding fell by the wayside when the House failed to override Bush's veto of legislation that would have outlawed the torture of detainees.
Meanwhile, in the Iranian parliamentary elections on Friday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reported to have won strong support, riding on the wave of his popularity for being Islam's principle critic of the United States and its policies.
Capsulizing the news from west to east through the region, it appears that President Bush will become the latest in a long line of U.S. presidents to see his efforts at promoting peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians go for naught. Hopes for a cease fire were dashed when Israel conducted a raid into Gaza, killing five men identified as militants. Of a more serious nature, however, was Israel's approval of the construction of additional housing in the West Bank, a move that was described by a senior Palestinian official as "another slap in the face of the peace process."
Fellow Gather writer, Alan Waldman reports in his latest article that a Time/CBS poll found that "A pessimistic 70% of respondents believe Israel and its Arab neighbors will NEVER be able to 'settle their differences and live in peace.'"
In Iraq, this week, one roadside bomb killed 16 in Najaf and a series of additional attacks, including more than a half dozen this weekend, have left more than 40 casualties in their wake.
Further to the east, in Pakistan, a pair of suicide bombs, this week, killed 24 and injured scores of civilians, including children, in the eastern city of Lahore. In other Pakistan news, the government sharply protested an across-the-border missile attack by U.S. forces which allegedly killed four civilians.
As for the war itself, last week was the bloodiest for U.S. forces in months. The Department of Defense released the obituaries of 13 military personnel killed in Iraq, ranging in age from 21 to 33. Ten of the heroes (77%) were felled by improvised explosive devices.
According to the web site www.icasualties.org, U.S. deaths in Iraq now stand at 3,988, including one whose family is being notified today.
The Department of Defense also released the obituaries of two soldiers, ages 25 and 38, killed in Afghanistan.
Total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan were 419 as of March 8, according to the Pentagon.
None of the soldiers killed by roadside bomb attacks on their vehicles this week were riding in the new blast-resistant vehicles known as M-RAPS.
This coming Wednesday evening (Iraq time) marks the fifth anniversary of the bombing and subsequent invasion of the country.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 60
W. also made an interesting comment on live video to some troops in Afghanistan, which those troops seriously resented.
"Rafsanjani, who was handily defeated by Ahmadinejad in Iran's 2005 presidential election, gained about twice as many votes as a cleric considered to be the president's mentor, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi. Yazdi will retain a seat in the assembly but most of his allies failed to gain enough votes to be elected to the 86-member clerical body.
Such results are being viewed as a stunning defeat for Ahmadinejad, who was facing his first test of popularity in the December 15 elections.
Some observers suggested that the results indicate a rejection of the "extremist policies" by the Iranian president."
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/12/a2b68f48-0826-40ec-a196-5df742e49616.html
Iran is a threat as they repeatedly said that they want to continue with their atomic program. Now I do not share your conclusions that the administration wants war with Iran as they understand that the majority of Iranians are pro western and attacking them would unite them behind little A. Our beef is not with the Iranians but with the current leadership and in my opinion the administration understands that it will be better to wait them out since little A keeps loosing support.
What did Bush say Ron?
The problem in Iraq is that our soldiers are not police
or social workers.
I'd still like to know what you propose to do Dave, I guess
just leave right?
Fallon had never been a "yes" man for the Bush administration. He has pushed for an accelerated reduction of our forces in Iraq and has been in constant opposition to the positions advocated by Army General David Petraeus who, unlike Fallon, was described in the Esquire article as "eager to please" his commander-in-chief."
David, It is clear that you don't have a clue about the concept of "chain of command". Commanders give orders and subordinates carry them out. Questions about orders are discussed in private (after requesting "permission to speak, sir"), not on the pages of Esquire.
Adm. Fallon forgot that, in our form of government, the civilian leadership makes policy and the military carries out policy. Now that he has resigned, Fallon is free to run for office, and, upon election by the people, he can set policy as a civilian.
I don't need to point out We are NOT at war in either Iraq or Afganistan. We are in an Occupation. An illegal occupation I might add. We need to pull out of both countries immediately and leave Iran alone. Iran has done nothing to us and is planing nothing that would harm us. Get the fleet out of that gulf and quit trying to provoke an incident.
Any order to attack Iran would be Illegal unless and untill War is Declared By Congress.
The powers of the Comanmder In Chief are limited.
As far as the Iran election is concerned the LA Times reported today under the headline "Iran Vote Favors Ahnadinejad," the following, and I quote"
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's populism and attacks on the west trumped criticism of his handling of the nation's financial crisis as results released Saturday indicated that the hardline leader had won strong support in parliamentary elections."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
In 2006 Iraq officially asked to extent the multinational mission in Iraq. This was unanimously approved by the UN as resolution 1723 and is in place as long as the Iraqi want it – nothing illegal there. Check your facts man…wonder who is full manure?
The people who's interests Bush et al represent are not defined either by citizenship nor by ethnicity but by wealth and what they own and control. They are the same people who made a lot of money off of the Iraq war. They are the same people providing the private services that make the Iraq war so profitable for them. They stand to make a lot of money in an Iranian war, even though American prestige, American international standing and American insterests will suffer from an attack on Iran.
And that attack will come, probably sooner than later. I would say that the end of the year is not the deadline for this, but the end of April. The end of the year is too late, it is after the American election.
A new war with new trumped up "evidence" of a threat to America (the words "mushroom clouds over American cities" will likely be spoken on CNN by members of the administration before long) and new proclamations of patriotism, invocations of the memory of 9/11 and accusations of disloyalty for dissent before the election is what the fascists behind the current White House want.
They want this in the hope that they can sway voters to return a Republican to the White House again (and they have other tactics in the pipeline as well). They want this so that they can perhaps even declare a state of emergency and cancel the November election if it looks like they will lose it. This would be a historic constitutional crisis for the USA, but we are far past the point where that would give these people pause.
What you are facing, internally in the USA, is nothing less than the biggest threat to freedom in the world since the rise of Hitler's National Socialist Party (Nazis).
Assuming it is anything other than that is dangerous, but it is what they are counting on.
I hope and pray to God that I am dead wrong. I don't think for a moment that I am.
The very idea that the Bush Administration understands anything is hard to fathom, though his cronies sure understand how to get rich off of the blood of our troops.
Since Bush should already be tried as a war criminal, his legacy will sink to a new low (it's already in negative territory) if he does invade Iran.
Impeach Bush and leave Iran alone (which doesn't mean ignore them, but it means don't carry out unprovoked first strikes).
I do know, however, that US attacked Iraq because US leadership hated their leadership and after "calling for" the people to overthrow him which doesn't work too well with a dictator like Sadam, and giving them... oh a couple of months to accomplish this, US attacked with "shock and awe" all over the citizens of that beleagered country.
As the sixth year of hopeless, non-progressive WAR, I am not refusing to say "we" when I talk about what the US has done. This is no longer the country my father gave his life for.
I believe we will not have an election due to some sort of "incident" that will allow martial law to be declared and the election to be "postponed." I pray to God I'm wrong, but that's what seems to be coming next. GW forever. That should help us all get our "interest" back... but it will be too late. May all the Rebulicans that have stedfastly refused to override the prez's vetos be the first to be jailed for whatever Bush doesn't like that day.
1) Hitler was elected.
2) He had "good" reasons for invading Poland and Hungary.
3) The world appeased his aggression until it got so far advanced that the threat of conquest was visible to anyone.
4) Bush was elected
5) He had "good" reason to invade Afghanistan, and Iraq.
6) Resistance to continued aggression by the USA is mounting.
We, the people of the United States do have the power necessary to stop this idiocy but not yet the will. If we do not exert that power soon, we will be as dominated at the Germans were when World War II broke out.
You too Karl. We had the chance and muffed it but we have one more Ron Paul Needs to serve as our President.
The truth is this administration, based on their actions, is dedicated to two goals. First is to make sure the country is in such bad shape financially that if a Democrat gets in there he will be unable to do anything. Second, the goad of imperial dominsaton is clearly evident only they want to accomplish that without actually taking over a country. Just kill the leaders who disagree with Pax Americana and we can have all thte characteristics of an empire without the logistic problems of having to actually govern, feed, protect, etc. that goes with normal empire.
The persons leading into this honestly believe it is the best thing for this country and the world! In actuality, we should be protecting ourselves and freeing ourselves from dependence on Mideast oil or any other commodity jeopardizing this nation's economy or security.
Someone mentioned Iran and Iraq attacking the United States. When would this be, in the year 2200? These nations have a long way to go to actually be in a position to challenge America with anything but terrorist actions. They could invade us about the same time as pigs will fly!
But, make no mistake about it, as long as we are hung over from consuming the Mideast oil, they can raise hell with us and our economy. I've held it against every president since Carter that they did not start addressing this problem when it was seen in the oil embargo while Carter was president. It was apparent to most all Americans and the leadership was missing in action!
If Bush tries anything it will probably be bombing attacks as we don't have the troops available to invade Iran at this time. Also, I have high hopes that whoever the general is in charge, they will resist an attack on Iran at this time! Any such military action at this time will only serve to complicate the mess that is the Mideast, even more.
Also, an interesting viewpoint from north of the border, Rory. Consistant with your outlook, when an attack on Iran previously seemed to be on the front burner, it was pointed out by a researcher that the details in the military budget required that the retrofitting of the big planes so they could handle bunker-busting bombs had to be be completed by the end of April and it also called for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be brought back to its maximum level by the same deadline.
I also said, and he agreed, that this was a war just like Vietnam. My husband refuses to believe that people were saying this at the time.
Thank you, Dave, for keeping these issues front and center. It's easy to become desensitized after five long years.
I suppose it's the "romanticism" of war that makes the idea of starting yet another one so appealing...
Private polling of the populace suggests anything but popular support for Mr. A. as well.
Thanks for reminding us of the numbers, Dave. While policy doesn't seem to be changing, at some point numbers MUST make people think.
"W. also made an interesting comment on live video to some troops in Afghanistan, which those troops seriously resented."
You mean that Keith Olbermann missed a good opportunity to slam the President? I don't believe it.
Link me to the video, Ron.
"The plan is to manufacture a 'Tonkin" incident, declare war and a state of emergency, suspend elections and implement martial law."
You're as kooky as always. But at least on this thread you don't have the opportunity to use Censorship. I'm sure that really burns up a Leftist like you, who can't stand to have his wacky opinions challenged. Bummer for you.
Fact, little A continually says he wants to continue with his Uranium enrichment program. Now why he needs high end equipment to be able to enrich weapons grade uranium is something he has trouble explaining. People are tired of his chest thumping and what is completely being ignored is the theory (hey everyone else gets to have one) when we kicked Saddam's butt within a few weeks little A took notice. He stopped his program after we kicked Saddam's butt, when we were strong and united.
All this infighting is only playing in his hands. He knows we "can't" do anything now so he is standing tall taking on the evil empire. And of course the left fully agrees with him. Listen to you guys bush is evil the wealthy are evil but the guy that's actually causing the ruckus..well he is just misunderstood. How about expressing some anger and resentment towards little A? He is single handedly causing this. He was offered a free light water reactor. He was offered free disposal of spent rods (now there was a great deal…get the benefits of nuclear energy and don't have to get your hands dirty) and he snubbed his nose at all that. Yet we are the bad evil people…now that's the part that's sad…
Frankly, I wouldn't make it very long although probably longer than persons in really heavily populated places! That's why I think it is so important to utilize everything possible including nuclear, drilling in the ANWR and off shore, hydrogen, solar, wind, hydroelectric, tides and anything else possible to advance this cause.
And that is why I feel it should have been done twenty some odd years ago! The only alternative I see is to actually invade the Middle East and hope to hell that we win and quickly, take over and start extracting their oil, making it our own, to support our lifestyles and desires, both civilian and military. While we are at it we could invade Argentina as well. Frankly, I don't see that as a viable alternative. To allow our country to continue to be so dependent on any third world country to supply us with a strategic resource, is both irresponsible and short visioned.
Another consideration, is that there will be undesirable nations acquiring nuclear capability before long. Are we going to invade them all? And what is China and Russia going to do while we engage in our colonialism?
I'm an old man and won't have to worry too much and not for long, but I have 12 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren. The bills for all of this, and I'm not just talking financial, are going to fall to these young people. I'd like to leave them in a more advantageous position. We can afford all the wars we want as long as we are putting them on our grand children's account. Nothing is too expensive if I can outlive the incoming bills! But that's patently unfair to those who fallow.
We could talk about Tennessee beating up on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Oregon.
There was no UN agreement to invade Iraq, there WAS, the coalition of the willing, the rest of the world, refused to signon to that orchestrated murder. Though the Bush/Hitler comparisons are getting old, there IS NO DIFFERENCE in Hitler's reason/action invading and occupying Poland, and the US invading and occupying Iraq.
If there were an actual war going on in Iraq, there would be an enemy of the USA. Just who the hell is the "enemy of the USA" in Iraq? The Iraqis? Why, because they dared to live in the country of their birth?
The constant chant of al-Qaeda ad nauseum, is bullshit. An important and telling report was released, yet buried in the back pages of newsprint....nearly 100% of "foreign fighters" in Iraq are SAUDI ARABIAN. Bush squawks on and on about Iranian fighters killing American soldiers....I'll bet there are some, but the majority are his friends people...the SAUDIS...you know, just like the majority of the 9/11 bad guys.
I cringe when I hear Bush/Cheney/McCain et al talk about staying in Iraq until the war is "won". What is to be "won"? Who is the "enemy" that the US must defeat?
The entire killing spree in Iraq doesn't meet the criteria for being a WAR.
Are the "insurgents" the enemy? If your neighborhood was blown to bits by a foreign nation, and your family was among the survivors.....would you roll over and give up your home or would you kill as many of the invading bastards as you could get? Roll over and your a coward, come out shooting and your an insurgent.
Clear enough why this is an illegal occupation of a country that posed NO THREAT to the USA, by a country without reason to invade.
Maryanne R., above, comments on the possibility of the Bushins bombing Canada and Mexico, but concludes that America's closest neighbours are probably safe for their lack of oil.
In actuality, Canada is the number 1 source of oil for America. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scoita and Newfoundland are all oil producing and exporting provinces.
The people who's interests Bush et al represent are not defined either by citizenship nor by ethnicity but by wealth and what they own and control. They are the same people who made a lot of money off of the Iraq war. They are the same people providing the private services that make the Iraq war so profitable for them. They stand to make a lot of money in an Iranian war, even though American prestige, American international standing and American insterests will suffer from an attack on Iran.
I believe that if the Bush administration has their way there will be a 'romantic' interlude with Iran.
All of these conflicts that are said to be about one thing, are really about something else ... and the "dark" occult, that many would call evil, is really the larger part of it all, because the REAL God is all about unconditional Love ...
The middle east, and especially Iraq, is the cradle of our civilization, and though the most apparent (surface) objective factors such as democracy, oil, power and control are at issue and spoken of ... deep below, and so much MORE important, are the truths around the genesis of mankind itself and our long term future as to who and what will control us all ... the elephant in the room, is the spiritual truths being avoided (and too often lied about) ... IMnsHO.
Victor - grab an m-16 and an ass full of ammo and truck on over to Iran ... geez. Never heard of anyone wanting to become a hero so badly.
Reading comments from some of the pro war members on Gather, do you know the meaning of disinformation?
Claim, correction @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/
Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians "taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back." Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: "Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known. And it's unfortunate."
It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who was traveling with Mr. McCain as part of a Congressional delegation on a nearly weeklong trip, that Mr. McCain corrected himself.
"I'm sorry," Mr. McCain said, "the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda."