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.

Barack Obama and the "New" Foreign Policy - In The Right Direction But Fraught With Problems

With all the news coverage the past few days revolving around the tragic collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, it would certainly not surprise me if no one heard that Barack Obama recently made a very big foreign policy speech. In this speech he outlined his general views and, often as well, specific proposals and programs.

There has been a lot of controversy in the wake of Obama's big foreign policy speech, from both Republicans and Democrats, and among Democrats, and among liberals. The speech has highlighted something we already knew: Even among Democrats, even among liberals/progressives and those further Left...there is difference over what is appropriate foreign policy, what is legitimate and illegitimate actions and language. Up until know those differences have more or less been subsumed by our shared disgust and opposition to the Bush foreign policy and to Republican policies in general. But, I'll get into all that later. First the speech itself.

Overall I think the speech marks a positive departure from what goes on for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' foreign policy. If you remember the tenor of my last post, I have a very low regard for what passes for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' in Washington. This 'wisdom' has brought us much problems including the disasters of the pass 6 years.

He strikes a very positive tone, and highlights a strategy against terror that is more pragmatic, more sensitive to address underlying causes of terrorism, and one which can lead us down a road of gaining back our international prestige. All without having to sacrifice and undermine the very values that we have historically stood for. But there are some problems, and I will deal with those later on in the post.

It is quite long (really long) so I'll provide relevant snippets and add my comments:

Obama's Full Terrorism Speech:

What we saw that morning forced us to recognize that in a new world of threats, we are no longer protected by our own power. And what we saw that morning was a challenge to a new generation. [9/11]

The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free. An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Iron Curtain was punctured by democratic values, new institutions at home, and strong international partnerships abroad.

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Here, Obama is setting up the difference between his foreign policy, and George Bush's foreign policy and its mistakes. He highlights how we took our eye off al-Qaeda and thus is implicitly informing us that his own policy against terrorism will focus on them and that it will be - unlike Bush's strategy - a comprehensive approach (military, economic, diplomacy, ideology, and sources of terrorist recruits).

Here I can certainly agree with Obama and the general idea behind his policy. Plus I like the optimistic tones he strikes, and how he speaks about the historical examples of the US making good out of earlier bad events. This to contrast between the deepening mess Bush has of the horrible events of 9/11.

What’s more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.

He's calling for a change to what is now deemed "acceptable"

I love this following excerpt:

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

Unlike what passes for "knowledge" especially among Republicans and hawkish figures, Obama shows a much more profound and deeper understanding of the complexities of the terrorism problem. He doesn't simply lump in all Muslims as terrorist, or couch our battle in terms of a clash of civilization like others are prone to do. He understands that most Muslims are not our enemies, and are far from being natural adversaries of our.

In addition, he shows his understanding of what it takes to fight this battle: Not only must we know our actual enemies, we have to know what it is we fight for. It does us no good to kill a terrorist and sacrifice all that defines us as Americans. So far so good.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Precisely!! Bring the focus back on those who pose us a risk. And he makes the point I must have made so many damn times; Our bad policies, our invasion of Iraq, our general reactions to the terrorists have done nothing but play into the hands of the terrorists.

We played into their hands by reacting like they wanted us to react and getting ourselves bogged in a disaster that increases terror recruitment, lowers our image and prestige, alienates us from our allies, and damages our military. This is the war they wanted, and that is the war Bush gave them.

Good, good. Lets keep going

Summary of Obamas '5 element comprehensive strategy' to terrorism

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (snip)

...ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Great position but the language is vague. What does he mean by "maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq"? It can be construed to mean that he plans to maintain reduced amounts of troops in Iraq. I also noticed that he says our best leverage in Iraq was to "reduce our presence" in Iraq. Not end our presence...

Troubling because when do we leave? On the one hand he shows he understand that we enable al-Qaeda to survive in Iraq due to our very presence in Iraq, but then he proposes keeping some troops (reduced numbers) in country.

WTH!? First off: How much is "reduced troop presence"

Second: It doesn't matter, it is a foolish policy. A reduced presence will not mollify the Sunni insurgents, nor the Shia militias who want the US to completely withdraw. They have no love for al Qaeda and will eliminate them once we leave, but they also want us completely out. This from one of the temporary "allies" we have among the Sunni:

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

He adds, "Especially after the help the U.S. Army has provided us, we would like them to go home as our friend, not enemy."

Obama understands our presence enables al-Qaeda in Iraq but his plan to reduce troop levels will not placate the Sunnis, nor the Shias. They will continue to attack them until there is no presence. Except, the reduced troop levels will have the unintended consequence of making US troops more vulnerable. They are less numerous, easier to kill, and the reduced numbers make their mission harder because they wont have the numbers to go on offense, nor the numbers to withstand the attacks that are sure to keep coming from Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, and al-Qaeda extremists.

Obama seems to have an...'incomplete' understanding of the dynamics of Iraq. He's close, but he makes one fundamental error in assuming that Sunnis and Shias will be satisfied with the US simply reducing troop levels. They wont. This one error in position has significant consequences to the soundness of his Iraq strategy.

So far, I don't like his policy stance as it regards Iraq. That is one very big strike against Obama.

Afghanistan & Pakistan

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.

He does connect removing troops from Iraq with increasing them in Afghanistan. He makes the point elsewhere that we took our eye of fighting in places that really had to do with the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq and neglecting to consolidate our victory in Afghanistan.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers.

Good. Nice sounding proposal.

This next part has caused much controversy:

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Careful, Obama. It is indeed true that the Taliban and al-Qaeda use the tribal regions of Pakistan as base.

I understand and sympathize with attempts to coerce Pakistani Pres. Musharraf to do more but it's not that simple. President Musharraf's grip on power is looking less and less secure with every passing day.

Musharraf, an army general who seized power in 1999, is embroiled in the toughest period of his rule. He faces intensifying pressure to restore democracy, widespread anger at last month's deadly military raid on Islamabad's Red Mosque, and surging pro-Taliban violence.

He's facing political protests and pressure from both secular and religious elements in his country. He is posed with the very real danger of militant Islamic groups.

Considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power and that it would be a disaster to instigate chaos in which, who knows, one of those nukes might get "lost", its best we be more cautious with how we deal with Pakistan.

Frankly its one of the few times I'm liable to agree with Bush that we not try and rock the boat too much and end up bringing Musharraf flying overboard. If we put too much pressure on Musharraf he might:

1) Say "fuck you" to the US. This is too much hassle. I'm sure he's get a little domestic boost for that.

2) Cave and crackdown harder in Northern Pakistan's tribal regions and cause a big shitstorm as the well armed Tribes fight Pakistan security. Further weakening Musharraf and sowing chaos in which pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda elements can grow. Screw it...chaos in general in not good.

Finally, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

In theory, I agree with this but...you just do NOT say this, nor do you make this a part of your big foreign policy speech. Although he caveats it by saying 'if we have good Intel AND Musharraf wont act,' it is essentially saying 'we will unilaterally violate the sovereignty of another nation when we have to'

That is why there has been so much controversy within the Left: Many see this as a continuation of Bush's own foreign policy of unilateral preemptive strikes.

Such strikes are indeed usually not wise, but I personally cannot say that it is a bad thing by its very nature. I mean, everyone was agreed that Afghanistan was justified; they not only sheltered al-Qaeda but refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11 when the US asked. The US striked. What if we had to do it alone or unilaterally? I say we still should have gone given the circumstance.

But, and this is a BIG but...It's usually not wise or advisable. And in the particular case of Pakistan...I do not think its wise to launch any action in northern Pakistan. The potential damage resulting from such a strike would far out weigh any gain from rounding up or killing a few terrorists (even top terrorists).

And certainly you don't freakin talk about it in public you moron! How will Pakistanis react?

Well here are some reactions:

Fri Aug 3, 9:13 AM ET

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)

Obama talks about a new foreign policy, about rebuilding our alliances, about reclaiming the respect of people around the globe, about reducing anti-Americanism; all laudable words.

But he undercuts those very goals by making these remarks. He has a great vision but he needs to stop proving he is "tough", he needs to stop trying to throw the "moderate" and "centrist" pundits and talking-heads a bone with "see, I'm serious too" on it.

Stop it!! You have a great vision, and you have the foundations for a very great foreign policy and terrorism policy that in many ways reflects my own. But there are a few significant differences that seriously undermine and weaken your terrorism policy.

That's more or less the extent of my commentary on his speech, and I've hardly scratched it. But here is a few interesting proposals that highlight what I believe are good aspects of his terrorism policy:

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

Interesting idea. Promotes increasing cooperation with other nations (good) to better deal with terrorism (good). I think the best part is the focus on doing so without resorting to brutality, noting quite correctly that brutality breeds terror. Brutality is indeed counter-productive, a concept that is usually lost on neoconservatives and other hawks who think the answer is always to "get tough" and put the fear of God into them.

Consider Republican Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo and his plan to deter terrorism by holding the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina under a threat of nuclear blackmail.

Seriously....No, SERIOUSLY! But more on that an more in my next post

Diplomacy

And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.

It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.

President Kennedy said it best: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Any casual reader of my posts knows that I agree 100% with this. I've railed against the idea that negotiations are rewards, and just recently I applauded Obama's stance that he would negotiate with rival nations without precondition. You shouldn't expect to get everything you want BEFORE talks...what kind of incentive do you give for nations to concede anything to the US? And they wonder why Bush diplomacy has been so unsuccessful!

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites. (snip)

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – “Freedom is untidy.” I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy. (snip)

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses” in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America’s Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new “ America’s Voice Corps” we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

Highlights are more profound understanding about terrorism and root causes of it. Terrorism requires a comprehensive approach that requires us to address the environments in which extremism grows.

Final Thoughts

There is much much more. Please, give the whole speech a read.

The fact is that I agree with Obama on the vast majority of his positions and policies, but there are a few significant differences of opinion that still keeps me 'undecided' as a voter. Hopefully he can clarify his positions better and also change them around in a manner so that we are not in disagreement on such fundamentally important issues such as Iraq.

The Founders Feared an Imperial President

Yeah, I'm kind of lazy and in a bad mood today so...I'm not much in a thinking mood. So the whole post will be a roundup of interesting stuff from the past couple days.

Presidential Power
Just what the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War -

Adam Cohen does fine work in this piece.

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said at a recent press conference. "I think they ought to be funding the troops." He added magnanimously: "I'm certainly interested in their opinion."

The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress's side.

What Bush wants and expects is a rubberstamp from Congress. As if he has ALL the power: To declare war, wage war, determine when to exit, and Congress simply provides funding. Oh no, not only does it provide funding, but it cannot use the powers of the purse as leverage to enforce its will or coerce the president to change policy.

Reality check Mr. President: Congress has the power to declare war, to ratify peace, to maintain, fund, and regulate, the armed forces of the US, and the Founders gave the Congress its funding powers precisely because it wanted to give the Legislature that leverage in order to check the power of the president (and the courts).

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution's framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called "the foetus of monarchy."

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe's history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings.

I liked this snippet

The Constitution does make the president "commander in chief," a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly.

Mr. Cohen makes a great point on what the term "Commander-in-Chief" means, and how it is abused by this President in order to give him much more expansive powers than is rightfully his under the Consitutution. The man thinks he can strike Iran and Congress can in no way legislate or impede his ability to do so because it conflicts with his powers of commander in chief. But as Cohen notes: Commander-in-Chiefs is the highest officer and can execute wars already declared. But the Commander-in-Chief and thus the President does NOT have the authority to unilaterally and without the assent of Congress initiate war. Nor can he officially ratify Peace after a Conflict.

Those powers go to Congress. It is they who have legitimate right to dictate and determine when we go in and also they have a role to play in determining when we leave. And the power of the purse is but one of the consitutional arms given to Congress in order to enforce its prerogative on the President. COngress role is not simply to ruberstamp funding requests.

Give it a good read, its not that long.
------
Roundup

It seems our diplomacy around the world has been suffering due to the overriding attentions that Iraq garners from our leaders.

At a time in which it is essential for the US to be mending fences and engaging in some global diplomacy, it is instead doing all it can to snub the entire world. And, as we ignore and snub nations in SE Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America, we also will see more an more nations turning away from the US. China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela meanwhile do not hesitate to try their hand at diplomacy and "soft-power" and are making may inroads in all those regions.

Its not a zero-sum game so not all gains my these nations means it is to the detriment of the US, but its negligence of these regions is certainly reducing its influence in those regions and providing great opportunities for China and others to fill the gaps. We ignore the world at our own peril...
---------

Bush's incompetence gives Al-Qaeda new life- (Salon) ....Yeah, tell me about it

-----
Did we say September? I meant "NextSummer" *cough*

Unless Congress acts now or in September, it will come and go and the President will just keep moving that goal post back....and back some more. "Did we say September"? Who didn't see this coming?

A revised U.S. military plan envisions establishing security at the local level in Baghdad and elsewhere by next summer, it likely would take another year to get Iraqi forces ready to enforce any newfound stability, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Known as the Joint Campaign Plan, developed in tandem by Gen. David Petraeus and his political counterpart in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, it reflects a timetable starkly at odds with the push by many in Congress to wind down U.S. involvement in a matter of months.

--------

Iraq Insurgent Groups Unite - Against Al-Qaeda and the US -

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups - responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police - made clear that they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians. (snip)

Leaders of the three groups - who did not use their real names in the interview - said the new front, which brings together all the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, has agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from all foreign troops, rejection of any cooperation with parties involved in the political institutions set up under the occupation, and a declaration that all decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.

The aim of the alliance - which includes a range of Islamist and nationalist-leaning groups and is currently called the Political Office for the Iraqi Resistance - is to link up with other anti-occupation groups in Iraq to negotiate with the Americans in anticipation of an early US withdrawal. The programme envisages a temporary technocratic government to run the country during a transition period until free elections can be held.

Like I said, even most Sunni insurgents have no love for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Once we leave they will not take over the country. They want the US out...that's their friction with the US...its very presence in Iraq. It certaintly is a positive sign that they plan to hold talks with the US, but I seriously doubt that the transition from US occupation to free-Iraq will go that smooth. Although they claim to not be against working with Shia groups, they say they will not deal with Shia militias and groups because of their affiliation with this Iraqi government who they see as a puppet and embodyment of the US occupation.

In essence: Which Shia will they be OK dealing with? Who is left?

I don't know. At this point I still see a lot of chaos and civil war raging when the US leave...nothing so far tells me otherwise but you never know what kind of accomodation can be reached between now and our withdrawal.

----

And speaking of pulling our troops out...
Democrats vow to continue pressing ahead for US withdrawal from Iraq -

Good luck, and I mean that. It's going to be a bitch fighting Republican obstuction in the Senate in the form of the Filibuster.

They are, after all, on track to be the highest-filibustering most-obstructionist party in US history.

That's the Republican Party for ya!

Plus they have the gal to criticize Democrats for not being able to get things done!

It's like someone breaking you leg and then critcizing you for not being able to walk correctly.