US forces in Iraq will peak at around 170,000 next month and GIs in the new units are being told they could be on operations for at least 15 months. The US has told the British it is considering introducing a limited military draft if it is to keep its present force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Americans and their ally are in a quagmire in Iraq. They cannot go forward, nor suddenly pull out, for fear of triggering a major regional war. Both London and Washington face the issue of forces and equipment reaching exhaustion point by this time next year.
US-led operations in Iraq appear to have reached yet another turning point with the American commander, General David Petraeus, due to hand to Congress a report on his latest strategic thinking. He appears to have given up on the so-called 'surge' which has brought an extra 21,000 US troops. According to reports from Baghdad, the surge has failed because the Iraqi government and forces were not prepared to fulfill their promise to back it.
Gen Petraeus's plan B seems to focus on 'soft' power, getting the combatants inside Iraq - with the exception of al-Qaeda groups - to talk to each other and their sponsors in the neighbourhood, principally Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and its allies.
Now that Tony Blair is leaving office, the British may adopt a more rapid withdrawal policy from Iraq. The majority in Congress seem to be focused on how to achieve an exit strategy.
"I think the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall."
"We can no longer support an endless occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan."
These recent quotes come from conservative Congressional supporters of the war, Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Jeff Sessions (R- Alabama), respectively.
Dialogue with Iran
The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, met his Iranian opposite number, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, for four hours last Sunday.The current US-Iran talks were described as the first "high- profile" talks for 28 years. Perhaps this indicates that the United States may adopt a more realistic policy toward Iran.
The meeting was reported to be businesslike . Though the two sides agreed to a re-match of the meeting, it is clear they are still far apart. The US has been formally warned by Tehran for running spies and saboteurs in Iran's border provinces. Crocker warned Iran against arming the Shia militias and other extremists in Iraq.
Washington's European allies have long thought it an anomaly that the US and Iran have no relations and conduct business through the Swiss embassy in Tehran.
The Senate intelligence committee last week released a version of the National Intelligence Council's January 2003 study which argued that Iran would be willing to tolerate a US presence for a short time in Iraq if its own security interests were taken seriously. Once Saddam fell, the study said, "the degree to which Iran would pursue policies that either support or undermine US goals in Iraq would depend on how Tehran viewed specific threats to its interests."
The debate on Iran in Washington has gone on for more than five years. There is still a sharp division within the administration regarding engagement with Iran. Mr Crocker's predecessor in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, was twice given the go-ahead for talks similar to Sunday's but the White House changed its mind under the influence of Dick Cheney. In 2001 the Iranians and American started secret talks in Geneva prior to and after the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which they worked together effectively to achieve. The Americans were represented then by our subsequent ambassadors in Iraq, Khalilzad , now at the UN ,and Crocker.
Iran has demonstrated for more that a decade it has sought regional stability and security in its interest. It abandoned the goal of exporting its revolution to its Persian Gulf neighbors at the end of 1980s and has since acted as a status-quo power. It seeks influence within the existing regional power structure. It improved its relations with its Persian Gulf neighbors throughout the 1990s, and normalized relations with Saudi Arabia.
In 2003, the Iranians made proposals for an agreement with Washington that would have restored diplomatic relations in return for security guarantees and US pressure on Israel for a lasting settlement with the Palestinians. The Iranians agreed to recognize Israel, resolve any issues concerning their nuclear energy program and their relations with Hizbollah. The Americans turned it down.
Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador , had a complex task in the latest talks with Iran. He had to square various factions in Washington by appearing tough on the Islamic republic while not closing the door on future meetings. The American hawks believe Tehran only responds to pressure and the sole virtue of sitting with them is to give lectures on what they should do. The US military in Iraq has been periodically tasked with feeding the press information, alternately blaming the Iraqis for not cooperating and Iran for interfering. The US military spokesman recently gave a presentation to reporters in Iraq about "shaped charges" that were being supplied from Iran , although without evidence as to who was supplying them. A few minutes search on the Web revealed that shaped charges are almost as old as the Gatling gun, and are easily available to anyone who has the money and contacts, which the resistance in both Iraq and Afghanistan most certainly have. Anyone who wants to know more about shaped charges can tune into the National Geographic or the Discovery channels. There they showed in graphic detail how the charges are made, how they work and then proceded to demonstrate them. One interesting part of the program was the latest results on research on how the defence mechanism incorporated in tank armor is made, used and functions.
On Sunday, the Iranians came up with proposals for trilateral Iranian-Iraqi-US cooperation. Iran has benefitted from having its chief enemies, the Taliban and Saddam removed. It in now more concerned about Iraq's collapse into civil war and regional chaos. Iran has a friendly government in Baghdad thanks to the US and does not wish to see it fall.
The American pressure on the UN, Europe , Russia , China and other nations to apply sanctions on Iran has not found the support hoped for. Most nations do not consider Iran a threat to its neighbors and although they are concerned with nuclear proliferation they recognize Iran's right to develop nuclear energy. The gross distortions of speeches by Iran's hothead President, suggesting he called for "wiping Israel off the map," have been voiced by American and Israeli politicians and repeated ad nauseam in the media, largely for an American audience. Supreme Leader Khamenei, who determines foreign policy, has made it clear Iran is no threat to any nation, unless attacked. Iran has 15 neighbors on its borders, more than any other nation and it has invaded none of its neighbors for over 200 years - one of the "cleanest" records among nations.
Iran is demonstrating a policy of enagagement on several fronts. Iran's overtures toward the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, were highlighted by the announcement that Iran is prepared to resume full diplomatic relations with Egypt. This announcement was made when Ahmadinejad visited the United Arab Emirates .The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This was Iran's response to US Vice President Dick Cheney's tour of the region and his warning that the United States will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons or to dominate the region, Simultaneously, Tehran announced that it had accepted the United States' invitation for direct talks between American and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad.
A wise engagement policy with Iran will require patience and a change in the style and content of American diplomacy in order to create a suitable environment and remove the walls of mistrust. The administration cannot propose negotiations while at the same time calling for regime change and talking of Iran as part of an “axis of evil” or the “central banker of terrorism” and pressuring other nations to create regional alliances to reduce Iranian influence.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 80
Although I do find it disturbing that the likes of Esfandiari have been detained...as well as the previous detainment of the British sailors which they used as propaganda tools b parading them daily on Iranian TV during their captivity.
The cold truth is that if the surge fails, Iraq is a failed state. It'll probably turn into another Mogadishu. There's really no other option but what we're doing and a genocidal mess. I really hope the surge works, but I'm increasingly having my doubts. If our best effort (surge) fails, we might as well pull all of our troops out because there's no chance of rectifiying the situation, so why leave our troops in. Unfortunately, it seems like if (or what seems like increasingly when) we pull out, the violence we've seen for the last 4 years will seem like a happy time in Iraq.
The Brits papers have put out about the Pentagon advising the Brits that the US was considering a limited draft. In some frontline UK infantry battalions the rate of officers applying for early retirement is as high as 17 per cent.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/22/MNG7QPV65N1.DTL
I don't for a moment believe that the neocons will back away from war with Iran. They've been salivating for 30 years at the chance to unleash their wicked agenda upon the world, and I refuse to believe that, having come "this close" to their Utopia moment, they're going to suddenly succumb to rational thought.
There are two very powerful forces motivating these criminals. One is the neocon agenda, which called for invading and occupying the entire middle east, beginning with Iraq, and then flowing out to Iran, Syria, Kuwait, and even Saudi Arabia. Secondly, is the Christian dominionists, who also control a significant part of this filthy administration, and who have literally begged for an all-out, region-wide war in the middle east, so that sweet, smilin' Jayzus can suddenly appear in the fluffy clouds above and whisk them all away. SOMEBODY should definitely take them away.
At this point, the only hope for peace and stability in the region is for the US to leave Iraq, and for the entire region to become involved in stabilizing and putting that country back together. Unfortunately, that is not part of the neocon's, nor the dominionist's agenda.
While reading your article (much of which was unknown to me), I realized that the rest of the world is justified in hating us.... It's sad but true. I can understand and empathize with the countries that think we're a bunch of idiots. While I may seem like a traitor or lacking pride in my country, I think I have to say it : I'm ashamed of the U.S.
We have so much going for us but it is all used in the wrong ways. Our leaders are stupid. They make the enemies that we are fighting in the Middle East. Why can't we all just get along?
Now think of two nations who do not share the same items: background, culture, etc.. When the talks have ended both will continue to serve their own best interests and perceived interests of their people. Idle promises and bogus agreements equate to NOTHING.
I challenge anyone to show me where diplomacy has solved ANY major conflict without FIRST there having been a victor in battle. People become diplomatic when they've had their butts whooped. The losing side always becomes diplomatic.
The biggest reason America is looking at diplomacy is because the war has become unpopular with its citizens (this is losing). A standard dicta of war is that it must be "popular with the people" for a nation to stand any chance of winning. We have all ready lost the war in Iraq. It is only a matter of time before diplomacy sends our soldiers home......DEFEATED. War is not about how many lives are lost on either side. It is about who achieves their objectives.
Napolean said, " The victors write history." Think about the future repercussions for the West when Iraqi (all middle-eastern countries) history books read of the Iraqi peoples great victory against the world's greatest military power....appears to be a great way to fuel future acts of agression towards all Western culture.
Responsible people with any intestinal fortitude would not leave this legacy to their children or grandchildren........they will be forced to deal with this same enemy again. This enemy will be even better organized, have acquired better weapons and greater military might. Quite an inheritance to leave for our future generations.
Regards, Achara
Let's see...while Bush was lying his way into the illegal war in Iraq, against a nation that posed us no threat, North Korea was openly mocking him and threatening us, while admitting to being in the process of building WMD. If any nation was justified of attack, based upon Bush's ridiculous mandate of wars of aggression, it was surely N. Korea, rather than Iraq.
Iraq, absent any diplomatic efforts and relying totally upon military muscle, is a disaster and nowhere near becoming stable. North Korea, where the US ignored military options and opting for purely diplomatic avenues, is dismantling its nuclear program.
As all the dubious propostions of the Neo-Cons are revealed to be flawed and naive, the nation may have to fall back on doing the right thing.
What a reversal for this corrupt and dangerous administration.
Lainie is so right. There are so many reasons we have given other countries to hate us. Most people just do not realize that there have been two faces to our government since WWI - the face they show the public and media, and the other face that does the bidding of the few in real power. Why is the American public so blind to this? Why are they so quick to judge Iran as part of an "axis of evil"??
The British, Americans, and Russians have spent an entire century causing upheavals in that country, trying to control its oil, supporting puppet monarchies who would do their bidding, regardless of how the people fared under these despots (and they did not fare well). Is it any wonder that they are overly sensitive to the US strong-arming them again, now that they have secured a bit of autonomy and level of education/industrialization?? I don't blame them for wanting to secure some level of a nuclear arsenal that would at least give them some credible leverage against such intrusion again.
I don't know if it's that the American public is blind to it or if they are just afraid to speak out... I know that I watch what I say when I'm in an audience that I'm unsure of. When Bush was first elected, if you spoke against him or his actions, it was considered unpatriotic and you didn't value being an American. The word "treason" was also used! Now that the tables have turned and Bush is less popular and the war is even less popular than Bush, it is almost safe to say that I'm disappointed in America. That I question our status as a Super Power. That I disagree with the actions taken by the people in charge....
I love our country, but realize that we have some serious faults and need to be honest about them or people think we're actually evil. It's bad enough for the public at large not to admit to this, but when they actually go out and start condemning other countries for trying to protect themselves from this undercover meddling, I get pretty upset.
I'm no fan of Iran's President myself, but it is a totally different country than Iraq. A good portion of the Iranian population is educated. We actually helped them become educated in nuclear engineering at MIT not too long ago and were supporting their nuclear efforts!
Either we are:
1) extremely ignorant to this information, or
2) schizophrenic paranoid; or
3) knowledgable, but trying to play dumb and rewrite history.
Really fine article.
It is quite telling, I think, that despite nasty labels like "axis of evil", there is really no evidence Iran has done much of anything wicked in all of this. Even the loudmouth "president" was badly mistranslated for our "shock and awe". We see him speaking passionately, a voice over tells us he is calling for the destruction of Israel, and we believe we heard him say that. What he called for in reality, was the end of the ZIONIST state of Israel, not the place or people.
We are such suckers.
I'm so pissed off I could shit a goose.
How long can we tolerate this nincompoop who calls himself President?
Democratic Congress=Capitulation
You are not POTUS and probably never will be. His decisions are made off of information, 99% of that you will never see.
Your judgements are made off of news reports that show the 15 dead Soldiers, but ignore the 150 dead insurgents. What about all the schools being built and the IP and IA being trained. What about the Kurdish region where the people govern themselves. What about Iraqi elections, clean running water and electricity.
Wake up and realize the news has their own agenda.
Well excuuuuuse us for buying into that whole self governance dealeo.
Dissent is the purest form of patriotism. If you don't like it, you're living in the wrong country.
And, specifically what "wrong information" are you referring to? I'd love to see what you've got on that claim.
"His decisions are made off of information, 99% of that you will never see."
You mean like his decision to ignore the numerous threats and warnings about an impending attack, prior to 9/11? Or, his decision to illegally invade a nation that had nothing to do with terrorism or 9/11, and that posed us no threat whatsoever, while at the same time allowing those who actually attacked us to go free? Nice decisions.
That's funny. Pretty much every time I hear a news report from Iraq, I hear how many soldiers AND Iraqis have been killed.
"What about all the schools being built and the IP and IA being trained."
It's a beautiful thing, ain't it? Raw sewage in the streets, electricity still not at pre-invasion levels, IP and IA members kidnapping citizens and murdering them at will, etc. Lovely stuff.
"What about the Kurdish region where the people govern themselves. "
You mean that area where Turkey has been threatening to invade and begin a war? Sweet stuff!
"What about Iraqi elections, clean running water and electricity."
Yeah, those wonderful elections, where nobody knew who was even running, because none of the candidates dared to announce running, for fear of being killed, and where the US refused to allow the elected president to take command, and actually handed the seat off to "their guy" instead. Nice "democracy."
As for "clean water and electricity," take a little reality check for a change.
"Wake up and realize the news has their own agenda"
No shit. Their agenda was to help your boyfriend launch his illegal war, and then do everything possible to keep the truth from the public, in order to shelter him from impeachment and conviction on war crimes charges.
"What about the Kurdish region where the people govern themselves. "
I think you need to look at the recent reports coming out of this area. The Iraqi Kurds are under attack from Iraqi Arabs who do not want the Kurds to claim sovereintly over their oil-rich region. Turkey is the least of their problems at this point. The US has unleashed sectarian hatred, retribution, struggle over resources by toppling Sadaam.
,
A man with courage, giving HIS life for your LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS is the purest form of patriotism.
I'm still waiting for someone to state when diplomacy ended a major conflict without FIRST there being a victor in battle.
Stating Bushed lied about WMD to get America into this illegal war with Iraq, a country that posed no threat to us has no merit. It makes no differences whether he lied or spoke the truth NOW. All leaders, from ancient times to present, are full of dynamic deceit for wealth and power. The names change, yet leaders and warring countries will forever be a neccessity in life.
Determining the legality of war are delimmas of nations subjective to weaker nations and in servitude of false humanitarian ethics of the U.N.
Gutless cowards would consider North Korea's mockery, threats and admission of building WMD as a "major" conflict with the U.S. (Same to considering Powell, Clark, etc. as "true" generals). The confrontation is merely postponed, not due to diplomacy, but posturing of both sides. It is not over and possibilities of war is always eminant. Should one believe pure diplomatic avenues dismantled North Korea's nuclear program, join Owl and the rest of wretched preys en route to the pithing pen.
The 'attitude' that has gotten us just what we have in this world so far ... and the idea that the only way out of it is to kill all who would disagree ... some future we have with that way of thinking.
Even to reduce the military presence to 20,000 could not be done by air (nor can the present forces be maintained by air). Supply and exit has to be by land, namely the road south, which the Iraqis know they could close. There are perhaps a 150,000 foreign contractors that would have to leave, and many, many Iraqis who have worked with the occupiers- they would be killed if they stayed. It would take quite a long time to reduce the troops et al.
Jerry K.,
The necessity of adopting a clear political policy engaging other nations has been clear for several years. By the way, to maintain the current forces by air is not feasible . Logisticians have noted for a long time that air supply could do achieve no more than 25% of what would be sufficient.
Jerry,
I'm having a hard time following your train of thought????? I'm curious, since both sides seem to have a lock on the ever precarious "essence of truth" why don't you share with me, and others why your "facts" should be considered more truthful than those who oppose your point of view?
The facts are, none of us know the "facts" and purporting to, only makes you look foolish.....everyone involved on both sides of this issue have their own agenda and "perspective". At the end of the day, none of these perspectives amount to $%#@! If you want to know the "truth", the only thing that matters is victory........ I just have a hard time understanding why so many are rooting for the other side, then stand on their soap box and try to use cute little quotes to convince others that their "dissent" is somehow "patriotic". You may well believe the war is "not right" and you may proclaim it to all you meet, but the "truth" is that "your side" is looking for every little thing you can to root against your very own country??????
We have a choice. We can take the gloves off and destroy our enemy (it matters not, at this point if WE created him or not) or we can continue on with this war at the same rate we have to this point......... Continuing on at our current rate, we will get exactly what you and so many others are hoping for, retreat and ultimately defeat.
It is best that you and your open minded cohorts, who always seem to abhore labeling, avoid putting me in with any political group......I don't like George Bush.....I don't like Hillary Clinton......matter of fact, I care for very few people in general (and find it sad that so many pretend to care about EVERYBODY) and really can't think of any politician who I trust, or with whom I share any of the same values, but the people I do value and care for (namely, my children) stand to lose the very most.
While you wish to dwell on what a "Black hole" exiting will be and the terror and destruction that will follow......I look at the "perspective" we should be the Carriers of the death and destruction. We should bring "Hell and Damnation" to the other side.......For Christ's sake, you folks find it easier to deal with our own countrymen's death upon exit, than you do to even think about the same result for all the foreign "innocents" (by the way, there is no such thing as innocents, much like there is no "legal" or illegal" wars).
I see most opinions are based on the facts we choose to use in our arguments.Quite simply your "facts" are no more "factual" than those of the opposing sides. I hope never to start hurling statistics to back my views. I like to think that my views are based in the only real facts.......The laws of nature and the "ultimate" Human drives.....Power, Money, Land.....(actually each begets the other) and the drives to procreate, eat and protect the ones we REALLY care for and the things we have worked to claim ownership over.
I will await the retorts of those who are "moral", and those who will label me yet again as a war "monger". Truth is truth...we will win or we will lose. I will bet your "morals" will not allow us to do what needs to be done to win (not just this war, but any war). Your unwillingness to do "what it takes" to win this war and leave your countrymen to die, the least noble way a soldier can...retreating...... is proof that you, are a COWARD. Often the word coward is disguised by such terms as "enlightened", "moral", "socially conscious", "intellectual" or one of my all time favorites, "diplomatic".
" At the end of the day, none of these perspectives amount to $%#@!"
If that is how you feel, then shut the hell up. You are saying in plain English that it's a game to you, a simple contest of words.
You can doubt that others are fully functional human being that have things like integrity, compassion, and the ability to reason beyond their own preferences all you like. If I were a morally challenged person, no doubt I would have great difficulty believing others were really seeing and feeling things which were invisible to my mind. We realize such beings exist, for we can see that part of ourselves just fine. But we cannot pretend that is all we are, so the "cripples" can feel whole.
Americans are psychopathic . They think that 1 in 100 women are.
I think your numbers are rather high. I've heard 4% (1 in 25) and that really seems to jive better with what we see in terms of truly amoral behaviour. Perhaps the definitions are varied, for I think many are essentially caught in states which produce partial moral blindness in specific ways. True absence of compassion is thank God, an anomaly still, I think, and not a minority.
I don't accept many definitions of conditions by doctors or psychologists and psychatrists as being "real". I have found the 1 in 10 to be supported by quite a few.
Phyllis, you are tooo funny!
I am glad to hear that you do not subscribe to any 'party' ... but you sure 'sounded' like a far right winger 'to me' ... them being the ones that so see things in black or white terms, just like their leader(s) (even (and especially) their religious leaders) ... it is 'those' that so seem to support the 'proud warrior' attitude of kill them over there before they get us here ... and also the idea that all against war and killing a good share of the world, are the cowards ... it just could be the 'other' way around ... it is the most fearful that are so inclined to kill others, the real cowards ... and to feel 'right' about it, call each other 'heroes' and place high honor upon it all ... too many John Wayne movies me thinks. Some morals ... but to each their own ... live by the sword and die by the sword ... as you seek ye shall find ... enjoy.
And now to refresh my poor memory (being humble just for you) I will check your comment again so as to not miss your requested answers ... but first I must address the matter of 'facts' more carefully ... what I was referring to about that is that it is the far righties (as you 'seem' to be) that so want to 'debate' everyone here on Gather ... but using only 'their' facts (which they usually prefer to believe is the 'only' truth ... always a very limited (conservative) view of very narrow mindedness) ... typically calling the liberals all of the nasty names that really apply to themselves ... it is called 'denial' and 'transference' ... sort of a 'mirror' confusion.
As for the 'essence' of truth ... no, surely the right has no lock on 'essence' because about all they use is the literal shallow brief meanings of everything, the objective exoteric ... they understand not at all, and thus reject any real 'essence' where real truth lies.
Now I am not 'defending' the far left counterparts here necessarily, because I value more a central position on things ... what the right usually calls 'secular progressives' in error, because their 'seer' Bill O'Reilly tells them so ... and they damn well will never listen to any view to the left of him.
And of course your one sided view shows that you get it from that source, because it is an outright lie that all who are against the war are for the losing of it and against our troops ... that is just a bunch of crap typical of the spin from the no spin FOX types ... and too damn dumb to either recognise or admit it. You folks tell each other that BS so much that you seem to come to actually believe it ... how NOT smart can that be ?
So in a nutshell ... first we begin a 'war' for all of the reasons your 'folks' (oh, sorry, 'you' are not one of 'them') gave ... and now we must utterly destroy however many it takes to WIN, because loss is not an option for such prideful people that can never do any wrong ... ?
The 'black hole' comment is in reference to the fact that the more we fight them (short of killing them all as you suggest) the more they hate us and the more they attempt to kill us ... and the withdrawal will only be done with their grace because our only seaport is the one we entered at and the Iraq's pretty much can control the path to it if they so desire ... without their 'permission' it would be a vicious fight all of the way out of the country ... and at the rate our 'leaders' in DC are going ... I would not be surprised if they gave us one hell of a 'sendoff' to 'teach' us a lesson ... probably deserved, like it or not.
I might add here also, that your view of mankind is quite negative as you have stated ... you do not credit mankind with any INnate spiritual commonality that results in the opposite of your negative view ... given half a chance. That view held by you is what causes wars and perpetuates them ... it is a very fearful view that sees the universe as dark and malevolent ... and of course according to you, any that believe otherwise are just loony deluded lefties ... or whatever derogatory 'label' you can come up with ... your reality is quite bleak ... there are better choices IMnsHO.
And your last sentence or so just shows how little you know about or value enlightenment and such ... you my friend have an awful lot to learn.
Are you asking about the military logistics of supply and exit? This has been written about by quite a few logisticians . The 25% figure seems accepted by most. My primary source is usually the War College in Carlisle, PA. As for the number of foreign contractors, this has been discussed by many . Jeremy Scahill has a recent book on this, and many interviews about it.
I just love that word 'Logisticians'. Sounds so much better than 'logistic experts' or some such. I too make 'em as I need 'em.
I'll trust the Proffessionals.
Americans are psychopathic . They think that 1 in 100 women are."
Clark M.: I agree John Knight's comment reveals a psychopathic feminine characteristic and as a non-typical woman, have some compassion for him at the least.
and Jerry K.: "you my friend have an awful lot to learn"
Another cute little quote of error. Our disagreements pertaining to seeking an exit strategy from Iraq, does not make me your "friend" nor does it show how much wiser you are than I or anyone else who disagrees.
"The 'black hole' comment is in reference to the fact that the more we fight them (short of killing them all as you suggest) the more they hate us and the more they attempt to kill us ... and the withdrawal will only be done with their grace because our only seaport is the one we entered at and the Iraq's pretty much can control the path to it if they so desire ... without their 'permission' it would be a vicious fight all of the way out of the country ... and at the rate our 'leaders' in DC are going ... I would not be surprised if they gave us one hell of a 'sendoff' to 'teach' us a lesson ... probably deserved, like it or not."
This just validates MY belief that there are many males TODAY who piss standing up, "intellectually discussing" problems and more willing submitt to everything rather than fight to keep their balls.
I will end my postings to this article because I've hurt and angered so many eunuchs in waiting for "permission"with my bleak view of man's degenarating NATURAL instinct to survive, defend and protect himself, his family and property.
Furthermore, it 'sounded' like a man like you here describe :
" ... males TODAY who piss standing up, "intellectually discussing" problems and more willing submitt to everything rather than fight to keep their balls. ... "
More 'correctly,' to let 'others' do the fighting while they intellectualize the 'need' ... to get the enemy 'there' before they get 'us' here ... BUT, now I realize that you are just a fearful woman that NEEDS a real man to get them there before they get YOU here ...
Yes, I agree with you again ... (even if you do not want to be friendly) ... WHAT IN THE HELL IS THIS WORLD OF OURS COMING TO ... WHEN ALL OF THE MEN WILL NOT RUSH TO WAR TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES AND BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO SO ... because the neoCONS instruct them to ... ??? ... the eunuch that I seem to be.
Olbermann: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?
Batiste: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who's relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq.
Sadly, we're missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There's no unity of effort between the agencies.
It - the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we're wasting our time. "
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=general+batiste&y=Search&fr=slv1-adbe&u=www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051107R.shtml&w=general+batiste&d=Y4SE4OrnO4cj&icp=1&.intl=us
Batiste,like other generals, maintained the military code of not speaking out before his early retirement. Batiste along with five other generals, some of whom did not even know each other , chose to join together to express their disagrement with the conduct of the war.
"The Night of the Generals"
The six retired generals who stepped forward last spring to publicly attack Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war had to overcome a culture of reticence based on civilian control of the military. But while each man acted separately, all shared one experience: a growing outrage over the administration's incompetence, leading some of the nation's finest soldiers to risk their reputations and cross a time-honored line.
by David Margolick April 2007
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/iraqgenerals200704?currentPage=1
British military have done the same.General Sir Michael Rose told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved."
Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: "Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in north America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened.
"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."
General Rose is a former SAS commander and head of UN forces in Bosnia.
When he was asked if he thought the Iraqi insurgents were right to try to force the US-led coalition out, he replied: "Yes I do. As Lord Chatham [the politician William Pitt, the Elder, who, in the second half of the 18th century called for a cessation of hostilities in the colonies and favoured American resistance to the British Stamp Act] said, 'if I was an American - as I am an Englishman - as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms'. The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way. I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting the Americans."
Why do people think that the US should pull out of Iraq? We still have troops in Germany and Korea! Leaving Iraq anytime in the next 10 years will be a complete and total failure, not just for the US but for the world as a whole.
Have any of you been on the ground in Iraq?
Exactly where do you intend to get either the resources or the funding to carry on this crusade of yours? GWB has pissed and frittered our Army and Marine forces away, including much of their equipment. To do anything on the scale that you would need to achieve even limited success there, you are talking draft and major expansion of the deficit, within which we already have sold a quarter of our soul to Red China. Start a new draft, and see how long the electorate suffer your stupidity.
Olbermann: You have said that it could take eight to 10 months to withdraw from Iraq in an orderly way once the president even agrees to that. This evening, the House rejected the plan to withdraw beginning in nine months. The military under such great stress. Is there a point at which any deadline, any time structure for this will be too late?
Batiste: Keith, this is less about deadlines and timelines than it is about coming to grips with the fact that we went to war with a fatally flawed strategy, flawed then in March of 2003, flawed today over four years later. This is all about a president who's relying almost solely on the military component of strategy to accomplish the mission in Iraq.
Sadly, we're missing the diplomatic, the political, and the economic components that are fundamental and required to be successful. We have an interagency process that has been dysfunctional during this administration. There's no unity of effort between the agencies.
It - the bottom line is, we have a failed strategy now, and our president has not mobilized this great nation to accomplish the critical work to defeat global terrorism. And until we get these two things right, we're wasting our time. "
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=general+batiste&y=Search&fr=slv1-adbe&u=www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051107R.shtml&w=general+batiste&d=Y4SE4OrnO4cj&icp=1&.intl=us
Batiste,like other generals, maintained the military code of not speaking out before his early retirement. Batiste along with five other generals, some of whom did not even know each other , chose to join together to express their disagrement with the conduct of the war. "The Night of the Generals" The six retired generals who stepped forward last spring to publicly attack Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war had to overcome a culture of reticence based on civilian control of the military. But while each man acted separately, all shared one experience: a growing outrage over the administration's incompetence, leading some of the nation's finest soldiers to risk their reputations and cross a time-honored line. by David Margolick April 2007 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/04/iraqgenerals200704?currentPage=1 British military have done the same.General Sir Michael Rose told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved." Asked if that meant admitting defeat, the general replied: "Of course we have to admit defeat. The British admitted defeat in north America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened. "The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened. The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq." General Rose is a former SAS commander and head of UN forces in Bosnia. When he was asked if he thought the Iraqi insurgents were right to try to force the US-led coalition out, he replied: "Yes I do. As Lord Chatham [the politician William Pitt, the Elder, who, in the second half of the 18th century called for a cessation of hostilities in the colonies and favoured American resistance to the British Stamp Act] said, 'if I was an American - as I am an Englishman - as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms'. The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way. I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting the Americans."
Has anyone?
The hardliner faction in Iran are paranoid and fear we intend to overthrow the present Iraqi government, which is friendly to Iran, and replace it with a "Saddam-type" puppet regime . We should be willing to recognize Iran's interests, and negotiate on a reasonable basis of mutual interests.
Iran's overtures to establish relations with Egypt, in spite of our opposition, could lead to greater stabilization in the region and improve Iran's relations with the other Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia.
Also, I do not understand how asking if anyone was in Iraq is insulting. Please explain.
They are using "asymmetric" (Putin's term) means. the Russian and Chinese asymmetric strategies and their wide proliferation to US rivals do not require them to spend on arms or be involved in military confrontations. China's response to US moves to weaponize space was an inexpensive demonstration of its satellite killer, which left thousands of particles of debris in the middle of the low-earth orbits of most US spy satellites - in effect, a very inexpensive time bomb.
The newly styled ideological war between the liberal democracy of the West and the authoritarian democracy of the East plays directly into the race to achieve control of global strategic resources. China use its money, "soft power" to make alliances.
Russia, China , India and Asia on one side , the Western liberal democracies on the other. The East sponsors proxies in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Venezuela, which obliges the West to engage and/or compromise and perhaps overreach to limit the rising potency of those sponsored proxies. The West sponsors proxies such as Chechen separatists and "colored" revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and expands the European Union and NATO to include former Soviet states, aimed at making Russia and the East make concessions,to reduce the influence and control they exercise in energy-rich strategic regions.
To speak of "being on the ground" in another country is offensive and crude. In the context of discussing military deployment, it has its place.
So I'm assuming you havent been on the ground in Iraq and dont know what its like firsthand.
What has being "on the ground" in Iraq to do with understanding the situation there, for others supply informed accounts via books, speeches and daily accounts on web for those who chose to know? Personally , since I completed graduate studies here, I have been in Iraq and the other countries in the region many times (including during the 1967 War and subsequent conflicts) and know the different languages.
The Bush Administration wants to muzzle dissent, particularly
from those who had served, 'on the ground' in Iraq who
choose to protest the war.
Like Cpl. Adam Kokesh and others.
His discharge was downgraded from an Honorable discharge
to a General discharge, which affects the benefits he can
receive as a veteran.
All because he spoke out against the war after he was discharged.
This not only violates the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice),
it also violates his right to free speech.
Read his comments on his blog:
http://kokesh.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the blog.
As a veteran myself, I hate it when other
veterans are disrespected.
""This is a nonpunitive discharge," said Col. Patrick McCarthy, chief of staff for the mobilization command. "The most stringent discharge that could have been received is other than honorable, and the board chose to raise that up to a general discharge.""
www.military.com
"Kokesh is a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, which consists mainly of those who have left active duty but still have time remaining on their eight-year military obligations. His service is due to end June 18, but the Marine Corps is seeking to let him go two weeks early with a less-than-honorable discharge.
That could cut some of his health benefits and force him to repay about $10,800 he received to obtain his undergraduate degree on the GI Bill.
His attorneys said Kokesh was not subject to military rules during the protest because he was not on active duty. They said the protest was a theatrical performance, which meant wearing a uniform was a not a violation of military rules.
The military considered it a political event, at which personnel are not allowed to wear their uniforms without authorization. "
Note that he has left active duty.
This is also from www.military.com
There has not been credible evidence presented that Iran is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan or that that their policy in Iraq is not to support the existence Iraqi government. Secretary of Defense Gates, and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Dan McNeil in the past few days have made strong denials of media stories backed by unnamed "government officials." Bush has also denied there is evidence for such claims.
dont trust anyone to be 100% if theyve never been on the streets....
the locals knew the berlin wall was coming down when bricks were falling on their heads....
"Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East - and "Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan."
"It's a country that's trying to flex its muscles, but in a way that's injurious to the interests of just about everybody else in the world," he said. "I think it's a major miscalculation."
In Afghanistan last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iranian weapons were falling into the hands of Taliban fighters, *but stopped short of blaming the government itself*."
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,138904,00.html?wh=wh
Clark, your right, The SecDef has not accused the Iranian Government of sending weapons. He said Iran sent weapons, but he did not go as far as saying it was the government.
6 to one, Half-dozen to another.
The administrations' lack of credibility has been earned. Bush said recently , "My Plan B is Plan BH (Baker Hamilton)" after he had said it wasn't , and then he says something else. Rice has done the same in her way. She sometimes lectures on a strategy, and then finds another strategy. But she spends little time meeting and listening to the people she has to deal with. Putin plays the game effectively. He doesn't lecture on his strategy, but he will meet you in discussion and make moves like in a chess game and adjust.
I don't pay much mind to these stories. Most "official" reports in the media are scripted PR stuff. Some government and military people are told to give it out. Burns works to appear very knowledgeable and serious, but that's his job. Both Secretary Gates and the the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Dan McNeil, made clear statements aimed at discounting the ones like Burns', this week about Iranian involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has made statements in line with Gates'. This is discussed in this article, which suggests- no surprise - that Cheney is pushing his line against others' in the administration.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF13Ak02.html
"Gambit to link Iran to the Taliban backfires"
"Even the US defense secretary has rejected media reports that Iran has been "caught red-handed" supplying arms to the Taliban..."
What General McNeil says in his interview is quoted differently in the general US media than in other media. This is typical.
The American media kowtows too much. Not for reasons of national security. Sometimes that is important. I recall Kennedy knew about the Russian missiles in Cuba for some months. He had to make it public because the story got out. That created a crisis. But the American media tells less of what's going on today compared to other sources.
"PARIS - NATO has intercepted Iranian weapons shipments to Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents, providing evidence Iran is violating international law to aid a group it once considered a bitter enemy, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.
"There's irrefutable evidence the Iranians are now doing this," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on CNN. "It's certainly coming from the government of Iran. It's coming from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps command, which is a basic unit of the Iranian government.""
-http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,139062,00.html
I've read that before and discussed it above . Does it have any significance? It is unlikely it has any and it is probably put out for spin. General McNeil didn't take it as significant, if you read his full interview. We know Iran isn't supporting the Taliban and they have been supporting the Afghan government and they played a significant role in Berlin working with the United States in getting the factions to help with the invasion and back Karzai (for which we were very grateful). We need Iran's help in Afghanistan now : they know it and we know it. If there is a faction in Iran supporting some Taliban groups, we would best keep focused on dealing with the official Iranian government. We have been supporting groups in southern Pakistan who have crossed into Iran and killed Iranians, and that provokes payback. This is not intelligent action on our part if we want to deal effectively with Iran.
to say iran is not irritating things for us in iraq is silly... islam/muslims who hate the infidels will work for the greater good together in getting us out of what ever country we're in.
an insurgent is a civilian who fights against us and everything we're trying to do for Iraq, like rebuild from homes to schools to its goverment. either sunni or shiite it doesnt matter.
This "axis of evil" talk makes the United States seem like a 12 yr. old bully to the world, untrustworthy and dangerous, instead of a leading power. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq is viewed as as illegal by most of the world. Provocations by Iran and the United States are not helping to resolve the need to work out our relations in a realistic way. We have weakened our influence in the region and the world by our actions. We have to change our policy and we need the help of others.
General McNeil in Afghanistan needs Iran's support and knows it. Their generals and ours worked together there during the invasion to overthrow the Taliban. We know Iran isn't seriously supporting the Taliban and they have been supporting the Afghan government and that Iran played a significant role in Berlin (and later) working with the United States in getting the factions to help with the invasion and to back Karzai (for which we were very grateful). We need Iran's help in Afghanistan now : they know it and we know it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19219412/
AP June 14, 2007
"BRUSSELS, Belgium - Afghanistan's defense minister on Thursday dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was "irrefutable evidence" that the Iranian government was providing arms to Taliban rebels.
"Actually, throughout we have had good relations with Iran and we believe that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of Iran," Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press.
On Wednesday, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Paris that Tehran was directly supplying weapons to the Taliban. He told CNN there was "irrefutable evidence" that arms shipments were coming from Iran's government.
The State Department later appeared to step back from Burns' assertion, but stressed that the United States has proof that weapons from Iran were reaching Taliban fighters in Afghanistan."
we invaded Iraq to take Saddam out of power, to help rebuild the country, i.e. rebuild schools, hospitals, homes and to restore electric power and water. not to mention help form a more democratic goverment so people can live the way want to, you know like without fear of getting killed for no reason, or having family get kiddnapped tortured and raped at home or in the streets. or just taken away to jail for years and maybe be let out someday.
"We have weakened our influence in the region and the world by our actions. We have to change our policy and we need the help of others."
change what policy? the policy that if we feel threatened to not sit and wait for the attack but do something about when we can? the US has never and will never ask for the worlds permission to defend its self.
other countries seem to forget, America is only afew hundred yrs old, we had to fight and die to get the country the way we have it today, not only did we fight the people who were here before us but we had to fight the people/country we left behind to live free and worship free and to speak our minds free of the fear of persecution and death, only to fight ourselves over it. we know what its like to be free and live free, thats why we'll never ask anyone permission to defend ourselves.
its sad when our own countrymen forget that.
Are you suggesting I have said anything not in support of our forces? Show me. I have worked with our military in the Middle East and in the Pentagon. I have been critical of its leadership and the Pentagon for many years before 2001. My criticism since not been considered "unsupportive" by many in the military. There are many who have published criticism that agreed with mine.
There is plenty of support for the troops. The conduct of the war is the problem. Approval of the military among Americans is 69%, of Bush 26%, of Congress 20% or less, currently.
The military's Joint Staff have been reading Colonel Gregory
Fontenot's assessment of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a 500-page volume
on the US military's performance in the Iraq war. In seems to show
no amount of military might can reverse a disastrous political
decision. There seems no way to win in Iraq , in any case.
The assessment also says individual Americans fought well and with
courage,but in key situations, the military failed to anticipate,
failed to plan, failed to estimate, failed to perform. At any other
time, and against any other army, we might have been defeated.
It points toward a shift of policy away from escalation and
confrontation. While there are powerful people in Washington who are
still committed to confronting Islam, there are others now, also
powerful, who oppose them.
The retirement of Pace and Giambastiani ("St. John the Baptist, " who
was Wolfwowitz' aide in the Pentagon) completes the "clean sweep" of
the senior military leadership that marked the tenure of former
secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Since the swearing in of Gates
as Rumsfeld's successor, nearly every major senior military officer
responsible for the war in Iraq has been replaced.
I am not a fan of Secretary Gates, but he is a highly qualified professional. Gates arranged with General Petraeus for General Caldwell to be replaced as military spokesman in Iraq because of Caldwell's giving out information to the press about Iranian arms being imported into Iraq. Gates also got his choice, General Lute, approved for the "military tsar" or co-ordinator on Afghanistan and Iraq. It was a tough sell to get White House approval. He stood his ground. He was able to move out Abizaid and Pace in a very diplomatic way (and get rid of Abizaid's bloated staff of 3,800 and take steps to have many of them sent to Iraq to serve in the field). He found the Pentagon a mess with no "unity of command" and people not knowing who was doing what. That is the bottom line. That will take quite some time to change.
Thomas Ricks had a good interview ,if short, on Gross's Fresh Air on June 19th on the situation in Iraq. His coverage of Iraq for the first several years was disappointing. He has done much better since. His book "Fiasco" was well-documented, extensive and informative. In it, he had to review and criticize many words he had written previously.