Two Babes and a Brain

Iraq and other things...

For a while now, I have marveled at the ability of the Democratic Party to not vote their self-interests. In almost every poll done, when asked who they thought knew the most, had the best plan, was most qualified...Joe Biden finishes first or second. When asked who they will vote for it's Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Hello?

Sure, let's make history and elect a woman or a black guy without any thought as to whether or not they are the right person for the job.

Biden says the next president will have "no margin of error" when it comes to Iraq and the War on Terror and I think that's true. He has consistently not voted to undermine the soldiers in harms way--something that goes right up the ass of the progressives--he says, he won't defund the war so long as there is one soldier over seas who will be harmed by that decision. He says some things are more important than winning elections.

For years, he has said that the way for Iraq to be successful is to divide the country into three STATES under a loose FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with an equitable division of the oil revenue.

He's right...

You can read about it in the Post.

If you happened to catch the President of Iraq on CNN yesterday, you saw him agree with Biden.

Time to start voting with our heads and not our desire to make history...

Chris

Iraq

I know this is a day or so late, but I've been busy. On top of that, I have been thinking about all of this--looking for a reasoned opinion--a place where I feel truly comfortable with the situation. I didn't find that place. The whole Iraq issue is an uncomfortable issue. I suppose all wars are and should be.

First off--MoveOn.org sucks. The ad they took out in the NYT slamming General Petraeus was awful and unfair. Even if it wasn't, let me thank them for allowing the conservatives to revive the almost dead "cut and run," "traitors," "aiding the enemy" rhetoric. Helpful. Wish I had thought of it. Not!

Second, let me say that I believe what the General says. I believe that we are making progress militarily. I believe that we have clearer goals and better plans to achieve them. I respect and admire and thank General Petraeus.

Third, I don't think we can "win" Iraq militarily. I think that freedom has to--at some point--come from within. I think that the Iraqi government has to stand up and decide what it is all about. We can't do that for them.

So, for me, the questions is, how long do we stay to see if the Iraqis get their act together? What if they don't ever? How do we make them do it? Can we make them do it? OK, so that is more than one question, but that's where I am.

I agree that we shouldn't "lose;" that we should leave it better than it is. I'm just not sure if we can really achieve it. I know I don't trust this administration to do it right.  So, I don't know.

That's my reasoned opinion.

I'd like to hear yours.

Just don't yell at me, would ya?

Chris

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Political Correctness

It was the young wizard’s biggest challenge yet: understanding why those who should be defending their civilization were pretending that nothing was happening or even becoming apologists for the other side. Barry Rubin tells the tale that began with a headline in the Daily Prophet newspaper: “Minister Fudge Urges Engagement; Accuses Harry Potter of Voldemortphobia”

News item: The Iranian newspaper Kayhan, has criticized officials there for allowing the sale of the new Harry Potter book, claiming the series is a Zionist project in order to disrupt the minds of young people.

“The main thing is to try and convince as many people as possible that You-Know-Who came back, Harry….[Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge] is absolutely refusing to believe it’s happened.”
“But why?” said Harry desperately. “Why’s he being so stupid?”…
“Because accepting that Voldemort’s back would mean trouble….”
“It’s hard to convince people he’s back, especially as they really don’t want to believe it in the first place.”
—Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, pp. 93-94.

What’s going on here?” Harry said angrily. “I personally saw Voldemort gathering his followers but when I read the Daily Prophet it would seem there is no real threat. And now they want to negotiate with Voldemort?”
“That’s not all,” Hermione explained. “The newspaper is trying to make you sound deluded for exposing the truth.”

“Yes,” Ron added, ”and there are a lot of people now who favor giving aid to Voldemort in order—they claim—to moderate him.”
Certainly, the MSMM (Mainstream Magical Media), had long been blind to the return of Voldemort and his Death Eater movement. The Order of the Phoenix, the group formed to fight Voldemort, had a lot of blogs but the followers of You-Know-Who seemed to control all too many of the biggest institutions. Even on the Internet, Draco Malfoy had even developed one of the most popular blogs of all, “The Daily Draco” and some of the blander naïf’s from one of Hogwarts’ houses had created the “Hufflepuff Post.”

Harry just didn’t understand. How could anyone not see the terrible things going on around the world: the suicide bombing attacks; the organized incitement of hatred, the attempt by an extremist movement to take over and enslave millions of people? Why were they constantly attacking the victims and ridiculing those trying to expose these dangers, distorting their words and slandering their characters?

Gee, I was wondering the same thing.
-LizaJane

You can read the whole thing here: Pajamas Media, article by Barry Rubin

The Author’s note says: As popular as the Harry Potter series has been, it is still just a set of novels about a fantasy situation. Thank goodness nothing like this could happen in the real world.

Clear, Hold and Build

Update:

After some thought, I decided to add my comment as an update.

To all here.

I do not like this war or even think we should be in Iraq. That being said; this piece was an effort to learn from our mistakes in Iraq and find a way to win this war. If we are going to fight a war, we should fight it to win.

We have been told by Bush that the war in Iraq is the central front on the war on terror. Our future depends on our victory, but he hasn't asked for any sacrifice from the citizens of this country to win the Iraq War.

Knowing that we do not have enough troops to hold ground in Iraq, we have two choices; build a larger Army or leave.

So what should we do? Build a larger army or leave? And Why?
What sacrifices should be asked of the American Public?

I just finished watching a FrontLine Program called EndGame. The program starts out talking about the original Iraq War Plan.  The Plan was to leave Iraq three months after the fall of Baghdad.  In fact, "General Jack Keane, the Army's second in command at that time, tells FRONTLINE, "I think it's driven in part by my own failures when I was there as a senior military leader contributing to General Tommy Franks' plan that we never even considered an insurgency as a reasonable option."

Since an insurgency was never considered an option, the first reaction to the insurgency was to deny that the insurgency even existed. In fact, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things, and that's what's going to happen here." See no insurgency, just messy Freedom, but the Messy Freedom showed that the Americans did not have troops to provide real security.

Then in 2004 comes General Casey, he decides to shift security problem to Iraqis and to the  Iraqi government, fast.  Casey and Rumsfeld believe that a "light footprint" strategy would solve the insurgency problem. Just build up Iraqi Army and turn the security of the Iraqi people to the Iraqis. But Fallujah is making the "light footprint Strategy impossible.  Fallujah has become the Car Bomb Factory of Iraq.  Casey and Rumsfeld fear if they do not shut down the bomb factories in Fallujah, the coming Iraqi Election would be a failure.

Is it Time to Change the Course?

Update:

– Cartoon by Mike Luckovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It is time for a change of course. The whole knows that except Bush, the Republicans and the 29% of the Americans who still think the Iraqi War is just swell.

First up an editorial from USA Today.

Our view on the war on terror: Sobering intelligence report undercuts Bush's story line

New estimate demonstrates need to refocus on threat behind 9/11.

This week, the Bush administration issued what amounts to a status report on the war on terror it launched almost six years ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The report came in the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which distills the best analysis of 16 intelligence agencies about the battle against Islamic extremism.

The document itself — a two-page summary of a wider, still-classified report — isn't particularly new or surprising. Its findings reflect trends that are visible in daily news reports. What's striking, though, is the way its story line diverges from the standard White House portrayal of the war on terror, which casts Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network as on the run and the Iraq war as the primary front.

The intelligence agencies say al-Qaeda has reconstituted its central organization, putting the United States in a "heightened threat environment." Al-Qaeda's leaders have established a new haven in remote, tribal areas of northwestern Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has spawned a new al-Qaeda franchise there, which has helped energize Islamic extremists and helped with recruitment and funding, the report says. And al-Qaeda remains intent on finding ways to mount a spectacular attack in the USA. The only hopeful news is that American Muslims have not become as radicalized as Muslims in Europe.

This frank assessment should serve as a reminder that the overriding goals of the war on terror are still the same as they were when the nation was allied behind them after 9/11: apprehend or kill bin Laden and top al-Qaeda leaders; destroy the organization; counter the appeal of extreme Muslim ideology; and prevent new attacks.

The misbegotten Iraq war has diverted attention from those objectives. It has boosted al-Qaeda's standing and recruitment. Though no meaningful link existed before between Iraq and al-Qaeda — and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 — one has now been created. Worse yet, the Iraq war has split the nation and shattered the post-9/11 sense of shared purpose...

Second we have this poll by Military.com

          Military.com Poll: War Support Waning
Military.com  |  By Christian Lowe  |  July 18, 2007

Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008.  More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because "we're wasting lives and resources there."...

 

Third

War games show Bush wrong on Iraq pullout; Qaeda unlikely to succeed

Qaeda unlikely to succeed David Edwards and Will Menaker Published: Thursday July 19, 2007 Supporters of the war in Iraq -- including President George W. Bush -- claim that a withdrawal of US forces would lead to an al Qaeda takeover of Iraq. Yet according to Pentagon war games, this scenario is highly unlikely.

Troop Strength...the whole story...

There is a continuing debate here on the blog about troop strength in Iraq. While I do not seek nor invite any more screaming matches, I do think a conversation about troop numbers warrant a mention about the following:

In addition to the number of troops we have fighting in Iraq, we also have this (see whole article)

"The security industry's enormous growth has been facilitated by the U.S. military, which uses the 20,000 to 30,000 contractors to offset chronic troop shortages." Wapo

"That brings the total number of contractors killed in Iraq to at least 917, along with more than 12,000 wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government figures and dozens of interviews." NYTimes

And we have at least 100,000 serving in Iraq.

So, how many "troops" do we really have serving in Iraq? How many casualties have we really suffered and how many troops did we supposedly need?

I think a real discussion about troop strength should include the whole picture...

Chris

IF security conditions improve...

OK, now I may not be operating at full capacity this morning; I haven't had my required allotment of caffeine but how is this different from what the President has always said?

President Bush, facing a growing Republican revolt against his Iraq policy, has rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve, senior officials said yesterday.

The story says IF security conditions improve. Isn't the question have security conditions have improved? How about, do they show any sign of improving? How about, how do you intend to make security conditions improve?

I don't know, but this seems to me to not be news at all. It was a long time ago that we shifted from WMD to rid the world of Saddam Hussein to peace and democracy to a stable Iraq. It has been about how we get to a stable Iraq for a long time now, not if the troops would come home once we had one...what am I missing here?

Oh and since we are on the subject, Turkey has 140,000 troops on their border because they don't like what the future of Iraq looks like with an autonomous Kurdish state...anyone concerned that that number is just about the same as the total number of troops we have in Iraq?

Chris

Abu Grahib revisited...

I know some of you will scoff right off because this article was written by Seymour Hersch. That's your right. However, I would recommend reading it first.

There is much in here that we already knew. It is new because it is combined with "on the record" comments by  Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. It is incredibly damning.

I am not a big believer in Congressional Investigations. While my Democratic cohorts would investigate anyone and anything right now, I believe that many times investigations are a waste of time. The calls for impeachment of Dick Cheney and such, might give some of us a momentary gleeful-he-earned-it-moment, we really have more important things to do. There is, after all, a country to lead and wars to run or, if you are so inclined, wars to end.

Having said all that, I would re-investigate this incident. I would investigate Rumsfeld. I would do these things because the prior investigations were a sham; they strictly prohibited investigators from looking up the chain of command. What kind of investigation doesn't allow you to look for who is truly responsible? I would re-investigate because there are pictures of a soldier sodomizing an Iraqi woman, yet no soldier has been charged with rape in that case. The first investigation did not do what it should have.

I would investigate Rumsfeld because I believe most of his testimony before Congress was lies. I know, they didn't swear him in, so it is iffy as to whether he committed a crime. I believe a real investigation would bring to light the "mind-set" and "new approach" this country has taken in these wars. I

If we are going to go forward with this shift in fundamental beliefs , to quote Colonel Hunt, we ought to at least have a conversation about it. There are some pretty disgusting things in this article that range from the acts committed at Abu Grahib to the way people charged with prosecuting this war and leading and protecting our soldiers distanced themselves from their responsibilities. The way people refused to read reports and listen to accounts and look at the pictures so they could deny knowledge of this blows my mind.

Now, before you all jump in the comment section and rant, this is not a partisan issue for me. If Rumsefeld were a Democrat I would feel the same. That I am appalled that this happened doesn't mean I am "soft on terror" and it doesn't mean "I want the enemy to win."

I want us to be the good guys. I want us to not cede the moral ground. I want us to do things right because they are right and to do less damages forever the men and women we send to fight for us. I am not blaming Republicans for this failure. I am merely saying that there has been a huge failure, it has bad consequences and we need to take a good, hard look at the way we are doing things and decide who and what we want to be.

There are always going to be bad guys. They don't determine who and what we are unless we cede that ground to them.

Chris

The Dems Blew it on the Iraqi War Funding

The Dems gave Bush a Blank Check and Now they are down in the polls.  Here is a reprint of a Matt Stoller Post from MYDD. - HC

Rothenberg: Democrats Played Iraq "like a Stradivarius"

By Matt Stoller, Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 11:43:27 AM EST

If you want to know the decrepit and immoral state of conventional wisdom in DC, check out Stuart Rothernberg's piece on the supplemental vote.  Rothenberg is part of the forecaster-consultant complex, bumping up races or downgrading them, thereby helping the party committees determine which seats are in play.  He has a well-known beef with Chris Bowers specifically and liberals in general, mocking Howard Dean and the idea of a 50 state strategy until the 2006 wave election occurred.  Rothenberg is not a Republican and he isn't particularly an ideologue right-winger, but he does believe in conservative ideas.  In that, he's a lot like Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer, and Ken Salazar.  He's center-right, the ultimate Beltway pundit, bad at his job but good for the money centers.  So it shouldn't be a surprise to read his latest column on how terrifically Democratic centrists played the war vote, and how they will benefit tremendously from giving Bush another blank check.

 

Now that the dust has settled on the Congressional vote on the supplemental appropriations bill and on the ruckus that anti-war opponents of the bill kicked up, it's time to assess the political implications.

First, Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill played the issue like a Stradivarius. They forced a vote on a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, putting Republicans on record supporting the status quo and President Bush, but allowed a subsequent vote to "fund the troops." That gave their own Members from swing districts the opportunity to demonstrate their support for the military.

From a purely political point of view, Democrats had their cake and ate it too. Yes, the war is unpopular, and opposing it is a no-brainer. But the one thing Democrats need to avoid is looking like themselves during the 1970s and 1980s -- weak and unwilling to support America's men and women in uniform. Yes, they've spent the past few years speaking the right words on national security and the armed forces, but if they had refused to pass a spending bill, they would have at the very least opened themselves to attack from the GOP.

So, in ignoring the demands of the party's left, Congressional leaders have kept their party right where they want it -- against the war but also against terrorists and for the troops.

To truly understand how ignorant this is, just take a look at this pretty graph put together by the Washington Post last week.

 

 

Waiting for September...

It seems to me that everyone is waiting for September. Democrats, Republicans, candidates, voters--everyone. I don't mean that I am sitting here waiting for Petraeus to report--but as far as discussions  go, there aren't too many going on. The presidential hopefuls are focusing on Iraq, all trying to convince somebody they will do a better job--the media covers nothing else. I could find a cure for cancer and it would barely be a blip.

Congress can't change anything about it, the President won't and it seems like the American people are torn between not wanting to fail and wanting the troops to come home. Somehow, September has become the magic moment.

Tell me this, what will three months change? I am not being snarky. Seriously, what will three months change? You have to figure that because we are not fighting a standing army there isn't going to be a moment when they surrender.

We may make some progress but by the nature of this kind of war it is three steps forward and two steps back and I'm pretty sure that no matter what we do we aren't going to solve the tensions between the Shiia and the Sunni--at least not in the next ten years.

So you guys tell me, what change does September really bring?

Chris