There are Dangers to Further Stoking Ethnic Hatred in Iraq

A November 30, 2007 post in Wired details the ongoing US efforts to reduce violence in Sunni parts of Iraq.

Psychological operations specialist Sgt. Joe Colabuno spent a year-and-a-half helping convince the Sunni residents of Fallujah to turn against local extremists by appealing to citizens' sense of civic pride, pumping up their love of the national soccer team, citing the Koran, and provoking jihadists to overreact. Colabuno also appealed to the Sunnis hatred and fear of Shi'ites, and of Shi'ite Iran.

"For 7 or 8 months," Colabuno tells me, "all we hear about is 'Iran is doing all [of the attacks], Iran is behind everything.' There was frustration from them [Fallujah's locals] because we wouldn't 'admit it.' Like maybe the U.S. was conspiring with Iran."

"We'd stress in our SITREPS [situation reports] that in order to get these people on our side, we've got to play into their fears abut Iran," he adds.

Then, in January, "the White House suddenly got involved," talking tough about how Tehran was stoking instability in Iraq. "That overnight changed the attitudes of the people towards us. They took it as almost an apology," he adds.

In local newspaper articles, in radio and loudspeaker broadcasts -- and in talks on the street -- Colabuno started playing up "operations against Shi'a militia." He played up how the U.S. troop "surge" was silencing Shi'a leader Moktada "al-Sadr's yipping and yapping."

The tactics seems to follow quite nicely from previous "successes" that the US had with its 'Al-Anbar Model.' This model sought to reduce the power of the Sunni extremist group Al-Qaeda in Iraq -- made up mainly of foreign fighters -- by working with/bribing/making deals with/etc Sunni sheiks and (formerly insurgent groups) so that they crack down on AQI.

As I remarked at the time (September): It was a dangerous move

I gave several reasons why such a strategy was potentially very dangerous:

First, that the Anbar Model was arming former enemies who promise to return to fighting us:

We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

Second, and most relevant for today's post, was that such a strategy only poured more gasoline on the already raging Iraqi civil war by increasing the ethnic hatred that's feeding it. And that this undercuts the goal of Iraqi unity and stability.

It feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

What the US is doing in the Wired piece at the top follows along the same lines - in fact it is in fact a lot stupider because in this case the US occupation forces are specifically, directly, and knowingly trying to rally Sunnis (who are a minority in Iraq) behind the US by inciting hatred and mistrust of Iraqi Shiites and of Iran (who is mainly Shia).

Colabuno also appealed to the Sunnis hatred and fear of Shi'ites, and of Shi'ite Iran [From the Wired link at the top of this post - Oscar]

In effect, the US is trying to decrease violence and increase stability in Iraq by, yep...inciting further ethnic hatred, arming and empowering a rival to the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.

This, along with the rest of the "Anbar Model" have the Shia's dominating the Iraqi central government very worried: (and with good reason)

The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day.

The United States, which credits much of the drop in violence to the campaign, is enrolling hundreds of people daily in "concerned local citizens" groups. More than 5,000 have been sworn in in the last eight days, for a total of 77,542 as of Tuesday. As many as 10 groups were created in the past week, bringing the total number to 192, according to the American military....(snip)

Despite US efforts to reassure them that they can keep those Sunnis from taking up arms against the Shia government, the Iraqi government is not too convinced (again, it has good reason to be scared)

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.

It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.

"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

I though this was all foolish back in September...but it is no less foolish today.

-----

The United States' current strategy seeks gains in short term security (and there have been some recently if you watch the news), at the price of pouring gasoline on a raging civil and ethnic conflict and making Iraq less stable and more violent in the medium and long term.

In reference to the Anbar Model I asked in my September blog post: "But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?" to which I answered in the negative.

Noah Shactman of the Wired post asked a similar question on Sept. 30 regarding the current strategy of rallying Sunnis:

The successes of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq have, so far, been hyperlocal: local watchmen, patrolling their mini-neighborhoods; local tribal and political leaders, making deals with American commanders. And in that context, playing on fears on Shi'ite boogeymen in Sunni regions makes a ton of sense.

The question, though, is what are the national consequences of this local strategy. How can the U.S. encourage country-wide reconciliation -- while riding a wave of sectarian hate?

Exactly.

It will eventually come back to haunt the US, punishing it and Iraq, for its short-sightedness.

-------

PS: I'll have a short roundup added to this post tomorrow as an Update. I'm a little tired and would rather watch TV or screw around on Myspace than keep going...yeah, I know. Laaaazy. lol.

Goodnight.

The Return of the Roundup

[I'm not saying the blogging hiatus is done for sure....but suddenly I had the energy to do a regular post, as opposed to the lazy stuff I've been doing the last couple post (for the MySpace blog at least).

In good news, I finally did what I should have done long ago: I uninstalled and then re-installed Firefox. God, I LOVE Firefox!! Internet Explorer is horrible. I mean, how is it that I updated to a newer version yesterday and its actually slower, and more prone to crash and lose all tabs than the older version? Maybe its no coincidence that today is the day I chose to start blogging again.]

[End of Post Update: I decided against adding a Miscellaneous section, opting to add those in a latter post, or perhaps in a stand alone post]

For todays roundup I have a few things in store:

- The Middle East Peace Summit in Annapolis
- Immigration and Racism
- Miscellaneous (but interesting stuff)

----------

The Middle East Peace Summit in Annapolis

Recently Israel and the Palestinians (and by that I mean only the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority...more on that in the next story) have come together, along with with the US and representatives of various Arab governments in an international summit to revive the stalled Peace Process. (AFP)

Israel and the Palestinians opened a major international conference here Tuesday with a pledge to immediately resume talks frozen for seven years and seek a deal by the end of 2008.

Flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, US President George W. Bush read out a joint statement agreed just moments before the meeting began in Annapolis, Maryland.

"We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008," the statement said.

Abbas said the conference and international climate presented an exceptional opportunity for peace that would "not repeat itself," while Olmert vowed Israel was prepared to make a "painful compromise" to achieve peace.

Launching the biggest initiative of his presidency to revive the Middle East Peace process, Bush, who is nearing the end of his eight-year term, said the time was now ripe for an end to the six-decade conflict.

"In light of recent developments, some have suggested that now is not the right time to pursue peace. I disagree," Bush told delegates from more than 50 countries and organizations.

"I believe that now is precisely the right time to begin these negotiations -- for a number of reasons," he insisted, citing a new willingness among the leaders of both sides, and global support for fresh negotiations.

Also he added "the time is right because a battle is underway for the future of the Middle East -- and we must not cede victory to the extremists."

Now, I'm not sure how this international summit will end, but I have nothing but all the best wishes that President Bush (and I have no choice but place my faith in him here...), the Israelis, Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab countries can really come together and hammer a peace deal.

Such a deal would be such a great achievement and development in the Middle East (and for perceptions of the US in the Middle East).

In an administration that has failed in everything, and deservedly wrought the shame and criticism of the whole world, I seriously would not mind one bit if he partially saved his legacy and pulled out something good with this summit...in fact I would be ecstatic for a true deal.

With that said, it should never be forgotten that the deterioration of Israel/Palestinian relations was enabled in no small part by the "green-light" President Bush gave at the beginning of his administration for Israel to "get tough" with the Palestinians. Well, they certainly did, and violence ensued for quite a while, making coming together for negotiations again extremely unlikely until now.

But there are some concerns with the conference. For one neither Hamas will attend, nor will Iran attend.

Hamas has denounced the conference and thousand of Hamas supporters waving the group's green flag demonstrated in Gaza City Tuesday to reject the US-championed conference.

Why is this a problem? Well, you may remember a while back that there was a mini-Palestinian civil war between Islam-oriented Hamas and the secular-oriented Fatah, the end result being the forceful expulsion of Fatah from the Gaza Strip.

In other words, the Palestinians and their lands are divided. There is no one person controlling or purporting to speak for all Palestinians. And that complicates the international summit because, without the presence of Hamas (which I doubt the US would accept anyways) at the summit, any agreement entered into by the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) would not cover or bind the other Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. And that is problematic.

And Iran, as one of the big backers of Hamas, and a significant (and ever increasing) power in the region, really should be at that conference as well. Again, I doubt the US would let them in...they would probably think it was rewarding Iran with legitimacy or something...

Actually, I might have jumped the gun a bit since the next link in the roundup deals with the reactions of many foreign policy heavy-weights: Hamas and Iran should be involved in the Summit

Via Steve Clemons of TPMuckracker:

This tidbit just appeared in Robin Wright's recent reporting on the Annapolis Summit in an article titled "Iran: The Uninvited Wildcard in Mideast Talks":

Iran will still have leverage in the event of peace, Arab officials concede. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said yesterday that any peace agreement would eventually have to include Hamas, since it controls Gaza and half the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the two major Palestinian parties -- Hamas and Fatah, which controls the West Bank -- would need to join a national unity government, he said.

An agreement signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders would need ratification by their respective parliaments, and Hamas still controls the Palestinian parliament.

"Unless you bring Hamas in tune with what is happening on the peace side, you are really not fulfilling a basic requirement," Faisal said. "One man cannot make peace; not even half a people can make peace," he told a roundtable of U.S. journalists. "There has to be consensus about peace among the Palestinians for this to go smoothly."

I just thought it worth noting that people ranging from former Secretary of State Colin Powell to former New Jersey Governor and Bush administration cabinet member Christine Todd Whitman (who headed the National Democratic Institute election monitoring mission of the 2005 Palestinian elections) to former US Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki to former National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft to former Senators Nancy Kassebaum Baker, Gary Hart, Lincoln Chafee, Larry Pressler, Birch Bayh and many others from both sides of the aisle agree with the Saudi Foreign Minister.

And that is why it is so important to have Iran at the table: The leverage they have with Hamas, and the pressure only they could put on Hamas could make a deal palatable to both sides that much more likely. Of course this all assumes that Iran would be invited...

-------

Immigration and Racism

Pat Buchanan is back, and he's coming out with a new book. For those who don't know Pat Buchanan all too well he can properly be described as a big time nativist on immigration, and I would argue...well, he's kinda racist. Let's read what he had to say on Sean Hannity's show.

Buchanan: "America [is] committing suicide" while "Asians, Africans, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate"

MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan appeared on the November 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes to discuss his new book, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, And Greed Are Tearing America Apart (Thomas Dunne Books, November 2007), in which he writes that America is "on a path to national suicide" and later asks: "How is America committing suicide?" answering: "Every way a nation can." He proceeds to claim that "[t]he American majority is not reproducing itself. ... Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see."

On Hannity & Colmes, Buchanan asserted: "You've got a wholesale invasion, the greatest invasion in human history, coming across your southern border, changing the composition and character of your country. You've got the melting pot that once welded us all together, which has broken down." Co-host Sean Hannity went on to ask him: "Do you really believe that America, the country we all love as we know it, is in jeopardy of existing?" Buchanan responded: "I think America may exist, but I'll tell you this: I do believe we're going to lose the American Southwest. I think it is almost inevitable." He continued: "If we do not put a fence on that border ...you're going to have 100 million Hispanics in the country, most of them new immigrants from Mexico, which believes that belongs to them.

There are several things here which set me off.

First is this whole nutball conspiracy that grips the imaginations of Republicans, conservatives, and anti-immigrant people that Mexicans coming into the US want to bring the Southwest US back to Mexico and they are achieving this by demographics first, and when there are soooo many Mexicans you can't go 2 steps, they suddenly secede back to Mexico....

Yeah, I KNOW that sounds crazy!!! But these people live in real fear of such a ridiculous notion...as if that would ever happen!!

That's just crazy, but it is the next thing which really rubs me the wrong way about these people.

Read what he says again: The implicit assumption, the implicit argument that Buchanan and people like him make are that anybody that is not from the white-majority (even US citizens by birth like myself who happens to be Mexican-descended) is not really American like white people are the "real Americans."

"as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see."

And this is what makes some of these nativists racist: They believe, I mean it goes without saying for them, that only Americans of the "majority" (i.e. White) are true Americans. What it also means is that Buchanan and his type would never consider me, my family, nor most of my friends as "real Americans." Because my parents where both from Mexico, am I not an American like all others?

And that really does piss me off. The nerve of this jackass to tell us who is the real American and who isn't!!

And if you think about it, it's so amazingly ridiculous: Unlike many countries, being American has never been about any particular race or ethnicity. It is the very nature of this nation that it has served as a place where many peoples, races, colors, and religions have come together, all at once different, and at the same time all American.

Because being American is not about any race, it is about what binds all these people of such diverse backgrounds as one people: It is not any one religion, or race, but a shared abstract identity of being American.

Our shared American history, our shared perception as being American, and our shared veneration of our "civic-religion" that is our knowledge, respect, and veneration for The American System as it is embodied in the system passed down to us from the Founders in the United States Constitution.

This is not Japan, where ethnicity and nationality are more closely involved in what goes into definining what "being Japanese" means. In America, it is more abstract...and in that way it has the potential to be much more inclusive. One of the reasons, I suspect, that this nation has always benefited and gained from every wave of immigration it has seen, and not suffered so much as in many European nations:

Here it doesn't matter where you come, or where your parents came from because any and all people can become Americans.

And they are all "real" American, no matter what people like Buchanan have to say.

Roundup: Beware Guiliani, Iraq & Turkey, Problems For Iran, and more!!

It's been a while but the roundup should be ok. I'm tired and I'm not sure why now...just assumed it was lack of food plus the drinking in the previous few days, but today I'm still sleepy even when I just wake up. Even took a big nap in the afternoon and still woke up tired (though not as much). Weird, huh? So, please excuse any fogginess in though, it probably won't be 100%. j/k (well, mostly)

Anyways, the roundup will follow in a similar fashion to previous ones. If your not sure what that is, see any other post (except in the Myspace blog...look down past the previous two in that case). This will be organized in the following way (in order)

- Bush's Failed Foreign Policy
- Beware a Rudy Giuliani Presidency
- Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq
- Iraq
- Iran
- Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

------

Bush's Failed Foreign Policy

There is one piece, written by noted Middle East scholar and expert Juan Cole that I believe everyone should read. It is the perfect preamble, it is the perfect piece to read in order to give everyone here the proper context in which to read all the other links that follow this, especially the Rudy Guiliani stuff. This is a must read and it's only two pages long...seriously go read it now!! Well, OK the link is below.

Juan Cole -- The Collapse of Bush's Foreign Policy -- Now read it all. But here are some interesting parts:

The Bush administration once imagined that its presence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be anchored by friendly neighbors, Turkey to the west and Pakistan to the east. Last week, as the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to deteriorate, the anchors themselves also came loose.

On Sunday, just days after the Turkish Parliament authorized an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish guerrillas ambushed and killed 17 Turkish soldiers inside Turkey. In Karachi, Pakistan, a massive bomb nearly killed U.S.-backed Benazir Bhutto, who was supposed to help stabilize the country. The Bush administration's entire Middle East policy is coming undone -- if it even has a policy left, other than just sticking its fingers in the multiple, and multiplying, holes in the dike. (snip)...

Cole's conclusion puts it all together nicely. Explaining the complete failure and crumpling of Bush's foreign policy:

Along with the failed state in Iraq, which has neglected to use any decrease in violence temporarily provided by the recent U.S. troop escalation to effect political reconciliation, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan raises the specter of a collapse of both of Bush's major state-building projects. The turmoil in Turkey and Pakistan damages U.S. relations with two allies that are key to shoring up the countries under American occupation.

After Sept. 11, when the Bush administration launched its global "war on terror," the United States enjoyed some clear assets in fighting the al-Qaida terrorist network. In the Middle East, the United States had the support of secular Turkey, a NATO member. The long relationship of the powerful Pakistani military with that of the United States enabled Bush to turn the military dictator Musharraf against the Taliban, which Pakistan had earlier sponsored. Shiite Iran announced that it would provide help to the United States in its war on the hyper-Sunni Taliban regime. Baathist Syria and Iraq, secular Arab nationalist regimes, were potential bulwarks against Sunni radicalism in the Levant.

Like a drunken millionaire gambling away a fortune at a Las Vegas casino, the Bush administration squandered all the assets it began with by invading Iraq and unleashing chaos in the Gulf. The secular Baath Party in Iraq was replaced by Shiite fundamentalists, Sunni Salafi fundamentalists and Kurdish separatists. The pressure the Bush administration put on the Pakistani military government to combat Muslim militants in that country weakened the legitimacy of Musharraf, whom the Pakistani public increasingly viewed as an oppressive American puppet. Iraqi Kurdistan's willingness to give safe haven to the PKK alienated Turkey from both the new Iraqi government and its American patrons. Search-and-destroy missions in Afghanistan have predictably turned increasing numbers of Pushtun villagers against the United States, NATO and Karzai. The thunder of the bomb in Karachi and the Turkish shells in Iraqi Kurdistan may well be the sound of Bush losing his "war on terror."

I have nothing to add to this brilliant piece by Professor Cole.

I mentioned that the above piece is important in that it helps properly view all of the links that follow, and I mean it.

-----

Beware a Rudy Guiliani Presidency

Why is the collapse and utter failure of Bush foreign policy so important to note when it comes to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani? Quite simply, it is because when it comes to matters of foreign policy and terrorism policy Guiliani is nearly identical or worse than President Bush on the very same issues.

I've had a video on my profile of Giuliani taking on neoconservative foreign policy advisors (some too crazy even for the White House) (here the link from TPMTV), a very important thing to note, especially for a potential president with very little foreign policy experience and thus increasingly reliant on his advisors.

What is no doubt a little disconcerting about Giuliani to those who follow politics (except for Republicans of course!) is how eerily similar to President Bush he is

Rudy Giuliani, to quote a Democratic rival, would be like President Bush on steroids in the way he would go about protecting the U.S. from terrorists. In reality, Giuliani doesn't seem very different from Bush on the issue.

The former New York mayor says the government shouldn't be shy about eavesdropping on citizens. He is prepared to use military force to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons and root out terrorists in Pakistan. And he opposes a U.S. pullout from Iraq.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a Giuliani friend and adviser on homeland security issues, said in an interview: "I would say they're very much joined at the hip on these policies, and particularly the mind-set and commitment of both the president and Mayor Giuliani to stay on offense."

And given how "well" these policies have worked out for us the past 7 years, this observation is a very serious cause for concern. Do we really want another 7 years of Bush, or worse, "Bush on steroids" as Democrat John Edwards opined? Do we really want more Guantanamo's, more Abu Ghraibs, an indefinite occupation of Iraq, a new war in Iran and possibly Syria...do we really want someone who is so like our current President? A candidate for President so blinded that he would undermine our very Constitution (in much the same ways as our current President) and all that makes America America in order to "protect you."

In such a way as to give people the false dichotomy and choice that freedom MUST be sacrificed for security. That is a false choice: While some risk is always inherent in any system (and thats the price we pay) with many freedoms, our protection is always achievable within the bounds of our rule of law.

How is it that America lived through the most dangerous times; the Revolution, the War of 1812, fought off one of the most dangerous foes to freedom (fascism) during World War II, and faced off against an enemy with the capability of annihilate us in a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War without having to sacrifice our core American ideals, and our core Constitutional order?

The terrorist do not pose anywhere near the same level of existential threat as earlier ones yet some overreact to it and propose policies unthinkable during yet worse threats!! Why!?

It brings to mind a famous quote from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."

Anyways lets get on with this Rudy section...I need to further detail the crazy.

More on and his aggressive foreign policy

Bad huh? But it gets worse. Mr. Giuliani asks to have a briefing from Neoconservative godfather Norman Podhoretz on the war....World War IV.

That is NOT a typo

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

Check out what nattering nabob of neoconservativism Norman Podhoretz, a top foreign policy adviser to Rudy, has just confided to The New York Observer about a recent private conversation he had with the candidate:

Norman Podhoretz believes that America needs to go to war soon with Iran. As far as he knows, Rudy Giuliani thinks the same thing.

“I was asked to come in and give him a briefing on the war, World War IV,” said Mr. Podhoretz, a founding father of neoconservatism and leading foreign policy adviser to Mr. Giuliani. “As far as I can tell there is very little difference in how he sees the war and how I see it.”

So what does Podhoretz have to say about our Middle East policy?

America should be working to overthrow governments in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt and “every one of the despotic regimes in that region, by force if necessary and by nonmilitary means if possible,” he said. “They are fronts of the war. You can’t do everything at once. And to have toppled two of those regimes in five years or six years is I think a major achievement. And maybe George Bush won’t be able to carry it further, but I think he will. It may have just been given to him to start act one of the five-act play.”

Giuliani is surrounding himself...personally asking for advice and briefings, from a freakin' maniac!! Seriously, if Giuliani somehow wins the presidency (I doubt he will) than I will literally crap my pants in terror...seriously. Now, I don't know if it's possible to actually crap yourself in disgust as well, but I'm sure there will be some disgust mixed with that terror. Not sure how it works but I sure I'll manage it somehow.

But enough about my bowels, lets move on to Northern Iraq

---------

Turkey's Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq

Iraqi govt and US rhetoric against PKK militants have stepped up in recent days. Promises by Iraq's central government and the regional government to promise to shut down PKK offices have been met with skepticism and doubt. Likely because previous promises only led to the re-opening of such offices the very next day in another location.

Turkey sees Iraqi Kurdish authorities as very lax on stopping Kurds in their territories and lax on border enforcement

I saw an interview either yesterday morning or this morning with the Turkish ambassador to the United States and he more or less expressed that these assurances are not enough to satisfy Turkey or nearly enough to stop their drive to invade northern Iraq...they want more, and I'm not sure there are practical things the US or Iraqi forces can do that will satisfy the Turks.

This pressure seems to be getting to the US though because it recently has been reported that President Bush has offered to bomb PKK positions in Iraq

No doubt stemming from the desire not to move troops into Kurdish regions and out of other regions. I think he sees this as a way to thread the needle and satisfy Turkish rage, while not pissing of Kurds who would likely object to seeing US soldiers in their territory.

I'm honestly not sure if this will do, but it's actually possible that this could satisfy the Turks. The article offers up other alternatives: US forces (not gonna happen), or convincing the Kurdish regional government to use their security forces (Peshmerga ) to surround PKK camps and prevent them from moving beyond their mountain camps.

I'm not sure how likely it is, but the threat of invasion may just be enough of a fear that it provokes the normally lax Kurds to turn on fellow Kurds (Turkish Kurds).

Then again, this doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...no doubt it has the same effect on Turkish observers. Iraqis aren't exactly cracking down like they say they would.

Despite Turkey’s demand that the Kurdish regional government in northern Iraq clamp down on the PKK, there was no sign of any action against them.

On our way to the mountain, every checkpoint manned by the Iraqi army waved us through, and cheerfully provided directions on how to get to guerrilla positions.

Nor have the supply lines been cut. Several four-wheel-drive vehicles steered by toothless old men crawled along the tracks ahead of us, piled high with sackfuls of food.

If this is the result of future Iraqi assurances, than a Turkish invasion is much more likely to occur.

--------

Iraq

"I Don't Think This Place IS Worth Another Soldiers' Life" - (Washington Post)

The subheading says it all: "After 14 months in a Baghdad district torn by mounting sectarian violence, members of one U.S. unit are tired, bitter and skeptical."

Some troops just aren't seeing the point of 'being a bouncer between two brawling customers'. An interesting read.

10 anti-al-Qaeda sheiks are kidnapped - (CBS news) Pronouncements of Al-Qaeda's demise aside, this goes to show that AQI should not be counted out or written off just yet if they can still pull something like this off. Although in actuality AQI is not the most dangerous actor in Iraq, even among the Sunnis and never was.

--------

Iran

Khamenei vs. Ahmadinejad - There's some interesting internal Iranian political games being played which makes for intriguing reading. "Khamenei" of course refers to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who is considered more of the true power in Iran than Iranian President Ahmadinedjad (or any person who holds the title of President in Iran).

But with the firing, which Larijani learned through news reports rather than directly, Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei's authority over Iranian state matters. Ahmadinejad knows that Larijani is an agent of those who actually want to resolve Iran's nuclear situation in a constructive way while Ahmadinejad benefits from the crisis and tension with the US and Europe...(snip)

There has been fragile but real deal making going on -- and it is progress on this front that Larijani wanted to have the government announce -- but Ahmadinejad refused.

More on this soap opera later -- but the big story here is that Ahmadinejad is challenging Khamenei directly and openly with Ali Larijani's firing. It will be interesting to see if Khamenei turns the other cheek or further undermines the "Dick Cheney of Iran" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'll definitely need to follow this story

-------

Threats of Torture and Government Censorship

I have to concur with the sentiment expressed by the author: Holy Shit!!

Basically, the FBI coerced an innocent man into confessing by threatening his family with torture, eventually the man's innocence became clear and an appeals court ruled in his favor, but the opinion was swiftly pulled off the web. Then up came a new version:

A new version that conceals and censors the fact that...you know...the guy was coerced into confessing using threats of torture against his familiy.

People tell you anything you want to hear under circumstances like that, as well as under actual physical and psychological torture too. That's why as a practice (which doesn't touch how horribly immoral and wrong it is), torture and even rough tactics as threatening relatives should not be practiced.

Anything we learn is highly suspect. In worst-case scenarios we may base important decisions and policy, decisions with large-scale implications, on the "evidence" gathered from desperate people who just want to protect their family, or just want the pain to stop. And that would be a disaster.

-----

Good night folks, that's all for tonight.

Link Dump - Otherwise Known as a Roundup

I've had a pretty eventful weekend. I had little time (and sleep) for blogging until tonight, and even now this is more of a link dump than hard-core analysis. Rummage around the post...see a link you like or think is interesting and follow it and presto...you're that much smarter!! lol

I've broken it up into 5 different categories for easy browsing: (In order)

-Iraq
-Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey
-Iran
-The War on Terror / Case Against Torture
-Immigration / Illegal Immigrations Effects
-------

Iraq

-"The Real Iraq We Knew" (Oct. 16) - An Op-Ed in the Washington Post written by 16 Army Captains who have all served in Iraq. They all paint a very stark and none-too-optimistic picture of the situation on the ground on Iraq as they saw it and as they see it now. A choice quote:

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has gotten around to calling these former Army officers "phony soldiers" yet...

Iraq has recently finished its own investigation of the Nisour Circle shooting involving Blackwater mercenaries and the deaths of many innocent civilians.

-Iraq's has concluded its own probe of the incident and concludes that Blackwater mercenaries randomly shot at civilians without provocation...and they want Blackwater out

That conforms with other investigations into that incident that I've read about...but I can't seem to find that link so don't take my word for that just yet.

Blackwater likely to be out of Iraq (Oct. 17) - According to this (which may be outdated by now) Blackwater may well be on the out but that it would be a while for that to happen. I say good ridance. Of course, if its not Blackwater it will be another mercenary company filling the gap. And no doubt many former Blackwater employees in Iraq will suddenly become "DyneCorp" or some other private army's employee. Same crap different label, so it's more like PR.

Threatened Invasion of Northern Iraq by Turkey

Kurdish regional government (Iraq) vows to retaliate if Turkey enters Iraq - While Turkeys aim (supposedly) is to kill and stop PKK terrorist who take refuge in northern Iraq, no one could really have expected the Kurdish regional government (which is just about autonomous from Iraq proper) to simply take it without some kind of response.

Rising tensions on the Turkey-Iraq border are snowballing into a possible outbreak of war, as the president of the Kurdish region in northern Iraq said his people will defend themselves if Turkey attacks Kurdish rebels based in Kurdistan.

Turkey has put forward a condition for staying away from confrontation, saying that the Iraqi government should eradicate Kurdish rebel bases and extradite rebel leaders. However, Baghdad, already battling a bigger enemy in the mainland, has expressed its helplessness by saying that the country does not currently have the resources to defeat the guerrillas.

And what will the US do? Defend the Kurds from an attack and you lose a longtime ally and fight a fellow NATO member (among the dozens of bad repercussions). Stand by and the Kurds will certainly remember that abandonment with some resentment (to what effect I don't know).

Well, I deal with this issue more in my last post, I don't feel like rehashing it all here.

Kurds in Northern Iraq protest Turkish Parliaments force authorization (Oct. 20) -

Rebel leader threatens strike on oil pipelines if attacked - Turkey stands to be hurt bad economically in case of a strike in northern Iraq. It would be bad to see Turkey's economy go sour.

The flames of conflict are being flamed, and attempts to peacefully solve this situation seem dimmer and dimmer.

The fact that 12 more Turkish soldiers are killed by Kurdish rebels will only further flame pressure for an incursion. I say again that I sincerely doubt the Turkish leadership truly wants to enter into northern Iraq (who the hell would?). The article notes that the resolution of force may be attempts at leverage to get the US or Iraq to do something to stop the PKK, but as I have said before in my previous post, such action is unlikely on the part of the part of the US and Iraq. Then what?

Iran

Iran polls are interesting. They show that the America people are not interested in war with Iran. And the issues of WMD's, nuclear programs, and supposed support for terrorist groups killing US soldiers does not change that. The sentiment for no war is very strong. A couple interesting ones (hmm...doesn't let me copy and paste so check out the first poll). In previous months the feeling had been for more support of aggressive action against Iraq, but the trend in America is against it.

The War on Terror / Case Against Torture

FBI is having trouble bringing cases against terror suspects due to the suspect nature of evidence and intelligence gathered through torture. Its pretty well known that tortured evidence is highly suspect...people literally will say anything, admit to anything under torture, which is why most nations (including ours) do not accept evidence gathered by it. Remember, the Spanish Inquisition managed to produce an astounding amount of "confessions" back in the days. Were they really that good at catching heretics or where they just really good at torturing their victims into "confessing" their heresy? hmm....

Immigration / Illegal Immigrations Effects

In yet another study detailing the effects of immigration (including illegal immigration), we find that in Arizona, immigration of all types has been good for the Arizona economy - (Daily Kos diary by Duke 1676 citing the study)

We can now add Arizona to the long list of states in which recent studies prove that the current influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have contributed far more to the economy and tax base than they receive in government services.

Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems....(Snip)

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion, of which about $1.5 billion came from for non-citizens. Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

An economic reality that some cities have come to realize the hard way when they attempt to get tough on illegal immigration. I'm reminded of the case of Riverside, New Jersey, who had to pull back on its "tough" immigration laws, in part, due to the heavy economic blow their city took in the wake of passing its tough immigration laws. A law it never enforced, but that nonetheless prompted an exodus by illegal immigrants, and exodus that economically hurt the town.

Although no fines were levied, the impact was severe on this former industrial town, which in recent years has seen an influx of Portuguese and Brazilian immigrants. Residents and business owners said that many in the immigrant population scattered in fear when the law was passed, leaving vacant storefronts in a once-thriving downtown.

“This is a pretty busy day,” Ed Robins, the owner of Scott Street Music, said on Tuesday afternoon. He was pointing to a nearly empty Scott Street, Riverside’s main business district. “It took $50,000 a week off our streets. That’s what was being spent by the Brazilians and Spanish.”

Many localities of late have tried to crack down on illegal immigration, prompting similar exodus' out of their cities. They are likely to similarly start feeling the hurt. I'll keep up with those stories...

That's it for the night. It's off to watch some Adult Swim or maybe finish reading that 'Blackwater' book I've been reading at a snails pace. Maybe some Fruity Pebbles first...well, anyways. Good night

The Middle East Update Part I: Iran

It's been awhile I know. I blame the Nintendo and the Wii and the game Metroid Prime 3 for being so damn hard to put down. lol (but I'm not kidding!!)

One of the sources I go to daily for news - Rawstory - has done a lot of its own original reporting and investigating lately regarding Iran. [And by lately, I mean over the past two weeks]

What they have turned out are a lot of rumors and pieces of investigative journalism that give us some reason to be worried about the Cheney camp in the White House getting their way (or waiting for some intel connecting Iran to Iraq attacks in order to use it as an excuse for strikes against Iran)

Rawstory

Former CIA officer: US to attack Iran within 6 months -

Fox News asked former CIA field officer Bob Baer on Tuesday whether the US is "gearing up for a military strike on Iran." Baer has written a column for Time indicating that Washington officials expect an attack within the next six months.

"I've taken an informal poll inside the government," Baer told Fox. "The feeling is we will hit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps." His Time column also suggested that "as long as we have bombers and missiles in the air, we will hit Iran's nuclear facilities."

Baer explained that what his sources anticipate is "not exactly a war." He said the administration is convinced "that the Iranians are interfering in Iraq and the rest of the Gulf" but that "if there is an attack on Iran it would be very quick, it would be a warning."

"We won't see American troops cross the border. ... If this is going to happen, it's going to happen very quickly and it's going to surprise a lot of people," said Baer. "I hope I'm wrong frankly, but we're going to see."

However reliable Robert Baer has been in the past, and we definitely should take his warnings serious, these are just rumors so far. I've seen plenty of similar warnings that have not panned out. But as we get closer and closer to the end of the Bush Administration the chance only increases for strikes against Iran.

This administration does truly sees Iran as a grave threat and they do not trust any future administration (Republican or Democrat) to "deal with" Iran correctly. And one doesn't have to guess that hard what "correctly" means to them!

Further, the situation is a little different today. Today they seem have stepped up their case for rationalizing strikes in Iran from "They are trying to build nuclear weapons" (which wasn't moving anyone) to "they are helping insurgents and militias kill US soldiers and interfering in Iraq" (which is more provocative, but even here I doubt most Americans will support ANY Iran strike). They still need a "trigger" though

The Bush Administration expects a quick war, to which I say: "Are you stupid?! Think this through"

Yes, your strikes will be quick but...what about Iranian retaliation? Or is the US assuming that Iran will just lay down and take it? They have agents, and reach around the world through covert actors and they can hurt US interests globally. Plus, Iran is a much bigger nation with a much more sophisticated military (that would still likely get slaughtered in a conventional fight), and it is right next door to Iraq. If you think Iran is interfering in Iraq now, imagine the carnage they can sow if they were so inclined.

Adding that, one of the main goals for the Neoconservative hawks is for a regime change in Iran and to eliminate it as a power in the middle east region. But, a strike on Iran will only galvanize the support of the Iranian public behind the ultra-conservative and deeply unpopular presidency of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (think about how the 9/11 attacks rallied the American people behind the previously unpopular Bush presidency).

Neoconservative do not seem to think beyond the actual strikes and the "message" it would send. They don't seem to ever think about what comes next: the consequences, the counter-strikes, the world reaction, how it will strengthen the grip on power in Iran of President Ahmedinejad etc...It's enough to drive you nuts!

But lets get back to that "trigger" for war that Cheney and the hawks in the Administration are desperately looking for.

In an effort to build congressional and Pentagon support for military options against Iran, the Bush administration has shifted from its earlier strategy of building a case based on an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program to one invoking improvised explosive devices (IEDs) purportedly manufactured in Iran that are killing US soldiers in Iraq.

According to officials – including two former Central Intelligence Agency case officers with experience in the Middle East – the administration believes that by focusing on the alleged ties between IEDs and Iran, they can link the Iranian government directly to attacks on US forces in Iraq.

Read the whole thing. If you want to get a sense what current and former intelligence officials think about the prospects and motivations behind the Bush Administrations current Iran strategy. None seem to be of the opinion that strikes in Iran are not the ultimate goal of this administration.

I'll add, as does the article, that there is nothing tying those IED's to Iran directly. At least nothing I've seen.

------

But what would a strike against Iran look like? Would it be limited to WMD sites or to critically wounding Iran as a regional power and destabilizing the regime?

The following study seems to point to the later: [study cited by Rawstory]

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.


• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.


• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.


• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.


• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.


• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.


• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.


• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power.

What a horrible prospect. Charging headlong into war that I see escalating into an ugly mess where Iran, overwhelmed by the US's conventional forces, resorts to irregular and terrorist tactics at US interests and targets globally. Just like many of Iraq's former solders resorted to asymmetrical tactics once overwhelmed by conventional US force. We call many of those former Iraqi soldiers "insurgents" now.

Iran's reach may be more global than Iraq's though. One of the first targets will likely be oil and fuel targets.

But not only is it foolhardy, it's...immoral. Think about it: To eliminate Iran as a strategic competitor in the region it may just critically wound the Iranian regime (sowing chaos), destroy road and fuel infrastructure and much more.

The "collateral damage" may be significant although the long-term "collateral damage" may be more significant.

1) A radicalized Iranian populace that will rally to aid of the regime
2) A destroyed economy and physical infrastructure that will destroy the livelihood of all people in Iran by destroying its economy and all means for it to go on with business as usual. This will feed the chaos.

We will punish and hurt the Iranian people, you know, the very same people those cynical ass Neoconservatives claim to want to help by "liberating" them from the "tyranny of the mullahs." But your motives become a little suspect when you want to reduce the country they live in to a "weak or failed state."

In other words a state so weak that it cannot exercise any control over its territory. Dumbed down even more: A state where the government cannot police or keep order in its own country, cannot provide for its people (because it cannot). Say hello to warlords, strong-men, and violence. Then again, some of the pressure towards total chaos may be mitigated if the Iranian people rally to support their regime. In that case, its already-bad economy will still be destroyed and its peoples lives still destroyed so its still not shits and giggles.

These neocons can give a damn about the Iranian people though. They cynically use them as props and tools to put a "nice" face on their true goals: Eliminating any and all regional competition for power, even before it emerges.

Or if not cynically, than its obvious that their thirst for power is much more powerful than their desire for democracy.

-----

Here's something more recent and the source is someone in the government as opposed to a study using open-source information:

Pentagon '3 day Blits Plan' (London Times)

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

So what is it?: Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities, destroying its military as well, or complete crippling? Though, destroying its military will probably not have the desired effect (regime change) if the people rally behind the regime against US aggression.

-----

So what is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad thinking about the possibilities of a strike in Iran? Apparently he's not so worried:

TEHRAN: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed the chance of a US attack against Iran as impossible, saying that Washington already had enough trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There is in no way the possibility of such an attack by the United States. Even if they take such a decision they cannot implement it," he told a news conference. "They have to solve the question of Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Politicians do not deal with imaginary things. They deal with reality and this is propaganda. This (an attack) is not on the agenda of US officials and it cannot be," he said.

You know, he makes a point that I'm sure plenty of us have made in the past. The US is hopelessly bogged down in Iraq, and also still contends with Afghanistan; how could it possibly think to get itself into more dookie (to use the technical term).

But, with this President...you just cannot assume that this logic will work. Prior to war with Iraq, I could not imagine how an invasion made sense because it just didn't make sense: The case for WMD's seemed weak (to those who paid attention), Iraq was successfully contained and was no longer a threat to his neighbors...why would he invade and get himself into a situation where there would be violence and resistance to our presence we thought.

All I have to say to Ahmedinejad: Don't let your logic, however sound it may be in most situations, lead you to discount out of hand the possibility of this President ordering strikes in your county. He's a president with nothing to lose (he's already failed in Iraq), everything to gain from "success," and a president who has less than two year left in office and so won't put up with the consequences of his actions for very long.

Who knows whether Bush will go all the way but I know one thing:

Don't underestimate his propensity for stupid...and I mean that in all seriousness.

Our Exhausted Military

Came across this very dispiriting article in the 'Guardian Unlimited' this morning about the fatigue and exhaustion gripping the US military. If you read only one article today, read this one. Talking about the ill-effects of the decision to invade Iraq, the strain it put on our military has always been one of the things we bring up.

But, this article brought home how fatigued and degraded our military has become due to the Iraq occupation in a manner that was hard to imagine before.

Excerpts:

Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis (snip)...

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

That last part is what makes this so...dispiriting. If your PR people...The people helping to put the positive spin on the Iraq war, are saying these things...well.

Remember, these are the soldiers and people who are backing up the rosy assertions of 'progress' supposedly happening because of the much vaunted 'surge.' Their own PR guys in private are not buying the BS that they are ordered to tell the media and the world.

This should make it crystal clear that we should take all those false proclamation of 'progress' that we are starting to hear, with the grain of salt most of us probably already where. [And if you've been reading me you know I've devoted a few blog posts to questioning the 'progress' of the 'surge']

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'(snip)
A week later, in the northern city of Mosul, an officer talks privately. 'We're plodding through this,' he says after another patrol and another ambush in the city centre. 'I don't know how much more plodding we've got left in us.'

When the soldiers talk like this there is resignation. There is a corrosive anger, too, that bubbles out, like the words pouring unbidden from a chaplain's assistant who has come to bless a patrol. 'Why don't you tell the truth? Why don't you journalists write that this army is exhausted?'(snip)..

And it's not just that that the multiple 15-month tours, the lack of a clear mission or goal, or the daily violence they encounter that is simply exhausting a few soldiers. This war is effecting the overall readiness and effectiveness of our armed forces. This next excerpt drives this point home:

The anecdotal evidence on the ground confirms what others - prominent among them General Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State - have been insisting for months now: that the US army is 'about broken'. Only a third of the regular army's brigades now qualify as combat-ready. Officers educated at the elite West Point academy are leaving at a rate not seen in 30 years, with the consequence that the US army has a shortfall of 3,000 commissioned officers - and the problem is expected to worsen.

And it is not only the soldiers that are worn out. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the destruction, or wearing out, of 40 per cent of the US army's equipment, totalling at a recent count $212bn (£105bn).

The article talks about increases in desertions and absenteeism, about the lowering of standards of enlistment (scraping the bottom of the barrel), about increasing the age of enlistment all to maintain this ultimately unsustainable war stocked with soldiers.

And one of the scary things is...the situation is getting so desperate that the big 'D-word' is coming up as a possible option, when, before, to even mention it as a possibility would have caused officials in the Pentagon and White House to roll their eyes.

The Draft

'War tsar' calls for return of the draft to take the strain

America's 'war tsar' has called for the nation's political leaders to consider bringing back the draft to help a military exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a radio interview, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute said the option had always been open to boost America's all-volunteer army by drafting in young men in the same way as happened in Vietnam. 'I think it makes sense to consider it,' he said. Lute was appointed 'war tsar' earlier this year after President Bush decided a single figure was needed to oversee the nation's military efforts abroad.

Rumours of a return to the draft have long circulated in military circles as the pressure from fighting two large conflicts at the same time builds on America's forces. However, politically it would be extremely difficult to achieve, especially for any leader hoping to be elected in 2008. Bush has previously ruled out the suggestion as unnecessary.

Lute, however, said the war was causing stress to military families and, as a result, was having an impact on levels of re-enlistment. 'This kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living-room conversations within these families. Ultimately the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions,' he said.

Disturbing indeed, and such a policy would effect me [I am draft age after all]. Although, in my opinion such a policy would be extremely unlikely. Not even Republicans in Congress would support the reinstatement of the draft. And on that point I hope I am right.

The Ill-Effects of the Iraq Invasion/Occupation

This war is stretching our armed forces to the point of breaking and and to the point where some military officials warn political leaders to keep their minds open to a draft, yet there are still those who would wish to extend our involvement in Iraq indefinitely. Why?!

For the sake of our armed forces, for the sake of the brave men and women in uniform who risk their lives every day doing their jobs, lets bring them home. Lets bring them home as soon as possible. Lets end this long, horrendous national nightmare!

Because, lets be frank, as much as I and others dislike this war and its continuance...we are not the one living in constant danger of snippers or of IED's. We are not the ones on the front line having to execute the awful policies and prerogatives of their idiot leadership in Washington. This is real for them in a way that I, and other who've never served in Iraq could ever hope to understand.

Lets play our role and help bring about the end to this misadventure.

For them

-------

Roundup 8/12/07

I know I've been pretty inconsistent with the whole blogging thing. You should continue to expect that for at least the next couple weeks. Note: A lot of these articles of from as long as 5 days ago (I believe)...yeah, I've been pretty bad about writting.

Obama Foreign Policy/ Fall Out from Debate

After some initial strong words about unilateral strikes in Pakistan [I wrote about it..needless to say I was not happy about that part], it seems Obama is softening his tone with regards to Pakistan

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said Wednesday it's critical for Pakistan to be a constructive ally in fighting al-Qaida, one week after his hard-line pledge to hunt down terrorists in that country even without consulting President Pervez Musharraf.

Obama declined to criticize the Bush administration's policies on Pakistan, and expressed sympathy for Musharraf, who faces a growing militant backlash in his Muslim nation.

Good backtrack, although some damage has already been done. Needless to say the the Pakistani government, nor its people were very happy about his initial remarks. What a dumb thing to say in public.

Glenn Greenwald on the 'Foreign Policy Community' and its problems - I agree with Greenwalds analysis. Like him it surprises me how in the world of foreign affairs, scholars and thinkers who continually get very important issues [ like Iraq] can still be looked upon as respected thinkers to be consulted for what comes next. Why!? Their advise and cheerleading is what got us in this clusterfuck in the first place.

America is plagued by a self-anointed, highly influential, and insular so-called Foreign Policy Community which spans both political parties. They consider themselves Extremely Serious and have a whole litany of decades-old orthodoxies which one must embrace lest one be declared irresponsible, naive and unserious. Most of these orthodoxies are ossified 50-year-old relics from the Cold War, and the rest are designed to place off limits from debate the question of whether the U.S. should continue to act as an imperial force, ruling the world with its superior military power.

Well I agree with his analysis for the most part. Except that I disagree with Greenwald that Obama said anything inherently wrong or immoral with his, in essence, policy of unilateral strikes when necessary.

I think its inadvisable in 99 percent of situations but as there is a chance that it would of been necessary, I cannot say we do not have the option. For example: What if the world was not with us on the Afghanistan conflict...what if the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden [it did refuse], what if it knowingly provided it a safe-haven for al-Qaeda to set up training camps and strike at the US [it did], but what if no other nation would help us...? In that situation I think the invasion of Afghanistan would still have been necessary.

But Obama recently, completely ruled out the use of nuclear weapons to strike (or counterstike) at known terrorist targets in Pakistan or anywhere. And, I agree with him...

I know what you are thinking: Doesn't that go against your 1% chance thing just talked about above.

Well, no.

You see there is NO situation in which it would be correct or justifiable to use nuclear weapons in any nation in order to kill terrorists. The use of nuclear weapons for that purpose is too horrible and unthinkable...the carnage, the massive, massive amounts of innocent civilian dead, the rightful damage to our international image, and the example it would set for other nuclear powers should make this option absolutely unthinkable.

Second, if you have good enough intelligence to aim a nuke at, you stand a good enough chance of getting him through conventional means. There is no need for nukes. At all


Obama's 'New Foreign Policy' vs. Old Coventional Wisdom Orthodoxy

Read this memo from Founding Executive Director of the Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and a foreign policy adviser for Barack Obama - Sammantha Powers.

It's slams the old foreign policy and the problems it has caused [go to Iraq, don't talk with Iran, don't talk with adversaries or you reward bad behavior etc...] and proposed new methods.

The memo:

It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States “finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He warned that a “dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq would result in an “occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.”

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is “persistent and evolving.” Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington’s conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things.(snip)

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

* The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
* The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
* The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you’re not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator – he’s ready to tell them what they don’t want to hear because that’s how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that’s how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Good memo, and good foreign policy proposals for the most part. I think his stance on diplomacy is my favorite if not one of my favorite parts about his foreign policy.

Iran

Bush and Congress could collide on Iran - Basically, will Bush even see fit to come to Congress for authorization to use force in Iraq. All indication tell me that at this point he would find a way to claim that Congress cannot hamper his powers as Commander-In-Chief to wage a war in Iraq even though the Constitution is quite clear on this question.

If he were to strike Iran, he's just do it. The most Congress could do afterwards is complain about it after the fact, but there might be little Congress could do to keep him from doing it. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

And imagine what would happen. He strikes...and the criticism doesn't come because people are too afraid to say anything lest they be charged with wanting our military to fail in the current Iran mission. Speculation, I know. But who knows.

Iraq

Administration and war-cheerleader claims that the 'surge' has decreased sectarian violence has, like so many things they said, turned out to be false

Iraqi and American military officials say incidents of sectarian "cleansing" in Baghdad have decreased since a U.S. military clampdown began in February, but what is happening in Amil and neighboring Bayaa belies the claim.

Since May, Iraqi police say, more than 160 bodies have been found in Amil and Bayaa -- men without identification, usually shot and bearing signs of torture, hallmarks of sectarian death squads.

On many days, the number of corpses found in the two neighborhoods account for half of those picked up across the capital. Before the war, Amil and Bayaa were middle-class neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites lived easily among one another. Now, not only are they mainly Shiite, but they have become prime territory for Shiite militias looking to expand into the surrounding Sunni-dominated areas.

Like I say: Take administration claims with a grain of salt. Take military claims with a grain of salt as well.

Take General Petraeus much anticipated September Surge Progress Report with A HUGE grain of salt. Actual progress or not...the report will tell us that there is. So instead of pressure being put on withdrawal as September comes like those wavering Republicans are promising...

They instead will push for 'more time', and with that, withdrawal becomes the problem for the next president and Congress to undertake. [Both likely will be Democratic-controlled]

Dick Cheney Gets STUPIDER With Age

I bet this will surprise you. I knew his position back during the early 90's but its interesting that there is actual video of it. Really brings home how much of a dumbass he became.

Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

It's not the first time that citizen "investigative journalists" have uncovered some embarrassing, or telling, nugget from the past that apparently remained buried for years. But it has happened again with the posting of a now wildly popular video on YouTube that shows Dick Cheney explaining in 1994 that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and lead to a "quagmire."

The people who put it up come from a site called Grand Theft Country, the on-screen source appears to be the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and the date on the screen is April 15, 1994. That looks right, by the age of Cheney.

I am definitely getting that video and will be putting it on my profile.

There is a saying: 'With age comes wisdom'

...Well, not always it seems.

Good night.