Iraq

John Crippen

John Crippen — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:20:48 -0800

With A Compass, Not A Roadmap

Eric Lotke — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:14:55 -0800

The complaints are starting on the new Obama administration. Some are concerned that he filled his administration with former Clinton hands, reflecting the old school (if more competent), not the change we need.

“What worries me is there is not one person in the senior group who is the outsider to this club,” cautioned Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect. “Where is the diversity of opinion in this economic team?”

David Sirota of our own Campaign for America's Future observes that some terrific progressives have been appointed to high-level positions in the Administration, but they are political jobs, not substantive ones. They are “positions that are focused on selling policy, whatever that policy may be. “ In contrast, the “policy advisers who actually craft policy are almost all right-of-center, Establishment choices.”

Discontent is coming from the other direction as well, as Democrats increase estimates of the cost to revive the economy. During the campaign Obama pledged roughly $150 billion in spending over 10 years to create new jobs for clean energy and rebuilding schools. Now Congressional Democrats are estimating immediate expenditures in the $700 billion range. The GOP has created a spendometer to track the continuing increases.

Obama himself dodges questions about cost. “It is going to be of a size and scope that is necessary to get this economy back on track,” he said in his November 24 press conference. “I don't want to get into numbers right now.”

The question for progressives is whether to demand the details or question his choices.

Both seem premature. Political change happens with a compass, not a roadmap. Obama has clearly indicated which way he wants to lead: in the direction of clean energy, massive public investments, an exit from Iraq and “affordable, accessible health care for all Americans.” These are important and fundamentally progressive goals.

Digby sees a positive side to the appointments to political -- if not substantive -- positions. Simply using progressive language drives our country in a positive direction.

Let’s trust that those old Clinton hands will have the skills and experience to navigate the changing terrain. Obama’s job is to set a direction. Our job is to push him forwards and keep him on course.

White House Blackmails Iraq Ahead of Dec. Expiration of UN Mandate

Gus Wynn — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:21:28 -0700

The recent $70 billion financial bailout was forced onto a skeptical, unwilling American public who dialed in to Congressional offices protesting the plan. The inital NO vote by Congress echoed the feeling by enraged citizens that Wall Street should twist in the wind, choked by it's own greed and irresponsible, unsustainable practices.

The White House got the votes it needed, however, after a few days of tense wrangling in which big finance threatened they'd let the peoples assets get eaten up in their collapse. The White House became salesmen for the deal. Congress saw they were up against impending chaos if the tumbling dominos endangered the life savings of their constituents. Blackmail.

The bailout ensured the Bush White House enough cash and control to see them through to the end of their misbegotten term. That it was unhealthy for the economy in the long-term mattered not - Bush all but doubled the national deficit already, signaling how much he cares about fiscal responsibility.

Now the White House has turned his attention to Iraq. Frustrated for months at the resistance Iraq has shown in signing a Status of Forces Agreement, Bush has ratcheted up the pressure. The SOFA would allow U.S. to continue its "war on terror" in Iraq until 2011 and pave the way for the contracts Big Oil has been long waiting for.

The Iraqi people have been protesting and marching in solidarity against the SOFA which they see as exploitive and imperialist. The blatant greed of the U.S. has brought together Iraqi rivals in common disgust. Prime Minister Maliki, who endorsed Obama's plan for a responsible withdrawal of U.S. forces has stood up to Bush, identifying privatized military forces as a sticking point in negotiations - the Iraqis want Blackwater liable for their actions in Iraqi criminal courts.

But President Bush wants a deal now, charging General Odierno with the job of threatening the Iraqis who quickly termed this blackmail. Odierno gave a three page list of "services" that the U.S. military will withhold if Iraq resists further. This includes the security that has prevented Iraqis from killing eachother in the streets as they did for years before the Petraeus era.

Here's where it gets interesting - January 1st would be the date for withholding these services. In a hilarious twist of irony, a timetable, but without adequate transition support for the Iraqis to take over their own security.

Unlike the timetable proposed earlier by Democrats which Bush claimed amounted to surrender, this timetable is being used to pressure the Iraqis, leaving them without weapons and training, vulnerable to violence, and particularly at their borders. Many experts believe this may further push Iraq towards waiting Iranian influences.

This deadline however isn't of Bush's design- it represents the expiration of the U.N. mandate under which U.S. forces have been allowed to occupy Iraq - the legal cover for the war. Technically, the U.S. couldn't continue providing military "services" if they wanted to - unless a SOFA is signed or the deadline is extended, unlikely because the President won't let Congress, the American people or the U.N. see the terms of the prososed agreement.

Phyllis Bennis offers an excellent analysis of a translated draft of the SOFA leaked by the Iraqis here - and it is a must-read for anyone against this war and particularly troops questioning the legality of their deployment after New Year's Eve.

Perhaps it's the fingerprint of Vice President Cheney at work here. It was Cheney who stopped Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Hans Blix on his way into the Oval Office to meet the President in 2003. According to Blix, Cheney ordered him to issue a report that agreed with George Bush's claims or Blix would be discredited.

Another story circulated during the 2006 NSA hearings warned that any Republican who voted to continue the inquiries would see their reelection funding withheld -- at the behest of Karl Rove. By the next day, the hearings were discontinued without explanation.

Regardless of who within the White House is conceiving of these blackmail and secrecy plots, it's clear the current administration wants to do some last-minute business in ensuring the wealthiest of defense and energy industry barons contract out a little more plunder before the Bush era ends. Related reading: updated commentary by John Perkins, author of A Game As Old As Empire: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Links:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5624
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/54849.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_per_070315_john_perkins_3a_...

Abdullahi Edward Tomasiewicz

Abdullahi Edward Tomasiewicz — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:05:21 -0700

An American by Birth I have lived and worked in Nigeria for the past 40 years.

Kristol Pandering Again

Timothy Gatto — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:27:28 -0700

William Kristol must believe that he is extraordinarily sanguine and the rest of us extraordinarily stupid when he wrote his column in the New York Times today. The column entitled “Someone Else’s Alex” was in response to a Move-On.org ad that showed a mother with a one-year old baby named Alex. and saying that her son would not be available for Senator John McCain’s 100 Year War in Iraq.

According to Kristol;
“I’m not persuaded. Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.”

Kristol goes on to defend McCain and insists that Alex would only be 9 years old after John McCain finishes his second tour. He also defends McCain’s statements about a prolonged occupation in Iraq citing the long presence that the US has had in Japan, Germany, Korea and Kuwait.

Just yesterday I had a conversation with my brother’s nephew-in-law who asked me about the Army. He’s 20 years old and since he was asking, I remembered the Army policy of giving two thousand dollars to any retiree that was responsible for an enlistment of anyone outside the family. Since this young man was outside my family I mulled it over. You see. I’m a former Army Recruiter and this young man was not my immediate family member. I tossed the idea back and forth in my head and then looked at him.

“Did you ever hear of stop-loss?” I asked.
No, he did not. I explained to him how the Army could keep you beyond your original enlistment if it met the needs of the Army.
“Do you know that some of the guys in Iraq are spending their third or fourth tour in Iraq?”
Again, he did not, so I explained how some of the guys in the Army only spend about 12 months home before they rotate out again to a combat zone.
“What’s that doing to their families?” He asked me.
“Well it’s causing a lot of hardship and in this country about 200 veterans take their own life every week according to a story on CBS.”
“That’s cold!” He said before he walked off shaking his head.

So much for my $2,000.00 bonus, I guess he won’t enlist. Still, according to Kristol; everything is just rosy for our all-volunteer Army.

“But it is surely relevant to point out that the United States has an all-volunteer Army. Alex won’t be drafted, and his mommy can’t enlist him. He can decide when he’s an adult whether he wants to serve. And, of course, McCain supports the volunteer army.”

One must come to realize sooner or later, that some former service members, even former recruiters won’t be helping to meet the Army’s enlistment objectives anytime soon. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the Army in this day and age is not the “Deal of the Century”. They might make a young person “Army Strong”, but they could just as easily make a young person “Army Dead” too. The sad fact is that as soon as they are medi-vaced to Germany, if they die, once in the air, they are no longer counted as a fatality of the war, since they didn’t die in Iraq. We don’t want to advertise the real number of deaths, do we?

So Kristol, defend your candidate and your all-volunteer Army as much as you wish. You have your opinion and I have mine. The facts are very simple in this matter, I know what’s going on and you just don’t care. These kids are just cannon-fodder to you chicken-hawks anyway, right? I wonder how many of your offspring served in the military. Go on and attack Move-On, I don’t care for them too much anyway. I will say this though, this time they happen to be right on the money.

Us vs. Them

David Sirota — Sat, 17 May 2008 18:35:00 -0700

The New Republic's Peter Scoblic has a great op-ed in the Los Angeles Times about Bush's comments to the Israeli Knesset this week. It is a must-read.

Here's the crux:

But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.

The New Republic, of course, has been one of the most reflexively pro-war publications in Washington, helping beat the drum for the Iraq War. However, Scoblic's op-ed is spot on - and it derives from his new book, "Us vs. Them."

I've known Scoblic for years now, and though I certainly have taken issue with the New Republic in the past, I have always found Scoblic to be a solid writer, and not prone to the kind of national security zealotry and extremism many at that publication champion. I confess that because I'm swamped trying to get ready for my book tour, I haven't had a chance read the book yet, but if the op-ed is representative of it, then it's probably a worthwhile read. Whether it signals a shift at the New Republic - I have no idea. But progressives certainly need more voices out there making the case that a radically different foreign policy is not just a good idea - but a necessity.

The truth is, both our international economic and military policy is not only making the world less safe - it is specifically making AMERICA less safe. Conservatives' attempt to make saber rattling and the concept of military action synonymous with "strength" and "toughness" is threatening our security. Democrats should be saying just that.

Joint Chiefs chair: US prepping military options against Iran

Michael Kwiatkowski — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:46:01 -0700

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Pentagon is planning "potential" military actions against Iran, reports The Washington Post.

Weekend Watchdog Wrap-Up

Bill Scher — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:05:35 -0700

A particularly shameful day for the Sunday shows, which once again went 0-for-3 for the Watchdog.

It is simply pathetic that ABC's This Week failed to ask National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley about the latest bombshell report, from ABC no less, that senior Bush administration officials including V.P Dick Cheney and Hadley's then-boss Condi Rice directly approved torture as an interrogation technique.

If Sunday show hosts don't bother to explore the results of strong investigative reporting, that investigative reporting fades in the wind. For ABC, it's a waste of their money to pay for investigative reporting, then not have their Sunday show even mention it. It's not just bad for our democracy, it's bad for their business.

Meanwhile, neither ABC and CBS' Face The Nation (PDF file) asked Hadley or Defense Secretary Robert Gates about Bush's plan to keep tour of duty in Iraq at 15 months throughout the rest of his presidency.

CBS asked Gates generally if he is "worried about the strain on the military troops," and then let him claim the administration is going "back to 12-month deployments," without noting that policy won't go into effect until August 2009, long after Bush is gone.

And while Iran was touched upon by the shows, neither raised the question, "if the Iraqi government can have a diplomatic meeting with Iranian officials, why can't the United States government?"

More Army Recruits Require 'Conduct Waivers'

Anita Chariw2 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:24:47 -0700

The percentage of recruits requiring a waiver to join the Army because of a criminal record or other past misconduct has more than doubled since 2004 to one for every eight new soldiers. The increase reflects the difficulties the Army faces in attracting young men and women into the military at a time of war

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder More Common Among Soldiers Serving More than one Tour

Anita Chariw2 — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:22:01 -0700

27 percent of noncommissioned officers - a critically important group - on their third or fourth tour exhibited symptoms commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorders. That figure is far higher than the roughly 12 percent who exhibit those symptoms after one tour and the 18.5 percent who develop the disorders after a second deployment