Odom: Want stability in the Middle East? Get out of Iraq!
COMMENTARY | November 11, 2005

In his last piece for NiemanWatchdog.org, retired Gen. William Odom argued that all the terrible things the Bush administration says would happen if we pulled our troops out of Iraq are happening already. In a new postscript, Odom writes that the converse is true as well: Bush says he wants to bring democracy and stability to the greater Middle East -- but in fact the only way to achieve that goal is to get out of Iraq now.

By William E. Odom

diane@hudson.org

 

As I have watched the reactions to my earlier piece on NiemanWatchdog.org, "What’s wrong with cutting and running?”, I recognize that one critical point does not come through to many readers. The problem may stem from the words "cut and run" in the title. In the minds of some, that seems to imply leaving the region for good.  My argument is fundamentally different.

 

I believe that stabilizing the region from the Eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan is very much an American interest, one we share with all our allies as well as with several other countries, especially, China, Russia, and India.

 

The ‘Global Balkans’

 

Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has called this region the "global Balkans," a name that recalls the role of the European Balkans during two or three decades leading up to the outbreak of World War I.  By themselves the Balkan countries were not all that important. Yet several great powers, especially Russia and Austria, were jockeying for strategic advantages there as they anticipated the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and competition for control of the straits leading from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Britain and France wanted neither Russia nor Austria to dominate; and Germany, although uninterested in the Balkans, was allied to Austria. From a strategic viewpoint, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was unimportant, but it set in motion actions that soon brought all of the major powers in Europe to war. Four empires collapsed, and the doors were opened to the Communists in Russia and the Nazis in Germany as a result. Brzezinski's point today is that the Middle East and Southwest Asia have precisely that kind of potential for catalyzing wars among the major powers of the world today, although nothing in the region objectively merits such wars. 

 

Thus Brzezinski calls for the United States to lead the states of Europe plus Russia, Japan, and China in a cooperative approach to stabilizing this region so that it cannot spark conflicts among them. As he rightly argues, the task of stabilization is beyond the power of the United States alone. With allies, however, it can manage the challenge.

 

A Missed Opportunity

 

After al Qaeda's attacks in the United States, the European members of NATO invoked Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty, meaning that they considered the attack on the United States as an attack on them all. Article Five had never been invoked before. Moreover, over 90 countries worldwide joined one or more of five separate coalitions to support the U.S. war against al Qaeda.  Seldom has the United States had so much international support.  It was a most propitious time, therefore, for dealing with "the Global Balkans" in precisely the way Brzezinski suggested. 

 

Over the next year and a half, however, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, many neoconservatives, both inside and outside the administration, disparaged NATO and other US allies as unnecessary for "transforming the Middle East."  Because the United States is a superpower, they insisted, it could handle this task alone.  Accordingly, we witnessed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team and some officials in the State Department and the White House (especially in the Vice President's office) gratuitously and repeatedly  insult the Europeans, dismissing them as irrelevant.  The climax of this sustained campaign to discard our allies came in the UN Security Council struggle for a resolution to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in February-March 2003.

 

From that time on, we have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq.  Winston Churchill's glib observation, "the only thing worse that having allies is having none," was once again vindicated. 

 

Iraq as a Dead End Street

 

Two areas of inquiry follow naturally from this background:

 

First, how could we induce our allies to join us in Iraq now?  Why should they now put troops in Iraq and suffer the pain with us? Could we seriously expect them to do so?

 

Second, is remaining in Iraq the best strategy for a coalition of major states to stabilize the region?  Would a large NATO coalition of forces plus some from India, Japanese, and China enjoy more success?

 

On the first point, there is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq. How could the leaders of Germany, France, and other states in Europe convince their publics to support such a course of action? They could not, and their publics would not be wise to agree if their leaders pleaded for them to do so.

 

And on the second point, Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al Qaeda benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day U.S. forces remain there. A serious review of our regional interests is required. Until that is accomplished and new and compelling aims for managing the region are clarified, continuing the campaign in Iraq makes no sense.

 

Withdrawal is the Precondition to Progress

 

Once we recognize these two realities, it becomes clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the precondition to winning the support of our allies and a few others for a joint approach to the region. Until that has been completed, they will not join such a coalition. And until that has happened, even we in the United States cannot think clearly about what constitutes our interests there, much let gain agreement about common interests for a coalition.

 

By contrast, any argument for "staying course," or seeking more stability before we withdraw -- or pointing out tragic consequences that withdrawal will cause -- is bound to be wrong, or at least unpersuasive. Putting it bluntly, those who insist on staying in Iraq longer make the consequences of withdrawal more terrible and make it harder to find an alternative strategy for achieving regional stability.

 

Once the invasion began in March 2003, all of the ensuing unhappy results became inevitable. The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In any event, the longer we stay, the worse it will be. Until that is understood, we will make no progress with our allies or in devising a promising alternative strategy.

 

"Staying the course" may make a good sound bite, but it can be disastrous for strategy. Several of Hitler's generals told him that "staying the course" at Stalingrad in 1942 was a strategic mistake, that he should allow the Sixth Army to be withdrawn, saving it to fight defensive actions on reduced frontage against the growing Red Army. He refused, lost the Sixth Army entirely, and left his commanders with fewer forces to defend a wider front. Thus he made the subsequent Soviet offensives westward easier.

 

To argue, as some do, that we cannot leave Iraq because "we broke it and therefore we own it" is to reason precisely the way Hitler did with his commanders. Of course we broke it!  But the Middle East is not a pottery store.  It is the site of major military conflict with several different forces that the United States is galvanizing into an alliance against America. To hang on to an untenable position is the height of irresponsibility.  Beware of anyone, including the president, who insists that this is "responsible" or "the patriotic" thing to do.

 

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), a frequent contributor to NiemanWatchdog, died May 30, 2008, apparently of a heart attack. Odom in recent years had been an aggressive critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and was one of the first to call for removing American troops from Iraq. For many years a highly popular professor at Yale, he had been director of the National Security Agency under President Reagan from 1985 to 1988.

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

casulaties Posted by Robert Nielsen - Retired Journalist 11/16/2005, 02:44 AM The news media may soon make it impossible for the United States to wage any war that lasts longer than a few months and causes more than a few hundred casualties. The recent 2000th death of an American serving in the military in Iraq was widely publicized as if the endurable limit had been passed, and a war so deadly could not be justified. Some comparisons: 2000 is approximately three per cent of annual deaths by murder in the U.S., and less than one per cent of the yearly deaths caused by drunk drivers and foolish ATV and snowmobile accidents. Nearly all those deaths are as lamentable as those caused by suicide bombers and roadside bombs in Iraq. The news media should be curious to discover if existing policies--or lack thereof--are contributing to the homeside carnage. The issue now for America, and the West, is not the historically very low level of military casualties in Iraq. Nor is it the question of whether going to war was a mistake, based on faulty or misrepresented inteligence. The paramount issue is the risk of Iraq's becoming a solid al Qaeda base--much more convenient than Afghanistan was for hellraising in the Middle East Arab states, as the attacks in Jordan have just shown--as well as a Saddamite or Taliban-style tyranny. Those results will become near-certainties if the coalition troops pull out before the elected Iraqi government's police and army are fit to cope with the jihadists and Saddam loyalists. The news media might also offer a critical word or two of those nominal allies of the U.S., long protected by American power, whose governments have declined to send any troops to help correct Defence Secretary Rumsfeld's gross blunder in failing to plan the occupation of Iraq. Canada is one of those delinquents. Robert Nielsen, Nieman Fellow for Canada 1952-53

Great article but... Posted by Paul Wilson - 11/19/2005, 12:19 PM General Odum has hit the nail squarely on the head when talking about the military conduct of the war and Washington politics. Our Middle East policy always has been and maybe always will be wrong. The people at the top never really understand the people over there. I had three tours of duty in the Gulf region in the 70's and 80's. Those people just don't think like we do. It's dry, it's dusty and hot and easily 115 degrees in the shade. The weather eats at your body and soul. It's unrelenting, you have no idea what it is like unless you spend significant time there. It's close to hell on Earth. Our press needs to cover this aspect in much greater detail. Add a thousand years of conflict with Christians. Add the fundamentalist sects that have cropped up because of these conflicts. Their Koran tells them to disrespect us and treat us badly. It is ingrained in their very religion. Understanding: An Arab's first allegiance is to his family and clan. It is not to an elected official or the law. Law is something forced on them by the brute in charge of the country. Tribal based civilizations and democracy are mutualy exclusive concepts. It could happen, but it hasn't so far. Democratic principles are not new and have been mentioned at least in passing in every new government for the past 200 years *** except in the Middle East.*** Even communist countries freely use the term "Democracy." Clan politics are based on power and seniority, not the ballot box. Even if you had a whole Arab country wanting democracy, it is a social leap of a thousand years from where they are to today's successful democracy. This practical knowledge has not sunk in to American minds. Sitting in air conditioned comfort and watching Desperate Housewives has us so far removed from reality that we cannot understand the Arab mind. This is our American problem, and until we realize it and walk a mile in the shoes of an Arab, we will continue to be confused and confounded by Middle Eastern affairs. I just want to know where Osama Bin Laden is.

Democrats need to change course Posted by Arthur Denman - Impeach Bush Coalition 11/20/2005, 03:16 PM I voted for John Kerry. I am currently unhappy with the Democrats strategy on Iraq. Just think of what would have happened to Bill Clinton if he had gotten us bogged down in a quagmire like Iraq. They would have thrown him to the Lions. The Democrats (especially the ones who voted for the Iraq conflict) need to own their decision and see it through. The only ones that now have the right to complain are Democrats like Dennis Kucinich who has been, like myself, opposed to the Iraq war from the very beginning. If we Democrats keep calling for troop withdrawls the Republicans will naturally respond with "we need to stay the course". This is an endless cycle of bickering that does noone any good. Especially while the Republicans unfortunely control all three branches of government. The strategy needs to be to do the Republicans what they surely dot to the Democrats if the tables were turned. We need to Impeach President Bush! Like they did to Clinton, force him to be under oath before congress and rake him over the coals. We will surely catch him lying. Drill him about the run-up to the war and impeach him. What goes around comes around. I have no sympathy for a draftdodger president that sends our young men and women in to harms way and takes constant vacations while American families suffer. At least Clinton had the sound judgement of not sending our troops into harms way over lies. God Bless America! Arthur Denman IV Charlotte

Pulling out would be nice but Posted by Seth Mauseth - 11/20/2005, 07:37 PM Pulling out of Iraq wouldn't solve the problems of the Middle East. The United States has an opportunity to achieve something wonderful if we stay in Iraq which is establish a functioning democracy. If we are sucessful it would be the first step in transforming the political culture of the Middle East. That is a worthwhile goal. It will be a democracy with an Arab face and Arab dynamics but a peaceful one if we can pull it off. Stability is nice but the Realpolitik of the last 50 years had made life more difficult for citizens of Middle Eastern countries not improved their situation. Why retreat to the solutions of the past? Do not Arabs deserve freedom? What is not mentioned in your article is the scale of disaster if the United States pulls out of Iraq. If we leave Iraq the civil war that only simmering now between Arab Sunnis and Arab Shias will blossom into a Bosnia style conflict. The death toll in Iraq will climb to the hundreds of thousands. Being that the Sunni/Shia divide exists in many Middle Eastern countries, war between Sunnis and Shia's in Iraq could spawn a much larger conflict between Muslims in the Middle East. Al-Qaida will have a safe haven to operate from and be emboldened after from a propaganda point of view "kicking U.S. out of Iraq". Leaving Iraq will not change their agenda of destroying the West. It will not bring us peace. If we allow Al-Qaida to have a safe haven we will have more 9/11 style events in Western countries. These events will be more brutal and have higher causalty figures because Al-Qaida will have a place to train and plan in relative safety. It would be nice to get the world to band together and create peace in the Middle East but multilateralism is ineffective in transforming a place like the Middle East. For one, the international actors in question could not agree what methods to put in place to keep the peace. Layer competing national interests when it comes to oil and trade then you have a very uncomfortable position for every player on the field. It would be a diplomatic nightmare. The vital to the interest of the United States to change the political culture of the Middle East. We have to change the dynamics or we will regret it in the future. Seth Mauseth Raleigh, NC

We are not in Iraq Posted by Bud Rapanault - 11/20/2005, 08:16 PM I tend to agree with General Odom's call for a quick withdrawl, however even a quick withdrawl should be planned to optimize the strategic results. The key to a successful rapid withdrawl lies in a realistic assessment of the current situation vis-a-vis what is and what is not possible. The first and most necessary rcognition is that it is impossible to withdraw from Iraq because Iraq no longer exists, the US having totally destroyed it, for good or ill in 2003. What remains are the de facto nation-state of Kurdistan in the North, and the Shia and Sunni areas which are not similarly well established separate entites but are clearly reluctant to enter into any reasonable form of common governance. Short of completely rebuilding a colonial governmental infrastructure and reimposing a brutal dictatorship to operate it, a daunting task even if it were desirable, there is no longer any reason to speak of Iraq except in the past tense. A successful withdrawl would be facilitated by United Nations recognition of three new states where there was formerly one. Borders should be drawn as equitably as possible with respect to the existing population distribution and steps taken to mitigate any ethnic cleansing type issues where populations are intertwined. The US should, by long neglected diplomatic approaches, enlist the support of as many allies and interested parties as possible in guaranteeing the territorial integrity of the new states. The hope then would be that the new states, with secure borders and freed now from fear of subjugation in a revived Iraq, would for a time at least busy themselves with establishing their new, independent homelands. There can be no certainty that such a plan would succeed, of course, especially over time, but with a little luck it just might. What is certain is that the current approach, attempting to create a non-existant state where none is desired or possible, is a fools errand doomed to failure in both the short and the long term.

The Missing Link . . . Posted by James Lightstone - 11/20/2005, 08:55 PM . . . in the argument for staying is that whether we leave in 5 nimutes, 5 months or 5 years, there will be civil war in Iraq. Centuries of disputes among the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds will not be overcome by a continued American presence. Everyone agrees that a precipitous withdrawal will lead to disaster. Unfortunately, ANY withdrawal, precipitous or measured, will lead to that disaster. We can stay, and continue to be in the middle of the disaster, or we can redeploy our troups to places where they might actually be able to fight terrorism.

Neocons messed up but we need to stay Posted by Bill Metazone - 11/20/2005, 10:57 PM The neoconservative PNAC plan (stabilize the middle east by actively creating a democracy ) may have sounded good on paper but we know from countless sources (including the republican generals who signed the the 2004 DMCC document and one of our own army war college analysts) that its effect has been to give Al Qaeda exactly what they wanted by a) diluting our resources across 3 endeavors (war on terror, Afghanistan, and Iraq), b) giving renewed sympathy for Al Qaeda (planners misunderstood regional dynamics), and c) fracturing the post-9/11 unity. The neoconservatives excluded key republicans from the war planning, listening to Chalabi and banking on both Wolfowitz’s current optimism (‘Iraq would be a cakewalk’) and his optimism from his 1991 analysis that resulted in the selection of Iraq. The result was that the plan has been a nightmare of incompetence and misfires and our troops pay the price. Leveraging 9/11 and the real but amorphous history of WMDs to galvanize support from all sides (including prominent democrats) for the implementation of the PNAC plan only adds to the distrust of the administration at home (we now know that Saddam could have had a billion vials of biochem weapons and that wouldn’t have changed a thing: 9/11 occurred and we had prominent statements about WMDs – all combined to give the neoconservatives what they needed to implement their long-held plan). The net result has been a disaster at home (68% dissatisfied with Bush’s presidency according to latest Newsweek poll), disaster in the region (renewed sympathy and strength for Al Qaeda), and disaster in the world (dismissing other nations and the importance of the unprecedented unity from 9/11 fed anti-american sentiment that gives Al Qaeda more of what they want). So … an eye toward pulling out is essential. However, the lessons learned from post-WWI Germany and post-Soviet-Union Afghanistan are vivid and need to be heeded: we can only leave when we’ve established sufficient stability such that our mess doesn’t come back to bite us.

Questions I would like help with Posted by Christopher Keith - 11/22/2005, 03:53 PM I deplored that Iraq invasion from the start. It seemed so obviously destined to be remembered as a tragifarce "The Neocons and Pandora's Box". I admire Odom's analysis and much of the commentary as well. What a good group. Odom seems to focus more on the forces (i.e. itnernational) necessary to provide stability, asking "HOW will stability work," process, considering stability as an ongoing balancing act (a local optimum) rather than an end state (global optimum). Which leads to some questions: Why has the Iraq experience been so much worse than the Afganistan experience, and when the two are superficially at least, so similar, and why does the question get so little attention? What different mind-set would there have been in we have declared war on "terrorists" rather than "terrorism?" (versus human adversaries rather than a technique.) Was "terrorism" chosen with Iraq partially in mind? If insurgents are rebeling against something, what is it they are rebeling against? What evidence is there for assessing the mix, i.e. 40% against the US occupation, 30% against a civil government along the lines currently envisioned, 30% against any secular estabishment. it seems to me the assumption one makes about this make-up predisposes one's answer to the "what now" question. It seems to me the administration is dedicated to confusing the issues involved at all points. But why? Seriously. Because they think it will persaude the low interest end of the public? (Like Bush's "you can't distinguish betwen Al Quaida and Saddam from a terrorism perspective" which is somehwat akin to not being able to distinguish between pork and human flesh from a dinner perspective, or innocence or guilt from a hanging perspective) Because they think it will solidify their conversative base? Because it is simply their style? I would love to see people better informed than I discuss the above. Thank you all

ohleslie@yahoo.com Posted by Leslie Brooks - 11/23/2005, 12:23 PM A post on Americablog.com: by Joe in DC - 11/23/2005 09:47:00 AM Earlier this week, Iraqi leaders agreed on a statement that specifically stated that killing occupying forces was not terrorism. They basically said that it's justified to kill in the name of resistance which really means it's okay to kill US soldiers and marines?: In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution. "Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said. The Iraqi leaders made it clear that while they oppose terrorism, killing US soldiers isn't terrorism. The document had a decidedly anti-US tenor to it. So, what's the US reaction? Your Secretary of State said don't believe what they wrote. She applied the Bush/Rove lens to that document. In other words, just because they said it, doesn't mean you should believe it. The Bush administration says things all the time that aren't true. They just assume everyone else does the same thing: QUESTION: The Iraqi factions, who don't always get along, have been meeting with the Arab League and others as they prepare for next month's elections. A statement they did agree on says that they recognize the legitimate right of Iraqi citizens to resist the occupation forces. How do you explain that to the parent or the spouse of an American serviceman or woman on the ground in Iraq, getting shot at every day, that the people they're fighting for, the people they're trying to protect to bring these elections and this democracy about, say that the people who are shooting at them have a legitimate right to do so? SECRETARY RICE: Well, that's not how I read the statement, John. I do think there were many, many voices at this conference -- and by the way, the Iraqi Government was there, but so were many, many people who were not -- and the purpose is to try to give all Iraqis a sense of stake in their future. But the line about resistance was very quickly followed by, but of course we condemn terrorism and of course violence should not be sanctioned. I think what they were trying to do was to get a sense of political inclusion while recognizing that violence and terrorism should not be a part of resistance. After all, do Iraqis really want to -- any Iraqi, sitting around that table, want to suggest that killing an innocent Iraqi child standing at a bus stop is legitimate? Or that killing Iraqi soldiers who are lining up at recruitment centers is legitimate? Or even that multinational forces -- who by the way are there under a UN mandate -- are somehow legitimate targets? I don't think that that was what was being communicated. But I would just remind people that this was a really broad range of voices, and the Iraqis who have governed themselves by violence and coercion are now trying to do it by compromise and politics. This is outrageous. Yeah, they said they oppose terrorism, but US forces are viewed as occupiers, so that's legit. Rice and Bush are covering for a government that wants to kill our young men and women. And, the GOP claims to support our troops. In reality, they are supporting a government that sanctions killing them. Comments (44)

General Odoms makes a compelling argument Posted by Cynthia Pedersen - 11/23/2005, 09:15 PM Although I was already strongly leaning towards withdrawal of our troups from Iraq, General Odom's cogent arguments have convinced me it is the most logical approach. It is important to recognize that the Iraq has already fractured into three separate and distinct groups. Sunnis are fleeing Shiite dominated areas and the reverse is true as both groups continue the process of segregating themselves. As one commentator mentioned, we have opened a Pandora's box and at this point the best we can hope for is a long term truce between these three groups. Unless we stay and prop up a pro-American puppet government, we are likely to see the formation of theocratic regimes. What is often overlooked by pundits who support the continued occupation of Iraq is the concept of majority rule. A vast majority of Iraqis want American forces to leave and a majority of Americans want our troops to come back home. The Bush administration often touts the notion of bringing democracy to the middle east but then ignores the fundamental principles of democratic rule. General Odoms cites Brzezinski's view "nothing in the region objectively merits [the war in Iraq.]" On this point, I believe this statement does not accurately reflect the more complex dynamics of the current situation. There is good reason to believe that the neocons thought it was critically important to secure Iraq's oil for the global economy and to establish a stronger presence in the Middle East as the regional policemen. This analysis gains ground when the arrival of peak oil is taken into account. We are addicted to cheap oil and the economic and political upheaval will be enormous if there is any disruption in Middle East oil production. That is not to say I believe the end justifies the means here, but it is important to understand how we might have arrived at this juncture. I found several of the comments posted here very interesting. I especially liked Paul Wilson's points about the need to consider that imposing our form of government on a very different culture is not a pragmatic approach. The are many such examples of such failures by the free-market globalists and are well documented in the book World on Fire by Amy Chua. The person who asked why Afghanistan had such a very different outcome should consider that Afghanistan is hardly a success story. The biggest industry in that country is poppies for herion production, corruption is rife, warlords still battle for turf, and the Taliban is resurging. We have effectively abandoned any pretense of making Afghanistan a functional democratic country. Why? Because they don't have oil. The insurgents in Iraq are motivated to fight the U.S. because they don't want us to control a precious commodity which they believe belongs to fellow Arabs/Muslims. Finally, I hope those who still support the occupation consider the fact that we are asking American soldiers to pay a heavy price for staying. Already, some 40,000 have been evacuated as casualties. There are tens of thousands of soldiers who will be plagued the rest of their lives with physical and psychological injuries. Those who support continuing the occupation should ask themselves if they are willing to take the place of a soldier who wants to come home.

Thought provoking article but... Posted by John Bushyhead - LTC USA Retired 11/25/2005, 05:47 AM General Odom is advocating a cut-and-run strategy and dressing the wolf up in nice sheep's clothing. The majority of U.S. Generals at this point in time believe we need to stay the course which is strengthening the Iraqi military so that it can keep the government on its feet and allow for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces and that it would be a grievous mistake to pull out now which is a de-facto cut-and-run strategy. Even if we assume that the invasion of Iraq was wrong pulling out now will leave a power vacuum that will lead to the collapse of the government and democratic efforts gained thus far. Iraq will quickly devolve into a wide-spread larger civil war which will lead to a non-democratic governmental dictatorship possibly led by another tyrant similar to Sadam Hussein which is the real height of irresponsibility. He is also wrong on his comparison to Hitler and his generals. Hitler did not view Stalingrad as something he broke and therefore needed to fix. Stalingrad became strategically irrelevant after the refineries were destroyed two weeks into the battle. That is why Hitler's generals wanted to withdraw. Hitler wanted to capture Stalingrad because of its name "Stalin" – Grad and therefore propaganda value. Comparing the two issues is misleading and relative to the apples vs. oranges argument. I think almost everyone involved on both sides recognize and agree that a withdrawal is necessary which essential renders General Odom's article mute. So what he is really advocating is a cut-and-run strategy which does not serve U.S., regional, or Iraqi interests.

Withdrawal ISN'T cutting and running Posted by Errin Familia - 11/25/2005, 05:22 PM It would be nice to hear people argue against what Mr. Odom says rather than having to hear their re-definition of what they think he has said. It seems pretty common among the pro-war crowd to cry wolf in the form of the 'cut & run' accusation that is so often baselessly made. If the war is so right and defensible, then why don't they argue along the merits of what Mr. Odom proposes rather than falling back on the age old sophistry of re-defining your opponent's arguments in the most negative light possible. Truth is, General Odom makes a strong argument for an intelligent, timely withdrawal, NOT cutting & running wily nily. Our occupation there is causing more. He even proposes keeping an eye on Iraq from a strategic position elsewhere in the Middle East (Kuwait, I believe), so he is hardly abandoning the Iraqis, but merely wants the strategy to shift away from occupation so as to better the situation in Iraq. His opinion is hardly moot, and is helping shape the national debate. This was a political war of choice that was laid out on a timetable beneficial to Bush and the Republicans in the elections of 2002 and 2004. To this day, the arguments you hear for it are more political than factual, and we have absolutely no proof that this neocon EXPERIMENT is going to work. To suddenly say we must stick with this to the bitter end just because we're already there is preposterous. The first step in fixing a mistake is admitting to the mistake. Once that's done, correction can start taking place. We need to correct this mistake of a war as soon as possible, then go back to the drawing board and start looking at REAL solutions in the Middle East, not pipe dreams wherein we force democratic change on a culture that isn't used to it. History shows that democracy comes from within, not without. Being that staying there only because we are already there is circular logic, being that staying there to create a viable democracy is a pipe dream, what reason do we have to stay there? None. The American people have realized this now, and it is only a matter of time before the political class catches up.

Correction for last post Posted by Errin Familia - 11/25/2005, 05:26 PM The line that got cut off in my last post was supposed to say this: Our occupation of Iraq is causing more trouble for us than a withdrawal ever will.

News media and the war Posted by Steven Muhlberger - Nipissing University 12/01/2005, 03:48 PM Robert Nielsen said, "The news media may soon make it impossible for the United States to wage any war that lasts longer than a few months and causes more than a few hundred casualties." I find it difficult to see this as a bad thing. The last two prolonged American wars have had catastrophic effects on American politics and economic affairs, even if one cares little about foreigners. It seems pretty clear that the American public, when they see war close up, do not like it. Are they wrong? Those who believe that the USA should have an aggresive military are the ones who have to make their case. When it comes to Al-Qaeda, the sooner the USA returns to a law-enforcement approach, the sooner results will be achieved. This would have the added benefits of legitimizing American initiatives in the eyes of its allies -- once they see that the USA is dedicated to legal methods in fact and not just notionally.

Facts vs Opinions Posted by Robert Powell - Retired government employee 12/02/2005, 05:37 AM With all due respect to General Odum, I wonder how he and so many others "know" with such certainty the effect on the terrorists (both "Al Qaeda" and "insurgents") of our presence in Iraq, or for that matter anything else we are doing beyond body counts and territory seized. Do they have agents inside these organizations? Frankly, I consider such judgements to be wild speculation. Second, the General repeats the common wisdom that all of our "allies" were eager to join us after 9/11 in taking offensive action to resolve the chronic and dangerous instability of the Middle East. I am extremely doubtful, as my experience in Europe indicates that there is little practical help available even if providing such help was politically feasible in countries not already represented in the coalition, which it's not. General James Jones, who as SACEUR is in a position to know, was quoted on BBC as stating that European forces were "less than ten percent usefully deployable." Politically, my impression in most of Europe is that people's attitude towards Americans is not dissimilar from their attitude towards Jews-sympathy when we are dying in large numbers, but angry opposition when we try to defend ourselves. I think in broad terms the General is right-we need a smaller footprint in Iraq, and need to concentrate on embedding trainers in Iraqi formations as "stiffeners" while keeping mainforce units "over the horizon" as a deterent to major enemy action. We seem to be moving in that direction, which I think (and said) we should have done early in 2003. Better late than never. At the end of the day, we have been fated to fight in the Middle East since we decided to make the world economy dependent on petroleum, and to turn control of the largest reserves of that resource over to bands of tribal nomads and their colleagues running fascist police states. Criticism of the liberation of Iraq, thanks in part to particularly poor Administration performance in laying out the case, seems to uniformly overlook the fact that we had been at war there with full legal bells and whistles since 1991. It seems reasonable to me to attempt some lasting resolution of this problem, which we are currently doing with full UN sanction,which is about all the international support we are likely to get

Bush Strategy is Flawed Posted by Eric Segura - Pnewswire - Freelance Journalist 12/02/2005, 09:31 PM One thing for certain we should pull our troops out. The strategy of going door-to-door with hand to hand combant reminds me of the middle ages. If Mr. Bush wants war we should use the technology we the tax payers paid for and bomb sections of Iraq. In this day and age there is no reason to conduct a ground war unless our real mission is gaurding oil pipelines.

Facts vs. Opinions Indeed Posted by just fortoday - 12/02/2005, 10:15 PM Mr. Powell wrote: "people's attitude towards Americans is not dissimilar from their attitude towards Jews-sympathy when we are dying in large numbers, but angry opposition when we try to defend ourselves." Anyone who still tries to argue that invading Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with self-defense is woefully ignorant of the facts. The fact that Iraq posed no threat to this country was clear well before we decided to invade. The fact that several of the top advisors to this president had for years longed to invade Iraq is a matter of public record. The fact that the intelligence was cooked to match up with a decision that had already been made has been well-substantiated. Heh-"self defense": that dog never did hunt.

Misconceptions -- and path to victory Posted by God Spiral - citizen 12/03/2005, 10:40 AM While the war is a failure, it is a mistake to assume that the administration is looking for political cover of declaring victory then withdrawing. Their intent is to pretend to want to bring troops home asap while continuing the permawar and striving for the PNAC vision. There are 2 ways to combat this. 1. Point out that nationalist Sunni insurgents far outnumber Al-Qaeda, and have no particular loyalty to them, so that satisfying them by ensuring their political participatian, and providing the illusion of withdrawal, can be substantially helpful in fighting al qaeda. but more easily 2. Training troops so that they may stand up so we stand down, completing the mission, is a straight forward operation amenable to timetables. The administration can be trapped into accounting for its lack of devotion and resources into this endeavor.

Just The Facts Posted by Robert Powell - Retired government employee 12/03/2005, 05:25 PM Let's be clear-facts are different from opinions. Anyone may say that Iraq represented no threat-if their definition of "threat" is confined to Republican Guard T-72's rolling up 5th Avenue, it's a fact. If we allow that Iraq was already in a fully-declared state of war with the US since 1991, had comprehensively violated the cease -fire agreement from it, uniquely threatened the system of international norms established after WWII as expressed in multiple Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions, had committed genocide, ecocide, and disrupted the world economy by unprovoked wars of aggression to the tune of a world recession, the conclusion would be different. It's pointless to keep trying to argue a point that was lost in 1991,1998, and 2002. The question is how to address our vital interests most effectively. I submit that partisan politics are an obstacle to doing so.

Facts?? Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/03/2005, 09:01 PM "Let's be clear-facts are different from opinions." Good point Robert Powell. Unfortunately, your opinions are totally devoid of any facts. For example, Iraq violating cease fire agreements in response to US and coalition enforcement of the no-fly zone, may have been naughty, - but there was quite obviously no real threat involved given the FACT that in ten years of no-fly zone enforcement, the US and coalition forces did not suffer one casualty or the loss of any asset. You also conveniently ignore the FACT the your claims of Iraq's Article VII violations, genocide, ecocide, and the "disrupted the world economy by unprovoked wars of aggression to the tune of a world recession" (which is a wildly inaccurate statement) were issues of the past and did not apply to Iraq at the time of the Bush governments war of choice. The FACT you miss or ignore is that at the start of the war, Iraq was well contained, had battered and defanged, ineffective military, NO WMD, no involvement with 9/11, no links to al Quaida and posed no threat to its' nieghbors or the US. You are confusing facts with ficitons. You succumb to the Bush government's perception management, informaiton domination disinformation warfare operations and the relentless spew of DECEPTIVE, MANIPULATED, EXAGGERATED, and PATENTLY FALSE fictions, myths, and disinformation pimped, - I mean mass marketed to the American people to justify the unnecessary, illegal, bloody, costly war of choice in Iraq. The FACTS are all the Bush government's terrorspeak deceptions exploiting the horrors and dead of 9/11 to justify the wayward misadventure, and bloody, costly horrorshow in Iraq have prove FALSE!! The FACTS are that Iran, NK, Saudi Arabia pose far more dire threats to America's security, than Iraq eved did. You also fail to comprehend the FACT that it is absolutely critical and a critical necessity for a functioning democracy to engage in a vigorous debate, or to argue a point in your terms, with regard to the justifications, necessities, legalities, costs, timeframes and long-term objectives of sending our daughters and sons to war and occupation. You ignore the FACT that America was denied this right before the Bush governments plunder and profiteering, - I mean war and occupation in Iraq. You also unwittingly perhaps, but quite accurately project a series of FACTS you may not have intended. All your FALSE assertions regarding Iraqi threats - apply FACTUALLY to the illicit, predatory, and imperialist machinations and perfidious designs of the Bush government {"comprehensively violated the cease -fire agreement .... uniquely threatened the system of international norms established after WWII as expressed in multiple Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions, had committed genocide, ecocide, and disrupted the world economy by unprovoked wars of aggression to the tune of a world recession"} Spooky, no? With the single exception of genocide, which thankfully the Bush government may not actually condone, (though in my opinion - it is well within the realm of possibility for the neo-fascist in the Bush government) - every other FACT is perfectly applicable to the accurate perception held through-out most of the world that the Bush regime is in FACT the greatest threat to peace and security on the planet. I must also remind you of the FACT that the Bush government has turned a blind eye to the genocide in the Sudan because the Sudanese people committed the terrible sin of not possessing any oil. I will also alert you to the terrible FACT that the Bush governments bloody, costly, noendisight, plunder, profiteering, and wayward misadventure in Iraq has contributed to the slaughter of many thousands of innocent Iraqis, the maiming of many thousands more, and the total destruction of Iraqi society and infrastructure. I will also remind you of the FACT the 2100 US soldiers are dead, 17,000 injured. The FACT you occlude with your distorted opinion is that America must come to terms with the Bush governments conduct before and now in the prosecution of the war and occupation, and hold the Bush government warmongers and profiteers accountable and culpable for failures, deceptions, abuses, and wanton profiteering before any reasonable solution to the Iraq horrorshow is possible. The FACT is there will be no change of course in Iraq while America is commandeered by a totalitarian dictatorship controlled by ruthless neo-fascist cabals bent on plunder, profiteering, and advancing the insane and nefarious delusions of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and emprire agenda. The only hope for salvaging what little remains of America's democracy and stabilizing the situation in Iraq is inextricably linked to regime change in America and removing the Bush govenment from power. The sad FACT is that America must change course at home and abroad first by recognizing, and then by together to right the terrible wrongs of the Bush government.

Partisan Nonsense-an Obstacle Posted by Robert Powell - Retired government employee 12/05/2005, 09:27 AM I repeat, partisan politics are an obstacle. It's beyond pointless to dispute rants like the below-suffice to say, facts require more than having been listed on some pro-terrorist website to be true. I don't have any stake in defending the Bush Administration, which I think has made a perfect hash of efforts to end a war that's vexed us and our allies for going on a decade and a half. It's worth pointing out that attitudes like those expressed below more or less guarantee Republican hegemony. I'll pass on any more-I get plenty enough anti-Americanism here in Europe.

Dazed and confused. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/05/2005, 04:54 PM Your scurrilous slime associating commentary you do not like with a "pro-terrorist website" and anti-Americanism both miss the critical point, and avoid and evade confronting the core issue. No one here is pro-terrorist, nor anti-American and any assertion to the contrary is a pathetic attempt at slime, a totally unsubstantiated, baseless, scurrilous slander, and patently FALSE. You confuse demands for accountability from our socalled leadership and a recognition of factbasedrealities - with anti-Americanism and being pro-terrorist. You confuse anti-Bush government commentary with - anti-Americanism. Your confusion ignore and evade two core issues. The first is that American have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The second and most telling is you obviously are bent of cloaking the neo-fascists in the Bush government who are the real pro-terrorists cabals in America.

Links did not post Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/05/2005, 05:00 PM Sorry, but the links intended did not post so here are a couple of urls you might want to examine. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?ti ... http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021208 ... And my personal favorite - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/#docs ... Read them and weep.

Casualties Posted by Ted Adams - Retired Accountant 12/10/2005, 02:52 PM The last comment attempts to minimize the losses by noting that statistically they are not significant. Let's put it another way. This is not just any 17,000 men that we have lost - drunks, dullards and various candidates for the Darwin awards. These are U.S. combat troops, a full division of whom will never fight again. Now sacrificing a combat division might make sense if we were closer to victory in Iraq than we were a year ago, but we are not. The Army only has 10 combat divisions, the Marines 3. The losses, while replaced, are very significant.

Reasonable Perspective Posted by Robert Powell - Retired government employee 12/12/2005, 03:21 AM Re: Ted Adam's comments-I don't read Robert Nielsen's post as attempting to minimize our losses, which are indeed significant, but to put them in some kind of historical perspective. I think that's not only a good idea, but one that has been been largely avoided in the mainstream media. I think anyone in their right mind realizes that every one of those numbers represents a tragedy for an American family; the numbers for Iraqis are a lot worse. Those with no personal experience of war tend to have unrealistic expectations about how expensive and full of errors it always is. But this really is a war, one that's been going on in fits and starts for many years which wasn't started by us, and one that unquestionably concerns vital US interests. That is why we have the best military money can buy, staffed with volunteer professionals. I expect the grim lessons of this war will make careless use of their skills less likely in the future, but if dealing with threats like Iraq isn't the sort of thing we have armed forces for in the first place, it's hard to see what would be.

Old world tactics no longer apply. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/13/2005, 01:03 AM "I expect the grim lessons of this war will make careless use of their skills less likely in the future, but if dealing with threats like Iraq isn't the sort of thing we have armed forces for in the first place, it's hard to see what would be." Iran would be. NK would be. Saudi Arabia would be. Hunting down bin Laden and al Quaida in the Peshawar would be. This kind of partisan conflation and exaggeration of Iraq to the imagined stature of some lethal power or super enemy that would have, or could have altered the fate of humanity, and threatened American security and our way of life is ridiculous - and exactly the kind of DECEPTIVE, MANIPULATIVE, EXPLOITIVE, and PATENTLY FALSE claims pimped - I mean mass marketed by the Bush government. None of this pathetic propaganda and disinformation is true. Look at the facts. Iraq was no threat. Saying Iraq was a threat does not alter or change or in any way make Iraq a threat. Iraq was no threat. Saddam was a homicidal maniac and tyrant, - but Iraq was well contained and posed no threat to America or any other nation. Iraq had no WMD capabilities, no WMD assets, and no ability to re-start WMD development, no matter what hopes, wishes, fantasies, or dreams Saddam may have held, and regardless of the Bush government deceptions, exaggerations, manipulations, and naked lies to the contrary. Iraq had no air or sea power. The Iraqi military was a defeated, aging, rusting, shadow of it's 1991 force, (which if you care to remember was routed, and almost half of it destroyed in 100 hrs in Desert Storm ten years earlier.) There had been no legitimate increases in capabilities or upgrades in equipment in Iraq since 1991. Iraq was no threat. More alarmingly Iran, who will end up as the only real victor in Iraq, IS A THREAT, and DOES have WMD capabilities, and the Bush government does nothing. Saudi Arabia is a threat, awash in our petro dollars, and abundantly funding and nurturing all the jihadist mass murder gangs including al Quaida and the Bush government acutally shields these duplicitous American haters as "good friends". The Saudi state religion, - the malignancy of wahabism is a threat to all non jihadists that conditions generations of young muslims that it is Allahs will to kill Jews, Americans and infidels, and the Bush government does nothing. North Korea whose leader is a third generation wacko, monster, and mass murderer on par with Saddam or any of the worlds most fiendish tyrants actually has WMD, acutally does threaten American interests, actually is trading weapons and recipe's with our enemies, - and the Bush government does nothing. You, and all the fanaticus wingnutsia what blindly bow to and sheeplishly obey, and exalt the allmighty fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government defend the indefensible, and excuse the inexcusable DECEPTIONS, FALSEHOODS, MANIPULATIAIONS, EXAGGERATIONS, and PATENT LIES pimped by the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government as the gospel truth. You ignore factbasedreality and the truth and rely totally on pretty patriotic platitudes or partisan propaganda and the pipedreams, hollow promises, visionary soothsaying, and patent LIES of pimped by the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government. This nonesense pretending to portray Iraq as a threat any where clost to the level of Germany or Japan in 1939, or even Viet Nam is a ridiculous LIE and a purposeful deceptions the Bush government disinformation warriors used to exploit the horrors and the dead of 9/11, and continue to pimp - I mean mass market to justify the bloody, costly, wayward misadventure, and exceedingly lucrative plunder and profiteering in Iraq. We are not in a war in the traditional sense. Warspeak is another of the many Bush government LIES. This warspeak language, nationalist propaganda, and theater of the macabre is another fiction, myth, and naked LIE perpetuated by the fascists warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government to justify the $300bn of our tax dollars, and the oceans of blood wasted in the land of the two rivers. America and the world is tragically engaged in a 4th generation asymmetric warfare, which the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government are FAILING to actually confront, and manage. The old world constructs of big DDay invasions massive occupations are no longer relevent or effective. As we see in Iraq, the invasion and occupation scenarios are in fact costly bloody, and impotent tactics againts an insurgent enemy. Our troops roaming the cities of Iraq like legionaires in military uniforms are open targets for an enemy that blends seemlessly into the population, conducts hit and run, guerilla, and terrorist operations and avoids engaging in open combat. The impotent fascist chickenshawk suits in the pentagon, and the empty suit posing as commander in chief are in fact making "careless use" of our valiant soldiers by continually ordering them into impossible situations, and committing them to combat in a war that cannot be won militarily. Defeating our real enemies (who are not in Iraq) and the real threats to America, (who the Bush government are derelict in their duties in confronting) will require police, intelligence, and covert operations, and global cooperation. We will never defeat terrorists or win this socalled waronterror by or through invasions and occupations, and America will never win this socalled waronterror alone. These grotesquely mismanaged operations, and ridiculously careless tactics waste enormous amounts of American and Iraq blood and treasure, and actually strengthen our real jihadist enemies. The primary reason and purpose for pimping the warspeak language, and perpetuating the careless cataclymic waste of lives, blood, and treasure is souly, singularly and exclusively bent on engorging the off sheet accounts of cronies and oligarchs in, or beholden to the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government. You are right however that "...every one of those numbers represents a tragedy for an American family; the numbers for Iraqis are a lot worse." My question, and one I challenge you to answer sans the Bush government hollow promises of some future greater good, - is why? Why?

A Real Question? Posted by Robert Powell - Retired government employee 12/14/2005, 05:31 AM I thought this was a serious discussion. I have absolutely no interest in engaging in adolescent namecalling, generalizations, and the ignorant regurgitation of superficial progaganda. If you really mean "Why?" as a serious question, you have a lot of reading to do before you continue spouting off. Start with the cease-fire agreement (which is extensive, and includes a lot more than taking potshots at Coalition aircraft- items like accounting for the thousands of "disappeared" Kuwaitis), and the Security Council Resolutions. Read The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, authored by a Democrat and voted for by most of them. Read any of the many publications documenting Iraq's crimes, none of which they should have been given a pass on and many of which they were likely to repeat at some point; read the Duelfer report, not just cherry-picked excerpts, for details on evidence to support that assumption. Try to imagine that you don't have a monopoly on the truth. And what ever you do, stop alienating people who are likely to have areas of agreement with you by insulting them, and the intelligence of the American voters. They heard it all, and decided on balance that if dragged into war by an aggressive, genocidal totalitarianism, we should try to win. Adolescents often think they have all the answers, and that anyone who disagrees with them is part of an Evil Conspiracy. I would suggest that the facts on Iraq are a great deal more complicated. Goodbye, and good luck.

No one has a monopoly of truth. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/14/2005, 11:14 PM Let's start with area's of agreement. You make a solid point in that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that includes you, and the facsist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government. There is universal agreemanet as well that none of Saddam's crimes should have or would have been given a "free pass". Finally, that the facist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government are an Evil Conspiracy that dragged America into war for profit and political power. That said we divide hard on several issues. I am very well read on these issues including the The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and the Duelfer report, and many other tidbits of information you evidently choose to ignore. Such as this http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID ... And this http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html ... And more recently this http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?stor ... The point is that the entire world was aligned and in agreement on the necessity of containing Saddam and working toward regime change in Iraq. I will remind you that the Security Councel unanimously approved an inspections process determined to deprive Saddam of the capability of developing any kind of WMD. The world and America was denied the right to allow that unanimously internationally approved inspections process to runs its' course by the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government. No one ever said, or ever implied that Saddam was not a bad guy, who had broken many internationally recognized laws and agreements, and who brutally oppressed the people of Iraq. All these facts do not however support the FALSE contention that Saddam was a threat to America and the world. Again, you can dance around the FACTS all you want, and continue to regurgitate the incessent repetition of Saddam's abuses, - but Iraq and Saddam were well contained, and posed no threat to anyone at in March of 2003. There was also heated international pressure, and an ongoing vigorous inspection process intent on insuring Iraq and Saddam would never develop the capabilities to become a threat. The UN, the Security Counsel and our allies in old and new Europe were determined in FACT to insure that Saddam was NOT given a free pass. All of this unity and international support was tossed out the window by the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government who were intent on plunder and profiteering, and only later shapeshifted the justification de jour to liberation and democratization. The Bush governments original disinformation warfare was totally focused on WMD, imminent threats, and regime change, and there was no mention in the early sloganeering of anything about liberating Iraqi's or democratizing the ME. This was a later adaptation to the Bush governments ruthless deception and disinformation bent on FALSELY justifying the war and occupation Fanaticus wingnutsia and Bush government apologencia blindly and robopathically accept the Bush governments deceptive and patently FASLE narrative justifying the war and occupation, and curiously ignore the factbasedreality that all the pre-war justifications have proven FALSE, Iran will be the only real victor in Iraq, there have been 30,000 Iraqi's slaughtered many thousands more maimed, 2100 US soldiers killed, 17000 injured, close to half a trillion or our tax dollars committed to the wayward misadventure in Iraq, and cronies and oligarchs in or beholden the to fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government are profiteering wantonly from the war, occupation, and nationbuilding enterprize. Again, I ask you why? You're reading seems to be totally partisan in nature, and perhaps you should broaden your discovery on these issues, and then come back to me and (sans the Bush government hollow promises, meaningless prognostications, and patently FALSE assertions) - explain what America gains from this bloody, costly, noendinsight war of choice and horrorshow?

Reading Comprehension Deficit Posted by Robert Powell - Retired government employee 12/15/2005, 03:28 AM For starters, I'm a lifelong Democrat, like Bob Kerry who wrote the Iraq Liberation Act and Bill Clinton who signed it. Your partisanship is so crude (and damaging for responsible Democrats) that it seems to affect your reading comprehension. If you are "very well read" and still imagine this war was dreamed up recently by a clique in the White House, how did they manage to get that through Congress in 1998, when Bush was still in Texas? You can't have read either the cease-fire agreement or the Duelfer Report any more carefully and still write some of the wacky things below. I can't think of anything Karl Rove must enjoy more than watching this kind of counterproductive ranting, which is surely more effective in keeping Republicans in power than anything they do themselves. Your blithe assurance about "universal agreement that Saddam's crimes should not and would not go unpunished" is made risible by the course of inaction you advocate. If people like you had their way the people of Iraq would still be grinding under a tyrant's heel while he worked steadily to undermine our vital interests and that of our allies. About the only thing there was "universal agreement" about was profiteering from Iraq's suffering. Human rights groups estimate that as many as a million of the most vulnerable Iraqis died as a result of the criminal sanctions regime you seem so happy with, and we were implicated in this slow-motion massacre which had the effect of strengthening Saddam's personal wealth and grip on power. Great policy. The websites you think so highly of are full of biased disinformation, and are effectively pro-terrorist. Anyone who describes the government freely elected by tens of millions of Americans as "fascist warmongers" in not only anti-American, but an idiot. I hope you have the opportunity to live in a real fascist police state of the kind you so eagerly defend so that you will learn the difference. It would appear that your confidence in your own knowledge is misplaced, perhaps the result of an emphasis on "self-esteem" rather than academic rigor in your education. I suggest you try reading fewer web sites and more books before you presume to educate others. You haven't produced one iota of new and/or relevant information here. General Odum and several others here did. I have no plans to read any more of your drivel, so perhaps you would use the time to take a reading comprehension class before writing any more.

Bush apologist Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/15/2005, 11:14 AM Anytime anyone starts flinging slime and scurrilous, unfounded, and unsubtantiated patently FALSE assertions of anti-Americanism - the individuals rabid partisanship is revealed. You cannot defend or argue the points, so you simply hurl scurrilous and unsubtantiated slime on the questioner and the questions. You obviously have the comprehension problem, because I never said, or implied, or ever suggested supporting or defending a "fascist police state". I vehemently oppose fascism in all its' unholy flavors which is exactly why I will continue to point out that America is now rapidly devolving into a fascist police state. I also contend and the Diebold case unfolding presently shines a hot light on this issue that ours is not a "freely elected" government, and that in fact the corruption and destruction of the elections process is a glaring example of one element of the Bush government fasicst totalitarian dicatorships usurping and commandeering America. Look up warmonger and profiteer and examine the business relations, policies and resume' of the Bush government high priests and get back to me, because these terms - though you may not like the sting - are accurate and appropriate in describing the current panjandrum. You might want to look up the definition of fascism as well, and post it here, and it will be clear for all to see, that it is exactly what the Bush government warmongers and profiteers are erecting here in America. You, like the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government run from, evade, ignore, and excuse factbaserealities, and simply close your ears and eyes to the terrible truths - and offer instead only hollow partisan promises, rosy meaningless utopian prognostications, unsubstantiated scurrilous slime, obfuscation, distortion, deception, disinformation, and patent lies. You must be from the Zell Miller, Joseph Lieberman republican lite camp of the democratic party, because your craven support and lockstep defense of the Bush governments plunder and profiteering in Iraq is not aplomb with the majority of democrats tens of milions of Americans today and most of the world for that matter. Also you do not speak for me, nor do you have any right or the ability to imagine what I think or to put your distortions into my mouth. What specific "whacky" things are you refering to? Your childish insults attempting to slime me personaly evades the points and occludes both your logic and reason, and reveals your true intent. Dismiss evade and run from facts and the core issue and exalt the Bush government as perfect altruistic, sanctioned by the babyjesus to conquer and dominate the world. You may want to review your reading, because history is strewn with the rubble of fallen empire. You should also revisit the late 1990's history because though "regime change" was a Clinton idea, and the Iraq Liberation Act got through congress in 1998, no one in the Clinton government was advocating an invasion and occupation of Iraq. Clinton and democrats were not calling for an not call for invasion and occupation of Iraq, and were by the way far more focused on al Quaida and stateless terrorist threats than the chickenhawk posers, warmongers, and profiteers in the Bush government. You might want to review the fine print in the Liberation of Iraq Act. In the context of the post 9/11 world, - all muslim dictatorships (with the curious exception of the Bush government "good friends" in Saudi Arabia who were actually complicit in the horrors of 9/11) were suspect - and there was great pressure internationally to see 'regime change" in Iraq and a few other nations become a reality, for all the reasons relentlessly repeated over the years. While you may align with the UN-bad-Bush-government-good-Bolton school of thinking, - you should be able to recall that the rest of the world joined in unified support of America after 9/11. There was little resistance to the war in Afghanistan. It was the Bush governments pathological obsession with, and deceptive manipulative patently false justifications for invading and occupying Iraq that divided the world, and turned most of our former allies and many Americans against the Bush government. You might want to alse look more carefully, and work on your comprehension of the striking difference between individuals who are anti-Bush government, and the entirely different, separate, and largely unrelated group of individuals who are anti-American. You might want to review your reading here, as to why and how it happened that the worlds impassioned support for America after 9/11 was sqandered and turned to a rejection of US policy within two years? Richard Clarke described the Bush governments' rabid determination to attack, invade, and occupy Iraq after 9/11 to Colin Powell - as being like America attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. You may slime and dismiss the links I provided, but you cannot dismiss, evade, or ignore the facts in those links, which are well documented. Where is our money in Iraq. $9bn is simply missing from, or unaccounted for in the CPA expedenditures. The acts of financial malfeasance, perfidy, book cooking, cronyism, wanton profiteering, obscene overchages, mismanagement, and dereliction of duty in the contracts of cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to the Bush government war mongers and profiteers in the Bush government is also well documented, though under scrutinized, reviewed, or remedied, - for obvious reasons. Your willingness to robopathically dismiss anything and anyone who dares to question, challenge, or oppose the radical deceptions, obscene abuses, catastrophic failures, grotesque mismanagement, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, - and wanton profiteering of the facists in the Bush government without even bothering to address the issues, or recognizing the factbasedrealities proves you are the counterproductive partisan with a comprehension deficit, and who has failed "..to produced one iota of new and/or relevant information." All you offer is lockstep support and pliant submission to the all mighty Bush government warmongers and profiteers. There are no good options in Iraq now. The Bush government warmongers and profiteers have forced Americans to burden and hazard a long hard slog in Iraq. The fasicst in the Bush government have no intention of ever leaving Iraq, and your pathetic pretension of altruism and faux concern for vulnerable Iraqi Our military, as General Odom points out has achieved it's primary objectives. The only reason for staying the course in Iraq now involves engorging the off sheet accounts of cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to fascist Bush government totalitarian dictatorship. Lastly, I never suggested anywhere dong nothing in Iraq or in the socalled waronterror. All the horrors you hold to justify the debacle in Iraq are equally applicable in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kazakstan and more than a few other nations through-out this violent and turbulent world controlled by tyrants and despots who the fascist Bush government and you blithely ignores. I contend Iraq is a catastophic disaster that is preventing and undermining America's and the worlds ability to confront and defeat the real threats to American and the world's security. The jihadist mass murder gangs abundantly funded and nurtured by Saudi Arabia and Iran who the Bush government do nothing to confront, fail to redress and in the case of Saudi Arabia actually shield constitute the real immenent threats to America and the worlds security and prosperity. The costly, bloody, noendinsight horrorshow in Iraq is helping, not hurting our jihadist enemies, and hurting, not helping America or the rest of the world Submit a comment - Jump to top of list