What’s wrong with cutting and running?
ASK THIS | August 03, 2005

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom

diane@hudson.org

 

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

 

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

 

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

  

But consider this:

 

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying. 

 

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed. 

 

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

 

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

 

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

 

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

 

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

 

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

 

Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?

 

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible.  Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq.  Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19^th century.  They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s.  Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

 

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before.  Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

 

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

 

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"

 

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

 

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US?  Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

 

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran.  But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

 

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

 

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well?  Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

 

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown.  In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

 

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

 

9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.

 

Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

 

As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

 

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today?  The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on.  Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.

Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.

 

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see. 

 

Look at John Kerry's utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign.  He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity.  If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight.  If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest?  Nothing, absolutely nothing.

 

The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

 

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and  squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

 

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);  

 

 3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.) 

 

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.

 

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

Re Against a pullout Posted by Robert Dujarric - Japan Institute of International Affairs 08/11/2005, 08:52 AM From SamsonFlyfisher@aol.com: A pullout from Iraq at this time would render meaningless the deaths of those brave soldiers who have died I fail to see how sending even more Americans to their death in Iraq would do the memory of these soldiers any good. Prime Minister Koizumi makes the same comments about worshiping at Yasukuni, saying that not to do so would imply Japanese soldiers died for nothing in World War 2. But the sad truth is that Bush, like Tojo, is fighting a war that is profoundly detrimental to the national interest.

Re: Against a Pullout Posted by Anne Dickson - N/A 08/15/2005, 09:36 AM The biggest hurdle is to get the administration to admit it made mistakes: the reasons for the war; the execution of the invasion; the massive blunders of the Provisional Authority, etc. Even with the recent deaths in Ohio troops, Mr. Bush extended his condolences while still insisting their deaths were "worth it." I read an editorial from John Kerry about the speech the president should give, the day Bush addressed the nation in June. He mentioned those US military bases in Iraq and said that the US must abandon those bases if they were to assure the Iraqis that the occupation is temporary. Let's hope the moderate Republicans are able to stop spouting the party line and convince Bush that it's time to admit the mistakes, and begin the pullout.

Re 'against a pullout' Posted by Bruce Sims - 08/16/2005, 02:47 PM Yes, at this time, those that have died-including all the Iraqi civilians not part of the insurgency- are meaningless. But so were 50,000+ American lives during Vietnam. The only way for these deaths to have 'meaning' is by their being an impetus for Congress to live up to it's Constitutional responsibilities regarding the 'declaration of war'. And the way 'things' are going, the many times changed 'mission objectives' will be examples of exactly the opposite of what has actually occurred,e.g.an islamic republic.

For a pullout Posted by Catherine Arceneaux - 08/18/2005, 05:49 PM A pullout from Iraq at this time would decidely not render meaningless the deaths of those brave soldiers who have died so far in this conflict. Each of their lives had meaning while they were alive and each of their lives continues to have meaning and value in their memory. Why is it so hard to say the words, "yes, they did die in vain"? That American deaths in Iraq caused by Bush's invasion of that country were and are in vain in no way diminishes the contributions of our troops, performed on order from the Commander in Chief. What is in vain is any realistic hope that the Bush years have been good for this country. Support our troops by bringing them home.

Against a Pullout Posted by Lee Sneed - None 08/19/2005, 07:05 PM The article makes a lot of very good reasons for pulling out of Iraq. However it makes assumptions based upon facts not in evidence. Admitedly the assumptions are reasonable but by not means assured. Must we assume that if we pull out that Iraq will disintegrate into a totalitarian state. Certainly it has never happened before (except for Turkey as mentioned) but if you never try it surely will never happen. We have gone this far, with a president who leapt before he looked by not having the foggiest idea afo how to get out, and haveing gone this far - it would be a mistake not to give some sort of democracy a chance in Iraq. There really do seem to be quite a few Iraqis who would like for it to happen. Let's wait and see before demanding a pull out. We owe it to the Iraqis after driving out the previous regime with no real plan for a replacement. And one last comment - I believe we are fighting terrorists that we would not be fighting if we were not there. However, we are fighting them. And they know it. And the lives that have been lost, regrettable as they are, ARE imo WORTH IT. We have an obligation as, currently, the most powerful nation on earth, to help those Iraqis whom we have put in this position of having no government if we leave.

The Iraq war also serves.. Posted by Dennis Cavallaro - 08/22/2005, 02:20 PM ...the interests of the American Corporations. It is a sticky subject that most will not touch with a ten foot pole but their are plenty of American corporations lining up to profit off the reconstruction of Iraq. By pulling out we would destroy the plans to actually make some money off the war. Profit and not democracy are the finally goals of these corporations.

For effective plan Posted by J Stanton - 09/27/2005, 08:29 PM Arguing for staying in Iraq because a pullout "would render meaningless the deaths of those brave soliders how have died so far in this conflict" misses the point entirely. As a Viet Nam vet, I would much rather we use as criteria "what is best for the USA and the people of Iraq?" as our criteria, otherwise we really will make the those deaths meaningless.

Declaring victory and withdrawing... Posted by Bully Pulpit - media analist for Anonymous Resolutions 10/03/2005, 11:47 PM The pressure from Bush's own party to withdraw is begining to build with the coming of the 2006 congressional race. Republican strategists haven't forgotten the lessons of Vietnam, and neither has congress. I highly suspect Bush(meaning Rove) will find a way to declare victory and withdraw before the next elections, waving the flag all the way.

the real clincher Posted by Patti Batchelder - office manager 10/04/2005, 08:09 PM Thanks to Cornelia Carrier, I read Naomi Klein's article in Harpers: Baghdad Year Zero (Sept., 2004). It is even more convincing than General Odom's comments. The real reason there is increasingly widespread violence in Iraq is that Iraqis want to keep control of their own economy, rather than having foreign firms own and control it. This article explains the real reasons behind Garner's replacement, the quick handover to a US-appointed government which would write the new constitution, and the ferocity and growth of the insurgency. It's not just Islamic fundamentalism - Iraqis don't want to lose their jobs and watch their families starve.

Re: Against a pullout by John Samson Posted by Brett Borowski - 11/18/2005, 01:09 PM Staying in Iraq at this time would render meaningless the lives of those brave soldiers who will die if the conflict continues.

For a pullout Posted by Robert Mullen - 11/18/2005, 08:58 PM Failure to pullout from Iraq at this time would render meaningless the deaths of those brave soldiers who have died so far in this conflict. Why? Because we have achieved all we will ever achieve. (General Odum's point.)

Cut and run into the Kurdish Mountains Posted by K T - 11/19/2005, 07:32 AM In favor of early pullout: 1. Withdraw all troops to Kurdistan ASAP, build up the bases and infrastructure there, capitalizing on Kurds’ support for US presence. 2. Prop up the Kurds to push the Arabs out of Kurdistan and split from Iraq, forming an independent Kurdish state. 3. Reduce the US contingent in the medium term to special forces and air force, to ensure the security of the Kurdish state, while conducting reconnaissance missions into Iran, Syria and Turkey. Kurds are the only possible long-term allies of the US in the region. Granting them statehood would be the only positive outcome of the invasion, as far as the US interests are concerned. Having a Kurdish state will keep the Iranians, the Turks and the Syrians in check, as they all have Kurdish minorities.

Time to cut and run Posted by Martin Thomas - Kaiser Permanente, Radiologist 11/19/2005, 07:49 PM I agree with Gen Odom's analysis. However war was not in vain. We removed Saddam Husain from power and broke up the "oil for food" UN racket. When we leave we should take Saddam with us and put him through the US court system. Exquisite torture? Yes, but legal.

Corrupted assumptions. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 11/21/2005, 05:32 PM Well crafted commentary. There are simply no good options for America in Iraq now. What might, or could have been possible in Iraq before the war, or in the last three years, has been lethally undermined at this point by numerous failures, abuses, deceptions, mismanagement, and obdurate hubris by the Bush government. The how's, why's and what for's relating to the justification and prosecution of the war and occupation, are subjects for another debate, (and another debate I would contend all American should welcome), but the point now is to determine the best option for stabilizing and extricating America from Iraq. The Bush government and pentagon are feverishly examining this exact reality now, even though they publically condemn any commentary suggesting withdrawl and continue repeating the same tired hollow meaningless "stay the course" mantra's in the public theater. The Bush governments primary assumptions for the war and occupation were and remain woefully flawed. America must recognize this sad reality and begin the process of righting the Bush government wrongs in Iraq. The idea or pesumption that America can invade and occupy any nation based on mistaken, misrepresented, manipulated, poorly vetted, or deceptive intelligence and shapeshifting policies - is tyranny, not liberation. The idea that America can militarily impose any government on any people or democratize the ME throught the terrible swift sword of America's hypersuperior military - is imperialism, not democracy. The assumption that Iraqi's are incapable of forming and managing their own government, and their own society - is supremist and dictatorial, and belies Iraq's illustrious history and America's core principles. Tragically, what is likely to emerge now as a government and a society in Iraq is indeed very far from any of the orginal rosy prognostications and hollow promises mass marketed by the Bush government. America must accept all these grim facts now, and work in concert with the new Iraqi government (whatever it may be) and the rest of the world to insure that Iraq does not further devolve into a haven for jihadist mass murder gangs, and a caulron of instability and unrest for the entire ME. Americans must trust that Iraqi's will form a less perfect, - maybe not democratic in the western sense, - but far better government and society than the one ruled by Saddam, or the jihadist fiends in Iran, or Saudi Arabia. The emerging Iraq will certainly not afford or allow the warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government unfettered access to and control of the reconstruction process and the bountiful oil resources of Iraq. That's good and just, because it was and will never be tolerable to ever presume that the warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government had that right in the first place. Iraq today is a shambles, and America must accept that we are responsible and politically, economically, and morally accountable to help Iraq restore stability and stand up a viable government. We can, should, and must help in this process, but we can no longer dictate or presume to control the future of Iraq. Our military objectives are already achieved. - Saddam is gone, Iraq has been de-Ba'athified, and is no threat to its' neighbors or America. Though the country is awash in small arms, there are are no viable armor, air, or sea capabilities, and certainly no WMD in Iraq. While jihadist are operating in Iraq, the socalled insurgency is a largely homegrown operation. The bombings and violence will likely continue for a time, but without American ordinance, and the abusive face of American occupiers, the insurgency will loose it's primary ignition source. The terrible loss of America blood and treasure will quickly subside. Our main military objective are already complete. We can support Iraq on rescue missions, special opeations, anti - or counter terrorist missions, and as consultants, - but Americans roaming the streets of Iraq like legionaires is a foolish and fruitless strategy. I would suggest that secular Iraq has no intention of becoming or willingness tolerate a jihadist theocracy, and will eventually reject, isolate, and defang the jihadist elements in Iraq now through uniquely Iraqi ways and means. America should allow this process to unravel according to Iraqi policies. The Bush government was, and continues to be ruthlessly dishonest about the costs, timeframes, and ultimate objectives in Iraq. All arguments to the contrary are easily defeated by simply revisiting the Bush government public statement now and before the war. A significant reduction in the American face and footpint in Iraq, and orderly withdrawl is the best option for America now. The Bush government knows this as well as those who oppose the Bush the government. We need to find some common ground and arrive at the best options and solutions for realizing the inevitable end.

Against or not, the pullout has begun Posted by Errin Familia - 11/22/2005, 09:03 PM The precursors to the pullout occurred recently with the statements of Congressman Murtha and the arguments of Lt. General Odom becoming prominent within the national dialogue about the Iraq War. The pullout has in effect begun, and withdrawal will most likely come sooner and swifter than we think, unless the Bush administration finds an adamant way to stonewall the withdrawal of troops. Still, the administration are against the tide of public sentiment at this point in time. No American soldier has ever died a meaningless death in service of their country, and nothing we do now or ever will render their deaths meaningless. Our soldiers that have fallen in Iraq died following the orders of their Commander-In-Chief, and they died upholding the American Constitution and the ideals we stand for. Stop trying to use them to justify the continuation of a war they did not specifically sacrifice themselves for. We can bring all our soldiers home right this instance, and not dishonor in the slightest the legacy of their fallen comrades.

who REALLY wrote this piece by 'general odom'...? Posted by michael schrage - MIT Security Studies Program 11/23/2005, 11:06 AM ...it can't possibly be written by someone from the military and intelligence community with a respect for the facts and a sense of analytical rigor...virtually every point here made is riven with demonstrable errors of fact and loosey-goosey analytical interpretation that simply can't survive reasonable scrutiny... let's just deal with three points: ON CREDIBILITY...the general writes, 'A hyperpower need not worry about credibility'; this is nonsense on stilts...when a 'duty, honor, country' man in uniform says that his country's credibility doesn't matter, i submit we should worry about HIS credibility... wmd doesn't matter? honoring a committment doesn't matter? if general odom wishes to argue that the bush administration doesn't 'care about credibility,' he's welcome to do so...but every single pro-war, anti-war individual i've spoken with who is SERIOUS is VERY concerned about America's credibility - both with its friends and with its enemies... ON THE INSURGENCY AND DEMOCRACY...the general writes, There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. Gosh - then i guess there's no point even discussing it then...i just wish the general had brought his prognostication skills gleaned from decades in intelligence to predict 9/11 and Madrid and the absence of WMD in Iraq...the surest way to guarantee the general's 'no question' scenario is to, yes, 'cut & run' - it's nice to be a general in the intelligence biz if you run things on a self-fulfilling prophecy basis...what a cheap and intellectually dishonest argument! ON TERRORISTS the general posits a question "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not...' let's put this in words of one syllable: this is not true; it is false; it is wrong; it is a cheat; it is a sham...even the 9/11 report acknowledges clear and unambiguous affirmative support for bin laden from hussein's iraq...remember richard clarke's february 1999 email (pre bush!) expressing his concern that bin laden might 'boogie to baghdad' from the sudan...why would he boogie to baghdad instead of tango to teheran or prance to paris or dance to dubai? maybe because there were LINKS! i could go on and on...but, as someone who has worked - and does work - with individuals in the intelligence and military communities - i must say that i am disappointed by the lazy, arrogant, know-it-all condescension of general odom's comments...he is absolutely entitled to his opinions; he's not entitled to to pass them off as facts...he is a smart man who has betrayed his intelligence - in every meaning of that word

Evade and slime Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 11/23/2005, 12:11 PM Your rebuttal michael schrage is moot since you resort to the time honored and hollow GOP tactic of sliming the questioner and evading the questions. There was no operational connect between jihadist al Quaida, and secular Iraq prior to the war. You can hold to the gospel according the Fox fictions and myths to the contrary if you so desire, - but all the intelligence and even Powel and Rumsfeld have backtracked on this claim. Did al Quaida operatives exchange missives with Saddam before the war? Probably. So, by the way did US operatives exchange missives with both al Quaida and Saddam over time. The point is there was no operational link between Saddam and al Quaida, Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11, and the Bush government was reprehensible in the manipulation of information that conflated these false claims. You are simply holding on to one of the Bush government's many pre-war exaggerations and misrepresentations that is simply not true. You also take the credibility issue out of context. You might want to examine the current standing of the Bush government and by proxy America in the global arena, where you will no doubt witness the fact that the Bush government and by proxy America has absolutely zero credibility presently. The recent flurry of summits in Asia and Latin America are perfect examples and indicators of the fact that the rest of the world is simply not listening to the Bush government, and not interested in the policies being advanced by the Bush government. America should not, and most of us are not in any way swayed by, or interested in jihadist or insurgents opinions. Why do you care what jihadist think? The Bush government hurled America into a war of choice and the greatest foriegn policy disaster in American history based on hyped, manipulated, and/or patently false justifications. America must now garner the courage to right the Bush government's terrible wrongs in Iraq. Regarding insurgents taking over the Iraqi government, here again you are fixated on the gospel according to Fox/Rendon Group/WHIG/OSP/OSI/Rove concocted fictions, myths, and hollow promises of a Iraq becoming shining democracy and American colony in the ME. This never was, and never will be a possibility. There may be something like a democracy that emerges in Iraq, but it will be strongly influenced by Islam and particularly the Iranian perversion of Islam. The Bush government's attempt to impose democracy militarily on Iraq is an act of imperialism and tyranny, not liberation. Iraqi's have the right to determine their own government and as you can see they are shaping a government far different than anything envisioned by the warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government. Once the face and footprint, and American ordinance are largely removed from Iraq, the insurgency will loose it's primary enemy and the horrorshow will likely subside over time. There is already a civil war in Iraq, and the various sectarian and religious factions will battle it out for control of the government and the oil. Iraqi's will find ways to defuse the bloodshed and the bombing are stand up a government or governemnts without out our involvement. We can and should assist Iraq in anyway toward attaining some stability. But the days of the Bush government coloninzing and controlling the political process and oil resources of Iraq militarily - are over.

A weak case for pullout Posted by Gary Stoll - 11/23/2005, 03:18 PM The general is long on assertion, short on facts and weak in reasoning. There is far too much wrong with this piece to deal with it all, but a few points: He posits that the best course is for a new dictator to impose “order”. He harkens way back to far away Vietnam to find a supposedly relevant analogy yet blithely ignores the frighteningly instructive example just across Iraq’s border. Iran is a textbook (and extremely relevant) example of the wisdom of his Scowcroftian realpolitik policies. The US supported a brutal tyrant in Iran for decades in pursuit of “stability” and begat the founding explosion of modern Islamic fundamentalism – with a dollop of terrorism exportation thrown in for good measure. The Iran example is even more relevant in light of another fact he skips over (did anyone say “cherry-picking”), the highly regarded weapons inspector David Kay was less shocked by the lack of WMD in Iraq than he was by the decrepit state of the regime. It is hard to deny that chaos in Iraq was in our future regardless, and given that, there is at least a strong case to be made that the outcome though not certain is much more likely to be favorable to us if we are involved in creating it. And if it is fair to call the situation today a civil war (I wouldn’t), can anyone deny that it would look like a schoolyard brawl compared to the carnage that would have resulted from the regime collapsing of its own weight w/o the US to help keep Shiites from slaughtering Sunnis? His best argument against the outbreak of democracy in the Arab-Muslim world is that it has “never been done before”. Versions of that argument were used not so long ago for all sorts of things like putting men on the moon and ending Communism – it’s an observation not an argument. Once again Iran is instructive – despite a brutally repressive government, it is widely believed that the vast youth population is very pro-democracy, the only question is how long or what it will take to free them from tyranny. You gotta love circular reasoning – credibility is unimportant, but we should pull out because staying damages our credibility more than staying?!?!?! So much to fisk, so little time….. On a tangent, I have to say that while I have the utmost respect for the courage and brilliance of our military, I desperately wish that generals like Odom would have taken away a different “lesson” from Vietnam. Instead of vowing to “never again” fight a guerilla/insurgency war, I wish we would have vowed to never again lose such a war. It seems clear to me that like it or not these are the kinds of fights we will be facing for years to come. If we had put the stunning capability of our military minds on the tactics and technology to win a “Vietnam-like” war we would be in far better shape in today’s GWOT. Just imagine where our conventional force capability would be today if the unprecedented carnage of WWII had the led the military to vow to never again fight a conventional war…..

A weak case for pullout - edit Posted by Gary Stoll - 11/23/2005, 03:29 PM dang, I hate it when the fingers don't type what I think. I meant to say: You gotta love circular reasoning – credibility is unimportant, but we should pull out because staying damages our credibility more than leaving?!?!?!

Not so weak case Posted by Errin Familia - 11/23/2005, 09:03 PM You misrepresent Mr. Odom's opinion. The argument he puts forth is that credibility doesn't matter for the US. He then argued along the lines of if the opposite was true as well in order to prove that both situations lead to the same conclusion. If credibility doesn't matter, then we can withdraw from Iraq without hurting our credibility. If credibility matters, we should withdraw to save our credibility. You are missing the point when you think he's arguing for both at once, and General Odom is not guilty of circular reasoning. There's still room for you to question his assumptions, but it is incorrect to say he is using circular reasoning when he is merely arguing both sides of the same coin.

a not so important part of why the case is weak Posted by Gary Stoll - 11/24/2005, 03:49 AM Fair enough, on re-reading the credibility section I agree that it can be read as a "both sides lead to the same conclusion argument" however imho I don't think it is written very clearly, he says credibility doesn't matter then shifts and says we control our credibility and it will be better, with no "besides" or other segue. Regardless, that doesn't measurably improve his case, for his assertion that credibility doesn't matter puts him at odds with most people on both sides of the issue, and in typical fashion his assertion that credibility will be enhanced by leaving is not backed up by either facts or reasoning. He does ask the rhetorical question: if our course proves to be a strategic disaster won't our long-term credibility suffer? But that is a tautology, if his course (or any course) is a strategic disaster our credibility will likely suffer. It seems pretty far-fetched to claim that if the US stood up and said "never mind about all that democracy stuff, we are going to exit stage left and we are looking forward to your new dictator cleaning up this terrorist mess", that would enhance our credibility. After all, he doesn't make a case that the Iraqi situation will be better if we leave (he basically says it will be the same regardless of when we leave), he is only saying that our selfish interests would be served (they wouldn't be producing those "well-experienced terrorists”). Most importantly, my take on the credibility point was a humorous jab, not a significant part of my indictment of his case. Oh, and while I am at it, the more you re-read the more ridiculous it sounds. He says that “the insurgents are fighting effectively without [training]” – can he be serious? The insurgents are effective because their “fighting” is simply blowing up themselves and civilians – not too hard to be good at that. He claims the Iraqi security services “are uncertain about committing their lives”. Has he not seen the scores of Iraqis lining up to join the services day after day despite those very lines being continuous juicy targets for slaughter?

Not all that ridiculous Posted by Errin Familia - 11/25/2005, 01:21 PM While I agree with your earlier critique of Odom's piece in that it is assumptive in many of it's conclusions (particularly your point that not every war can be judged by Vietnam), it is hard for me to consider the assumptions of a former National Security Advisor as ridiculous, and the majority of this piece is pretty solid as far as opinion pieces go. Most of his logic is very plausible to me, even if it is occasionally communicated in a confusing fashion (such as the appearance of circular logic before). Credibilitywise, I also take issue with the US being cast as a hyperpower that need not bother with credibility. We're America, and we stand for a lot more than just being a hyperpower. But I still understand what Odom is saying when he says we can gain credibility through withdrawal from Iraq. I believe he is addressing the credibility we lost for starting the war, and is expousing the reciprocal value of ending the war. I personally believe that we can withdraw without much credibility loss because setting up a democracy was a pipe dream in the first place, and admitting that mistake will help our cred more than hurt it. I think the core of Odom's piece is that we have accomplished all we can accomplish there, and we can now credibly withdraw. Plenty of room for you to disagree with this, but he does have a point. As for insurgents and combat training, I disagree with him in that there is a certain amount of training going on along the insurgency (certainly the Jordan suicide bombers of recent were trained in some way), but I do agree with his general assumption that you don't need training to pick up a gun and fight for one's cause. Who trained our Founding Fathers? If the Iraqis really want democracy and freedom (hasn't been established that they do), they will fight for that freedom themselves independent of the US or US training. Of course we should train them to be better fighters while we can, but I don't think we should hinge the entire war on that training process. Beyond that defense of Odom's article, I agree with many of the valid arguments you make wherein the article is weak in reasoning. However, I still agree with Odom's overall stance, and find more in it to agree with than disagree. I also think his viewpoint is going to spread rapidly among the anti-war movement, and that the withdrawal from Iraq will occur sooner than we all think. In a way, it has already begun...

not so convincing Posted by Gary Stoll - 11/26/2005, 04:15 AM The only way to “gain credibility we lost for starting the war” is to win it and leave a better situation than that which we found. If we pull out and appear to be happy/OK with the outcome of a return to dictatorship we take a double hit in credibility. We started a war but we didn’t have the guts to finish/win it and we are a bunch of hypocrites. The people who hate us for starting this war will be only too happy to find more reasons to hate us – pulling out on Odom’s terms will give them enough fodder for the next 100 years. Can you cite any example where the party that started the fight backed out without gaining the objective and increased in credibility? Is there anyone on earth that gives us credibility for slinking away from Somalia? Yet we know from bin Laden’s own mouth that the Somalia example emboldened him to believe that we were weak could be hit and wouldn’t take the casualties. It is not a question of whether there is training going on in the insurgency; it’s a question of whether it is a fair fight. If the Iraqi’s were willing to fight on insurgent terms (suicide bombings of innocents) then yes they wouldn’t need training to win (because there is a lot more of them) – but of course then you would actually have what could properly be called a civil war. If the British had used suicide terror tactics, our Founding Fathers might just have lost. You say that it hasn’t been established that the Iraqi’s want democracy and freedom, yet like Odom you offer no evidence for that claim. On the contrary, my previously cited evidence of the thousands of Iraqis continuing to sign up for unbelievably hazardous duty in the security services as well as turnout in two elections that exceeded ours in the US despite the very real fear of death – that is powerful evidence to me that they indeed do want democracy and freedom. And if we abandon them to dictatorship I will bet you a large chunk of change that our credibility will be in the toilet with those purple fingered millions. While this exchange is intellectually stimulating, your statement that “a democracy was a pipe dream in the first place” makes it clear we will never agree. It also explains to me why you find Odom’s article convincing despite its weakness, for you don’t really need to be convinced. Unfortunately neither one of us can cite an example to prove whether it is a pipe dream or not. This is unprecedented, there has never been an invasion/regime change that was not imperialistic and was truly intended to create an independent democracy (and if you don’t believe that was the intention, I am really wasting my fingertips) – but as I noted before, there is a first time for everything. To me those purple fingered voters are powerful evidence that it is not a pipe dream – possibly not successful – but most certainly not a dream. I also feel strongly that if we abandon them to dictatorship again (as we did in 1991) they will surely hate our guts for generations, but they will likely attain freedom one day. I believe that even this short violent taste of freedom will leave them forever changed and impossible to repress forever. Lastly, to the point of the credibility of a former National Security Advisor, granted that is a nice resume. But in my view that is not a positive, since I think a strong case can be made that it was 50 years of his realist policies in the Mid East that have brought us to the mess we see today. And as an aside, how Brent Scowcroft can claim with a straight face that those 50 years in the Mid East have been ones of “peace” is absolutely beyond me. For me to take Odom’s advice, he would need to a) give some example where abandoning a fight left the situation in better shape, and b) explain convincingly why the Iranian revolution example I cited before is not extremely relevant in this situation. I shan’t hold my breath.

Secure war's goals Posted by Paul A. Miller - NorthwestOhio.net 11/26/2005, 03:19 PM Odom’s argument is … just bizarre. The goal of the invasion of Iraq, though muddled by the entire U.N. process, was not merely to take away Saddam’s weapons. The goal was to remove Iraq as a present and growing threat to the United States, its allies and its interests. Saddam was a threat whether he had the weapon stockpiles or not, because he had the technology and the expressed and historic desire to use them. Saddam was a threat whether he had the “operational” al Qaeda links or not because he had expressed interest in such links and was harboring various terrorists and their networks (such as Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda’s Zarqawi). Saddam was a threat because he had twisted the U.N. Oil for Food program into a secure source of funds which could be used to threaten the United States, with which he was in a continued low-level war ever since Desert Storm. People can (and did) argue whether or not that threat was sufficient to justify an invasion, but in the fall of 2002, 77 U.S. senators voted that it was, and 15 U.N. Security Council members implied so with their “serious consequences” resolution. We invaded and Saddam was toppled. Since then, we have battled to secure the war’s goal: Removal of Iraq as a present and growing threat. All this being said, we must look at today’s situation in Iraq and decide whether the goal has been met and no longer requires the U.S. presence. While Saddam is now under lock and key, and the Iraqi government is not a threat to the U.S. or its interests, the continuing influx of jihadists and attacks by Zarqawi’s network clearly indicate the terror threat remains. Our exit would allow those terrorists to change their focus from internal mayhem to external attacks on the United States and its allies. Without our presence in Iraq, the threat to American interests at home and overseas grows. Until the Iraqi government is politically stable, there remains the danger of an insurgent takeover, either by former Baathists or by al Qaeda. Either could tap into the knowledge base of Iraqi scientists and resume work on chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Again, achievement of the war’s goal slips out of our grasp with premature exit. Odom’s call for withdrawal is based on an extremely pessimistic view of both the current situation in Iraq and the capabilities of the Iraqi people, who seem to be either denigrated or ignored by most who call for immediate “cut-and-run.” Once governmental institutions like courts, councils, boards, departments and ministries have established themselves as the legitimate power structure with the Iraqi people – a process well underway – the need for the U.S. military as the ultimate source of authority in Iraq will evaporate. Along the same lines, once Iraqi security forces can control common street crime, shut out the influx of foreign militants and break up the networks of internal terrorists, U.S. forces will recede to the background – although some level of backup force capability will undoubtedly be necessary for years to come. The political model being followed in Iraq is fundamentally different than that of Vietnam, something rarely noted: In Iraq, the democratic political process has preceded the building, training and equipping of the military, while in Vietnam, the opposite was true. Vietnam’s internal politics were driven by the military’s power, while any observer can see Iraq’s fledgling democracy is already considered legitimate by the vast majority of Iraqis who are demonstrating this by voting. Whether intentional or not, the Iraqi military’s slow progress may eventually be seen as a key ingredient in setting up democratically-based authority. If the reason for invading Iraq was to protect the United States from the threats posed by that country, and the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq – though painful and costly – is maintaining a reduced level of threat from Iraq, then Odom’s argument can be turned on its head: Why not stick it out in Iraq indefinitely to keep the threat against the homeland and overseas interests substantially reduced from that of Saddam’s era? The loss of American lives and the monetary costs both argue against this as a long-term plan – thus, the effort to build a stable democracy. However, success in even five or 10 years would still be better than “indefinitely” and, most crucial, would still succeed in securing the war’s ultimate goal. A determination to succeed rather than to give up and pull out prematurely also increases pressure on the Iraqis to hasten their progress toward stability, and our exit with it. Finally, U.S. politicians should never commit forces to combat unless they believe the threat meets that grave decision. Their vote – or in the case of the executive, the order – should not be seen as a one-off choice easily cast aside when no longer expedient, but a solemn acceptance of responsibility until the goals are secured. In Iraq today, we aren’t there yet. That’s why we can’t leave.

More flawed assumptions. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 11/26/2005, 04:55 PM With all due respect Paul A. Miller, your commentary is a simple regurgitation of the same deceptions, hype, manipulations, exaggerations, and patently FALSE justifications the Bush government pimped, - I mean mass marketed to "sell" the war and wayward misadventure in Iraq. Simply repeating the FALSE assertion that Iraq was a threat, does not make it true. Iraq was NOT a threat to anyone. Iraq posed no legitimate threat to it's neighbors, and certainly not America before the war. Iraq was not involved with 9/11. Iraq' possessed no WMD, no affective air or sea power, and a its' military was demoralized, defeated, and largely defanged. Saddam was well contained for an entire decade and Iraq was incapable of reconstituting conventional, or un-conventional military programs. Though Saddam may have fantasized, hoped or wished for WMD development programs, there was simply no way for that kind of capability to be realized under the UN enforced restrictions imposed on Iraq. Iraq was NO THREAT!!! America and British airpower ruthlessly enforced the no-flys zones for ten years without suffering one casualty or a single dink on any of our assets. Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda’s Zarqawi operated well within the Northern fly-zone outside the reach of Saddam. Again simply repeating the same tired thoroughly debunked disinformation and patently false claim that Saddam had some kind of operational link with al Quaida does not alter the factbasedreality proving that claim is patently FALSE. In fact the reality that Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda’s Zarqawi operated in a region under US control, and that the Bush government never bothered striking Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda’s Zarqawi bases prior to the war - are obvious failures and lead to questions every American should be asking now, that Ansar al-Islam and al Qaeda’s Zarqawi have caused such terrible problems for Iraqi and US soldiers. Your hollow repetition of the Bush government deceptions and disinformation regarding Iraqi threats also belies the FACT that Iran (who does probably possess WMD) and (who does actually support and fund al Quiaida and other jihadist mass murder gangs) and (who actually is jihadist) present the ACTUAL and REAL present and growing threat to the United States, its allies and its interests. Curiously the Bush government is impotent or derelict in responding to the very real threats in Iran. Iran is also, sadly, the only victor in Iraq. Insurgent forces, backed, advised, suppled, and trained by Iranian jihadsts networks are teaching their follow jihadists all over the world exactly how to injure America's hypersuperior military, gaining support and recruits for the jihadist cause, and undermining American goals and ambitions through-out the ME. The Iranian backed Shi'ite majority government birthing in Iraq today will abide by and impose Shariah and Islamic, NOT DEMCRATIC principles for governance. An Iranian backed Shi'ite dominated proxy government in Iraq will control the bountiful Southern oil fields and the primary and key oil distribution points in the Gulf. Iran is the winner in Iraq, and the Bush governments imperial hubris, radical deceptions, obscene abuses, grotesque mismanagement, cataclymsic failures, and wanton profiteering have demolished any hope of stabilizing Iraq, or establishing a legitimate democracy, and amplified America's loss of credibility and legitmacy, (not to mention blood and treaure) globally. Further the Bush government cataclysmic failures in Iraq are helping not hurting our jihadist enemies, and hurting, not helpling America's ability to confront and defeat real threats in Iran Saudi Arabia and beyond. The Bush government has destroyed America's credibility. We have fewer less committed allies, and many more determined enemies. The real threats to America are rooted in the islamofascist and wahabi malignancies proselytized, nurtured and abundantly funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia. These two countries actual do present grave and serious threats to America's security and are awash in our petro dollars. Tragically, the cataclysmic failures and disasterous mismanagement of the Bush governments' bloody, costly, noendinsight horrorshow and war of choice in Iraq - prevent, undermine, and diminish America's economic, political, and military capacity to redress and defeat the actual threats spawned and nourished by Iran and Saudi Arabia. America must garner the courage to admit the mistakes and failures of Iraq, to recognized we were ruthlessly deceived by the Bush government warmongers and profiteers, - and begin the arduous process of righting the Bush government' terrible wrongs in Iraq. Then, and only then can we can resume actually addressing and defeating the true enemies of, and threats to American security and prosperity. Simply repeating the Bush governments deceptions, hype, and lies will cost America more blood, and more treaure, and more loss of credibility and will fail to make one positive step toward defeating our real enemies or thwarting the real threats to America.

more flawed assertions Posted by Gary Stoll - 11/26/2005, 10:57 PM With all due respect Mr. Foresta, your swipe at Paul Miller for “regurgitation of the same deceptions, hype, manipulations, exaggerations, and patently FALSE justifications” can easily be applied to your posting. Your bilious broadside: “the Bush governments imperial hubris, radical deceptions, obscene abuses, grotesque mismanagement, cataclymsic [sic] failures, and wanton profiteering have demolished any hope of stabilizing Iraq” typically contains no supporting facts or argument, just a rehash of the mantra of the Bush loathing fever swamp. Simply repeating insults does not make them true. The less than humanitarian mode of your discourse perhaps explains your need to ostentatiously remind us in your title that you are a “Human being” (and yes, I find it offensive that you obviously intended to convey that anyone opposite your viewpoint is not Human). I am constantly amazed that so many on the left don’t recognize that while the gratuitous unsupported swipes you liberally (no pun intended) sprinkle through your post may make you feel good, they seriously harm your ability to convince anyone who doesn’t already share your world view. I also think that it is wickedly ironic that your side of the spectrum feels so strongly that Bush’s undiplomatic style of communication with our allies and adversaries has destroyed our credibility and done irreparable harm – yet he sounds positively obsequious compared to your style of communication. In addition, your outright deception about what Miller says doesn’t help much either. You claim that Miller was “repeating the same tired thoroughly debunked disinformation and patently false claim that Saddam had some kind of operational link with al Quaida [sic]” when what he actually said was: ”Saddam was a threat whether he had the “operational” al Qaeda links or not”. Lying is not very supportive of your “Human” cred. While it is not very pleasant, I will attempt to wade through your vitriol to respond to some of your points. You maintain that “Iraq was NO THREAT”. Regarding WMD, that is of course easy to say in hindsight, while at the time no less than the venerated Hans Blix was unwilling to make that claim. Yes, he wanted more inspections but after 12 years, there is no reason to believe that inspections would ever have conclusively proven their absence, especially since it took more than a year to prove such AFTER we controlled the country. And remember that even the UN (supposedly) believed that Saddam must be VERIFIABLY disarmed. More importantly, you accept w/o question that the status quo in Iraq (circa 2003) was maintainable. The sanctions regime that you now are enamored with was widely unpopular in the West (deservedly so) due to the unconscionable suffering it was causing to the innocent Iraqi people (and we didn’t even know how ineffective it was due to the Oil for Food (OFF) scandal). UNICEF (that great Neocon organization) estimated that 35,000 Iraqis died each year due to the sanctions (if you had some desire to be fair you could at least give Bush credit for ending this suffering), yet all that suffering got them not one inch closer to freedom or democracy. I cannot find any logical argument that the sanctions regime would have lasted more than a few months if the inspectors were allowed to continue and presumably pronounce that he likely had no WMD. Given the collapse of sanctions, your “containment” would collapse as well, and I wouldn’t bet a plug nickel that a Saddam flush with >$10B of OFF kickbacks and free of sanctions wouldn’t return to his old threatening ways. I will admit that I agree with you that Iran and Saudi Arabia are/were more culpable for the exportation of Islamofascism than Iraq was. But I am desperately curious, what would you have been willing to do about it? Would you have supported invading one or both of them? If not, what? Or would you do what so much of the left proposes doing (including the EU3), which is nothing but spouting powerless diplomatic rhetoric? Bush was the guy sitting in the top chair when we were surprised by a ruthless brutal attack that killed nearly 3000 civilians (you might note that that is still significantly higher than our military losses after 4 years of the GWOT and 50 million people liberated, and no US terrorist attacks), it is not surprising (and in my view reassuring) that he felt the need to do something. Obviously you disagree strongly that invading Iraq was the right “thing” to do. So here I will make my case for that “thing”, a case that goes beyond the one that Mr. Miller made. It is a frustrating fact of life lived under a liberal leaning media that no one remembers that Bush made a three part argument for removing Saddam. He based it on: 1) being a threat, with and w/o WMD, 2) freedom/democracy promotion to remove the “root cause” of terrorism, and 3) human rights abuses of his own people. I’m sure you vehemently disagree – go back and read his speeches. It is another wicked irony that the intelligentsia that deride Bush for being a simpleton cannot seem to comprehend that a war could actually have more than one rationale – while Bush easily managed this “nuance”. It is of course an indisputable fact that in hindsight the emphasis on the WMD argument was a mistake (and I criticized it at the time) but a fair person should agree that the pervasive belief that he had them made it understandable. In my view, the root-cause rationale was by far the most important reason for invading Iraq (interesting how the classically liberal root-cause argument was shunned when a conservative picked it up and actually tried to do something about it). The shameful more-than-a-decade unwillingness of the West to confront the al Qaeda problem meant that Islamofascism was allowed to metastasize throughout Muslim societies across the globe. The notion that any “search and destroy” mission was going to root it out after 9/11 is imo fantasy. The best chance we had was to dry up the well of recruits to this toxic ideology. And the best chance to “dry up the well” was to give them an aspiration to a standard of living and liberty that is within shooting distance of our own. Contrary to the “hearts and minds” crowd, we don’t need them to love or even like us, we only need them to be more concerned with getting little Mohammed to soccer practice than with destroying the great Satan. After all, we fear not terrorism from France, yet they have loathed America for far longer than Bush has been on the political scene. Presuming that the “spreading freedom/democracy” was the most important goal, regime change in Iraq was a very logical next step to take in the GWOT. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the outbreak of democracy in ANY major Arab regime would be a huge step in “drying up the well” and would be a powerful symbol to the people trapped in other regimes. Iran and Saudi Arabia indeed presented a lot of reasons to recommend regime change, but very little justifiable rationale. Iraq in contrast, was in defiance of 17 UN resolutions, in non-compliance with the agreements it signed to end the 1991 war, and it was the most brutal regime in the Arab world. In addition, Iraq was seen to be the most secular country, arguably the best candidate to embrace democracy. Of course if you support the chauvinistic Odom view that Arabs/Muslims are incapable of embracing democracy then my argument will fall on deaf ears. But the purple stained fingers of millions of Iraqis who braved the very real fear of death to vote is far more powerful evidence than you or Odom have presented. Finally, let me say that both you and Odom have promulgated a real thought provoking issue with respect to the influence of Iran in Iraq. Unfortunately neither of you has presented anything but hysterical assertions. Even a staunch war supporter like me finds this to be a disturbing issue, many other experts have maintained that the historic animosity between Iraqi and Iranian Shia makes this a non-issue and that a democratic Iraq is the best policy towards Iran, but I have seen no compelling argument on either side of this issue. It would have been far more useful for Odom to dispense with the majority of his unsupported and unconvincing article and instead to really dig deeply into this issue and present some facts/arguments. I for one would be more attentive and impressed.

Evade and slime II Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 11/27/2005, 01:29 PM You do not speak for, comprehend, or understand me or anyone on the left Gary Stoll, so please speak for yourself, and I and others on the left will speak for ourselves. I do not need to link the mountains of well documented instances of the Bush government imperial hubris, ("you're either with us or with the evil doers", to constant sliming of our fellow Americans for questioning and raising legitimate questions regarding the Iraq horrorshow), radical deceptions (the glaring fact that all the pre-war justifications have proven FALSE; ie; no WMD, no threat to US, no operational link with al Quaida, no involvment with 9/11), obscene abuses, (Gitmo and Abu Gharaib, torture and rendition policies, the many thousands of innocent Iraqi's slaughtered and maimed, the revenge outing of Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings Associates, the heaping of blame on privates for policies born in the WH), grotesque mismanagement (the failure to plan or prepare for the peace and nation building enterprizes, the failure to imagine any kind of insurgent resistance, the pathetic flip flop flip relationship and codependence on the known swindler Amed Chalabi, the $8bn "missing from the CPA expenditures, the total lack of accounting detailing where and how exactly our $1.5bn a week is spent in Iraq), cataclymsic [sic] failures, (the fact that after two years there is still noendinsight, no bin Laden, no Zawarhi, and thriving insurgency, almost 2100 dead US soldiers, 17,000 maimed, 300bn poorly accounted for dollars committed, nothing like a western style democracy, a nation torn asunder, with water, sewage, health, and electrical services,and or oil output below pre-war levels, the fact that America and Britain must burdern the costs of Iraq alone, the fact the Bush government is loathed on every street in every nation on the planet, the fact that the Bush government has lost the support of most of the American people), wanton profiteering (numerous private military contractors all rooting to cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to the Bush government repeatedly winning no bid, open ended multi million dollar contracts, the well documented and rampant KBR, Halliburton, Black Water Resources, CACI, Mitre, Dyncorp, SAIC, Diebold, Triple Canopy, et alcronyism, malfeasance, and cooking of books, all without review, recourse of remedy for the failure and or abuse) - please do your own google and get back to me. You and everyone reading this thread know as well as I, that the links and facts and the sad truth are heavy on my side, and your feeble attempt to defend the indefensible, and excuse the inexcusable deceptions, abuses, failures, dereliction of duty, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, and wanton profiteering of the Bush government by pretending I do not have supporting evidence to back up these FACTS is a hollow and moot argument. A couple of additional points regarding the Bush government reprehensible deceptive and exploitation of the horrors and the dead of 9/11 to terrorize the American people into supporting the war, need to be mentioned. The Bush government disinformation warriors shapeshifting pimping, - I mean mass marketing and selling of the war was framed in the most desparate and "threatening terms" - mushroom clouds, stock piles of WMD, imminent threats, and days of horror like none we have ever known. Now there may have been intelligence claiming that Iraq was working on WMD development and a potential threat, - but no intelligence agency anywhere on earth was claiming imminment threats, or the necessity for immediate action in Iraq. All the caveats, uncorroborated claims, burn orders, single sourced doubts were conveniently left out of the Bush government terrorspeak advertizing campaign selling the war. You can claim that the democrats had all the information, or that the neo-facist WHIG/OSP/OSI/CTEG cabals within the Bush government did not purposely hype, manipulate, and contaminate the intelligence product bent on deceiving congress and the American people into blindly supporting the war, - but all the facts - DSM, revenge outing of Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings Associates, the subsquent Bush government flip flops recantations, and retractions of all the pre-war hype prove otherwise. America was intentionally deceived by the Bush government and particularly neo-facsict cabal operating in secret within the government. Also, while you and most intelligent people, and anyone who reads knows that Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more serious threats to US security than Iraq ever was, - we divide on the invade and occupy scenarios. Militarily mposing any government on any foriegn people is tyranny, not liberation. Erecting puppet governments beholden to the Bush government cronies and oligarchs, maruading the nations resources, commandeering control of the nations political process and reconstruction efforts is imperialism, not democracy. The truly "wickedly ironic" fallacy you and theright hold to, are rooted in outlandish and visionairy hopes and dreams, myths and ficitons of what might some day, or what could possibly, be possible in Iraq and the ME. The world is built on the rubble and ruin of fallen empires. History proves empire is unsustainable economically, politically, militarily, and morally. The draining the swamp metaphor is the exact kind of fundamentalist supremist neo-facsict delusion the jihadists claim against the great satan. America must lead, not conquer. America has the right to strike and render harmless any perceived threat to our security, stability, and prosperity, - but we DO NOT have the right to invade and occupy foriegn nations, destroy those nations cities, slaughter and maim thousands of the nations people, maraud, plunder, and profiteer the nations resources, erect puppet government beholdend to the Bush government cronies and oligarchs, militarily impose a perversion of democracy (actually imperialist proxy state) on the nation, and waste the blood and treasure of the American people in the prosecution of the invasion, occupation, and colonization the foriegn nation. America must and should work with other nations all allies, and competitors in the global community, and not dictate to and spurn friend and foe, to impose the imperial hubris and totalitarian designs and ambitions of the neo-fascists in the Bush government. You, and the fanaticus truebelievers can continue exalting the high priests in the Bush government and pretending not to see the terrible costly bloody crisis facing America in Iraq, the ME, the homeland, and beyond, - and imagine the will be some future far off visionary vindication of the Bush government lies and deceptions, - but the rest of us see the Bush government as deceptive, corporatist, predatory, imperialist, and fascist, and recognize the Bush governemt is responsible and accountable for the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history, for shaming America globally, for deceiving and abusing our troops, for treason of revenge outing Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings Associates, and for the grievous treachery of betraying the public trust and "throwing sand in the fact of judicial system and the truth.

Change in Iraq Posted by james bachmann - 11/27/2005, 06:12 PM The change in Iraq is that there is a new government, and there will be another one after December 15. As in Vietnam, the pressure to reduce levels will get greater, because it is seen as the only easily understood measure of success if troops leave. So a phased withdrawal is going to happen because of political pressure at home, or the new Iraqui government is going to ask for a staged withdrawal, just like the present one.

Need to protect Oil contracts Posted by Stephen Gibbard - 11/27/2005, 08:51 PM The US military needs to remain in Iraq to protect the oil production facilities and to ensure the rule of a pro-US government. As soon as an representative government takes power in Iraq, they will cancel the exclusive oil contracts awarded to US companies, and maybe return to their earlier policy of pricing oil in Euros. Profits trump all other considerations.

Tyranny is not liberation. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 11/28/2005, 01:55 AM Your comment Stephen Gibbard, flys in the face of all the Bush government flowery rhetoric and hollow promises of liberation and democratiztion and validates - tragically - exactly why the Iraq misadventure is doomed to fail. Invading and occupying a foreign nation, slaughtering its' civilians, destroying its' cities and infrastructure and plundering its' resources is illegal, unjust, and immoral. You are imagining Americans will actually support tyranny and imperialism as government policy, and if so, - you and the Bush government warmongers and profiteers are sorely mistaken. Markets will adjust. America has no right to plunder the oil of Iraq with terrible swift sword of our hypersuperior military and paid for with the peoples blood and treasure. It is the book cooking oil and energy cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to the Bush government bent on the criminal intent to maraud and sieze control of Iraq's oil that drives this war, and most of the illicit and unholy policies this government advances. The Bush government works for us, not the oil and energy oligarch, and this criminal policy is a grievous betrayal of the public trust and a grotesque perversion of the principles that formally defined America. If America actually tolerates tyranny, imperialism, and a neo-fascist totalitarian dictatorship that would advance these illicit designs in secret and through deception, and/or coersion, - then we deserve whatever fiery pit and hell the Bush government warmongers and profiteers hurl us into. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Plenty of room to call this war a pipe dream Posted by Errin Familia - 11/28/2005, 02:01 PM A few things in response to Gary Stoll, one of the few pro-war people I've encountered on the blogosphere who actually sticks to logic and has a give-n-take interchange of ideas. Here goes: 1) There is always a reciprocal value to undoing an action that others have deemed 'wrong'. If starting an action is considered wrong, then logic dictates that the reverse is true, that ending the action will be considered right. I also think it is unfair to say other countries who opposed this war 'hate us'. Many were longtime allies that legitimately disagreed with an invasion of Iraq. As far as credibility goes, of course we will get the most by 'winning' this war (however that may be defined), but that fact doesn't exclude that withdrawal would lead to credibility gains as well. Though I could put forth Vietnam as an example of where withdrawal was a good thing (as well as the fact that staying was a bad thing, something you don't seem to recognize is a reality within the Iraq war), I would rather reiterate Mr. Odom's position that the current situation in Iraq is damaging our credibility, and that ending the war will end the damage. There is room to withdraw from Iraq in a way that it isn't seen as 'slinking away'; A proper withdrawal could be done in such a way as to not damage our credibility, but rather boost it. Of course, an improper withdrawal would accomplish the opposite, as Somalia proved. 2)Evidence to support my claim that Iraqis haven't established that they want a democracy is twofold. For one, the Iraqis never instigated a pro-democracy rebellion of their own, rather an outside force in the form of the US invaded their country and set up a democracy. Secondly, recent polls show something like 80% of Iraqis wanting the US to get out of their country. Surely, if they wanted democracy so bad, they'd want us to stay and see it through. Again, we are imposing democracy on them; The driving force for an Iraqi democracy came from without, not from within. With a civil war and factionalism already begun, it is obvious that the Iraqis are beginning to steer away from what we initially imposed on them. Also, your training points didn't seem to prove much. My point was that you don't need training to take arms and defend your own democracy. If this Iraqi democracy is so dependent on US training and support, than how can we even call it an Iraqi democracy? I believe we did plenty of training with the anti-communist Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. And where did that get us? And as long as we're citing the Revolutionary War, we Americans fought for that ourselves. We may have had allies, but we took on the bulk of the battles. Same cannot be said for the Iraqis when it comes to the Iraq war, not that we've even given them much of a chance to fight their own battles. Again, you miss Odom's point that what you claim WILL happen if we withdraw is ALREADY happening because of our occupation there. 3)Your sudden conclusions about me from my 'pipe dream' statements are completely mistaken and somewhat out of line. I don't understand why you started concentrating on me and my motives rather than the arguments at hand, but let me clarify some things for you: As a pacifist, I did not support this war, but I didn't oppose it either because I thought it was noble to free the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator. I also felt the war would be conducted properly because Bush had so much riding on it. After all the numerous mistakes that have been made (Abu Ghraib comes to mind foremost), I began to realize what a foolish war this was (a political war of choice, mind you). It wasn't until I read Odom's article that I began to see the war as a pipe dream and also became strongly pro-withdrawal. Those are the facts; What you asserted were nothing but assumptions. For somebody who has critiqued Odom for being so assumptive, I was surprised that you also engaged in such assumption yourself, albeit about me and not about Iraq. Do I have conclusive proof this war is a pipe dream? No. As you have stated, this pre-emptive war to establish a democracy is unprecedented, so time will tell if this is a pipe dream or not. The main reason I consider this war a pipe dream: common sense. We were not greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. The majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. Never before has a democracy been established from without rather than within, and history has shown that maintaining any democracy is a struggle, and that such a struggle can only be won by a strong democratic urge within the populace of the democracy. Whether or not this Iraq War is a pipe dream, it is an untested theoretical experiment that has more potential to be a pipe dream than to not be a pipe dream. Time will tell, but the current chaotic situation makes me feel that this war is indeed a pipe dream. There is indeed a first time for everything, but there is also something called Murphy's Law that is alive and well over in Iraq right now. 4)Your last paragraph about Odom seems to be the view of somebody deeply entrenched in their pro-war view. As a Lt. General and a former NSA, Mr. Odom brings a certain perspective to the Iraq war that is highly valid and worth listening to. I find it hard to believe that you would be disparaging him so if he agreed with your view rather than disagreed with it. We can hardly hold General Odom accountable for the last 50 years of American conduct in the Middle East. His arguments aren't so illogical or assumptive; Truth is, you're not really listening to what he's saying because you disagree with his conclusions. I've acknowledged that there are flaws within his arguments as well as strengths; Maybe you need to start acknowledging some of the strengths in his argument rather than dwelling on the flaws. 5)Regardless of what we debate here, truth of the matter is that the tide has turned on support for this war, and the US is now figuring out when to withdraw, not IF to withdraw. Odom's views reflect the majority of America right now, whereas those opposing his views are fighting a losing battle against the majority of their fellow Americans. The withdrawal has in effect begun, and it is only a matter of time before the troops start coming home and the Iraqis are made to uphold their democracy all by themselves, as it should be if they are ever going to have a real democracy over there.

A few points Posted by dave pos - concerned citizen 11/30/2005, 08:54 PM Patti B makes a good point that it's about economics. Our so called democracy which we are attempting to install is simply an economic system which will reward the multinationals(especially ones who have donated to W and the GOP) at the expense of the Iraqi people. The Bush folks intentions are quite clear when you read the position papers of The Project for the New American Century, a right wing think tank composed of Jeb, Cheyney, Wolfy, Rummy, etc. In 2000, they were achin' to invade Iraq. Here's their quote: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security.While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." There's an old saying: If you take the wrong road, go back". I would add one thing to this quote: "If you take the wrong road, admit you're wrong, apologize, then go back!"

Thanks General Odom Posted by Arthur M. Howard - Retired 12/08/2005, 02:10 AM When I returned from the Phillippines in 1946 I, like many like me had a dream and joined the American Veteran's Committee http://www.usmm.net/avc-mast45.html ...to try to implement it. It hurts to see a Generation of "representatives" in Congress so spoiled and degenarate that they threw it all away in five short years. Thank you for speaking up. I hope you will succede in putting some gumption and spine into that passel of spoiled brats we call Democratic congress people.

Against a pullout Posted by Walter Hawthorne - 12/08/2005, 05:33 PM I have read many examples of what happened in Vietnam for why we should leave Iraq, yet I have not read any examples of what happened in Germany AFTER WWII ended. There were 'insurgents' known as the Nazi guerrillas (also code-named 'Werewoves'! They fought against the trials, they bombed U.S. interests, they set roadside mines, they sniped, they killed 'collaborators', etc. Sound familiar? It should, it's what is happening now! I see THIS part of history as MORE relavent to Iraq, not Vietnam. If we MUST look at history (and we should) let us look at ALL of history, not just what supports one side of the arguement. Had the media (and through tem, the 'regular' populace) would have been better situated to know why this is happening, or at least understand that this is nothing new. I do support everyones right to an opinion, just use ALL the facts and not just 'cherry-picking' the ones you want to see.

What Facts? Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 12/10/2005, 12:13 PM What do "'Werewoves' have to do with anything Walter Hawthorne? You might want to review the Bush government "plan" which partially details the multifaceted aspect of the insurgency. There are several insurgent elements that have different and often conflicting reasons, methods, and objectives in Iraq, unlike the "Werewolves" who were singular in their devotion to nazi ambitions. Your pathetic attempt to conflate the wayward misadventure and war of choice in Iraq with WWII is misleading, confused, and wildly misinformed. Obviously you have not been paying attention, since the Newsmax-gospel according to Fox- Melhman concocted talking points regarding "'Werewoves' was already deflowered more than a year ago when that silly canard first starting farting out the wingnutsia propaganda and disinformation covens. First, there is no legitimate way to compare the war of necessity in WWII, and the war of choice in Iraq. WWII involved the entire world not just the US and in a small way Britain who are occupying a powerless persian country. The German and Japanese were formidable forces, posed truly dire threats to every nation on the planet and fielded equal if not superior air, sea, armor, troop, and command capabilities. None of these FACTS are anywhere close to true with the Iraq debacle, where our $491bn defense, and 44bn intelligence industries are bogged down fighting "insurgents" with AK-47's, IED's, and RPG's. Second the US homeland during WWII was forced to make tremendous sacrifices for the war effort, most major US industries were reverted to war support efforts, unlike the current ridiculousness in Iraq wherein the richest American actually have been granted unprecedented goverment largess and tax cuts. There were 2 million or more US troops in combat in WWII. The global impact of WWII affected every nation on the planet economically, politically, socially and it's ending reshaped humane history. The global carnage and widespead devasatation of WWII drwafs the terrible mayhem and loss of life in Iraq which is centered on one single powerless country. Any wingnutsia attempt to introduce WWII comparisons into the Iraq misadventure are always deceptive, manipulative, exaggerated, wildly misinformed, purposely misleading, and patently FALSE. I do agree with you however that Viet Nam is the wrong comparison for the Iraq debacle. Iraq is America's Palestine. We are an unwelcome occupying force engaged engaged in police operatons against an insurgent enemey conducting terrorist operations, and then blending seemlessly into the population. This war, as our generals have already made clear, cannot be won militarily. The end of the Iraq conflict will be a result of political and diplomatic, not military solutions. The Bush government and fanaticus like you and the other wingnutsia apologists for the Bush government expect the rest of America waste more blood, treasure and credibility so the Bush government cronies and oligarchs can reap obscene fortunes profiteering in and from Iraq and to blindly trust that some good will come of the bloody costly war of choice in Iraq at some distant far off time in the unknown unknown future. We are expected to trust the hollow promises and rosy progonstication of a leadership that has always been wrong, and never once right or truthful about any aspect of the war of choice in Iraq. We are expect to blindly trust a leadership who have ruthlessly deceived America and betrayed the public trust for years by pimping - I mean mass marketing a festering litany of FALSE justifications for the war, and then FAILED to plan or prepare for, and grotesquely mismanaged the peace, an insurgent uprizing, and the inevitable nationbuilding enterprize. Every single promise, progonstication, estimate, claim, assertion, or partisan pipedream pimped - I mean mass marketed by the Bush government has proven FALSE. There is nothing postive that will come from our continued occupation in Iraq. The Bush government, the wingnutsia apologencia, and you are going to have to present much more compelling evidence and real FACTS, not partisan talking points and exaggerated, unfounded, deceptive, and patently FALSE assertions to garner any support for the war of choice in Iraq. The only benefits gained from this misadventure involve engoring the offsheet account of cronies and oligarchs in or beholden to the "Bush Crime Family Cabal". The American and Iraqi people are paying the price for the Bush government profiteering. The costs to America in blood, treasure, and credibility have already far outweighed any benefits gleaned from beheading the Saddam regime. We have more seething enemies, and far fewer friends because of the Bush governments deceptions, abuses, failures, plunder profiteering, brutish hubris, and facsist imperialist desings in the wayward misdventure and war of choice in Iraq. This conflict is helping not, hurting our real enemies, and hurting not helping America.

US kills FAR MORE Iraqis than Odam attributes... Posted by ralph chaney - 12/15/2005, 06:15 PM Odam says in item one, that "Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans." NOT SO, according to Knight-Ridder, September 25, 2004: "Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder." Full text of the article follows. It should be noted that this ratio is not only shocking but has probably INCREASED as these figures pre-date our sacking and murder in Fallujah, our increased actions in the remote North-West (and hence less covered and documented deaths of civilians) and the stepped-up aerial bombing campaign. Apoligists will say that the Iraqis killed by the US includes insurgents, but please know that our BIG BOOT methods kill far, far more civilians than insurgents. Full Text: Published on Saturday, September 25, 2004 by Knight-Ridder More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows by Nancy A. Youssef BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder. According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said. While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be significantly higher. During the same period, 432 American soldiers were killed. Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of innocent civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government. That suggests that more aggressive U.S. military operations, which the Bush administration has said are being planned to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, could backfire and strengthen the insurgency. American military officials said "damage will happen" in their effort to wrest control of some areas from insurgents. They blamed the insurgents for embedding themselves in communities, saying that's endangering innocent people. Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, an American military spokesman, said the insurgents were living in residential areas, sometimes in homes filled with munitions. "As long as they continue to do that, they are putting the residents at risk," Boylan said. "We will go after them." Boylan said the military conducted intelligence to determine whether a home housed insurgents before striking it. While damage would happen, the airstrikes were "extremely precise," he said. And he said that any attacks by the multinational forces were "in coordination with the interim government." The Health Ministry statistics indicate that more children have been killed around Ramadi and Fallujah than in Baghdad, though those cities together have only one-fifth of the Iraqi capital's population. According to the statistics, 59 children were killed in Anbar province - a hotbed of the Sunni Muslim insurgency that includes the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah - compared with 56 children in Baghdad. The ministry defines children as anyone younger than 12. "When there are military clashes, we see innocent people die," said Dr. Walid Hamed, a member of the operations section of the Health Ministry, which compiles the statistics. Juan Cole, a history professor at University of Michigan who specializes in Shiite Islam, said the widespread casualties meant that coalition forces already had lost the political campaign: "I think they lost the hearts and minds a long time ago." "And they are trying to keep U.S. military casualties to a minimum in the run-up to the U.S. elections" by using airstrikes instead of ground forces, he said. American military officials say they're targeting only terrorists and are aggressively working to spare innocent people nearby. Nearly a third of the Iraqi dead - 1,122 - were killed in August, according to the statistics. May was the second deadliest month, with 749 Iraqis killed, and 319 were killed in June, the least violent month. Most of those killed lived in Baghdad; the ministry found that 1,068 had died in the capital. Many Iraqis said they thought the numbers showed that the multinational forces disregarded their lives. "The Americans do not care about the Iraqis. They don't care if they get killed, because they don't care about the citizens," said Abu Mohammed, 50, who was a major general in Saddam Hussein's army in Baghdad. "The Americans keep criticizing Saddam for the mass graves. How many graves are the Americans making in Iraq?" At his fruit stand in southern Baghdad, Raid Ibraham, 24, theorized: "The Americans keep attacking the cities not to keep the security situation stable, but so they can stay in Iraq and control the oil." Others blame the multinational forces for allowing security to disintegrate, inviting terrorists from everywhere and threatening the lives of everyday Iraqis. "Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be." Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks. The ministry began separating attacks by multinational and police forces and insurgents June 10. From that date until Sept. 10, 1,295 Iraqis were killed in clashes with multinational forces and police versus 516 killed in terrorist operations, the ministry said. The ministry defined terrorist operations as explosive devices in residential areas, car bombs or assassinations. The ministry said it didn't have any statistics for the three provinces in the north: Arbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah, ethnic Kurdish areas that generally have been more peaceful than the rest of the country. The Health Ministry is the only organization that attempts to track deaths through government agencies. The U.S. military said it kept estimates, but it refused to release them. Ahmed al Rawi, the communications director of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad, said the organization didn't have the staffing to compile such information. The Health Ministry reports to interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, whom the United States appointed in June. Iraqi health and hospital officials agreed that the statistics captured only part of the death toll. To compile the data, the Health Ministry calls the directors general of the 15 provinces and asks how many deaths related to the war were reported at hospitals. The tracking of such information has become decentralized since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime because both hospitals and morgues issue death certificates now. And families often bury their dead without telling any government agencies or are treated at facilities that don't report to the government. The ministry is convinced that nearly all of those reported dead are civilians, not insurgents. Most often, a family member wouldn't report it if his or her relative died fighting for rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia or another insurgent force, and the relative would be buried immediately, said Dr. Shihab Ahmed Jassim, another member of the ministry's operations section. "People who participate in the conflict don't come to the hospital. Their families are afraid they will be punished," said Dr. Yasin Mustaf, the assistant manager of al Kimdi Hospital near Baghdad's poor Sadr City neighborhood. "Usually, the innocent people come to the hospital. That is what the numbers show." The numbers also exclude those whose bodies were too mutilated to be recovered at car bombings or other attacks, the ministry said. Ministry officials said they didn't know how big the undercount was. "We have nothing to do with politics," Jassim said. Other independent organizations have estimated that 7,000 to 12,000 Iraqis have been killed since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations. Iraqis are aware of the casualties that are due to U.S. forces, and nearly everyone has a story to tell. At al Kimdi Hospital, Dr. Mumtaz Jaber, a vascular surgeon, said that three months ago, his 3-year-old nephew, his sister and his brother-in-law were driving in Baghdad at about 9 p.m. when they saw an American checkpoint. His nephew was killed. "They didn't stop fast enough. The Americans shot them immediately," Jaber said. "This is how so many die." At the Baghdad morgue, Dr. Quasis Hassan Salem said he saw a family of eight brought in: three women, three men and two children. They were sleeping on their roof last month because it was hot inside. A military helicopter shot at them and killed them: "I don't know why." U.S. officials said any allegations that soldiers had recklessly killed Iraqi citizens were investigated at the Iraqi Assistance Center in downtown Baghdad. "There is no way to refute" such stories, said Robert Callahan, a spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. "All you can do is tell them the truth and hope it eventually will get through." Knight Ridder special correspondent Omar Jassim contributed to this report. © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

The Hand-Over That Won't Happen Posted by Felicity Smith - 12/19/2005, 03:46 PM L. Paul Bremer's illegal orders give the US a lock on Iraq's economy. Bremer may have left, but his long dark shadow remains. Order No. 39 alone does no less than transition Iraq from a centrally planned economy to a market economy practically overnight and by US fiat. Some orders that are virtually impossible to overturn: Order 39 (see above) allows for 1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; 2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; 3) no preferences for local over foreign businesses; 4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and 5) 40-year ownership licenses; (57) and (77) ensure the implementation of the orders by putting US appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with 5 yr. terms and sweeping authority over contracts etc. Much of the above allow foreign corps. (think Halliburton etc.) to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all their money home. 17) grants foreign contractors full immunity from Iraq's laws; 40) allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks. There are more, but the point is made. Because Bremer's orders fundamentally alter Iraq's existing laws, they are illegal. Given the Bush administrations record on ignoring illegalities, it can be expected that the Orders will stand as written. May these be what our troops and the Iraqi people are dying for?

General Odom's 9 Points Posted by Jerry Eagan - 12/24/2005, 12:25 PM This is an extremely lucid and insightful prescription for reality. I would like to say that above all else, the "fear" that Democrats, or moderate Republicans have over stating such clear reasons for withdrawal IS the demonization process that the Bush Administration administers whenever ANY criticism or countervailing argument is presented to THEIR plans, goals, policies. The incredibly sad part of this is that it comes from a Party that espouses to know the word and wisdom of God more because of it's connection to the "Religious Right." Bull. However, the demonization process is real and carries real and damaging prospects to even the best of critics. However, someone with General Odom's credentials can post this type of reasoning without being called a "coward" as someone recently did to Congressman John Murtha. If General Odom is reading these posts, I'd ask what thoughts he has on the possibility that Hizbullah will enter the fray in Iraq, perhaps under another name, perhaps under it's own name. A book, "In The Shadow of Hizbullah" by Ahmed Hamzi Nasir shows that Hizbullah's power in Lebanon is bound to increase, but it also shows that Hizbullah has successfully taken on not just the Americans and French, in Lebanon but also the Israelis. An entrance into the Iraq post-December election by Hizbullah would, in my opinion, represent a major escalation in SHI'ITE rejection of further American presence. By reading Nazir's book, I'd say that if Hizbullah enters this conflict, we're in trouble. I also want to say, as a 70% disabled combat infantry vet from Vietnam, that General Odom is correct in describing the South Vietnamese debacle of 1975. I not only fought there, but have studied war and political science for years, and believe this: There is absolutely nothing in my review of that war that could convince me that anything other than what happened, would have happened, in 1975. We spent billions of our treasury propping up the South Vietnamese government, actively at least, from 1962 - 1975. Congress, exasperated by the undending black hole South Vietnam had become, had enough. At some point, this will happen in Iraq, as well. There is no evidence to me that the election will improve American chances of achieving the Bush Administration's goal of labeling the Iraqi experiment, a burgeoning Democracy. I think Iraqis have had quite enough of American occupation. Anthony Shadid's superb book, "Night Draws Near" was convincing enough for me to say that the polls are right: between 65-70% of Iraqis want to say to the United States: thank for coming, now get the hell out of here! There is also increased evidence, in today's Washington Post, that Seymour Hersh's recent prediction that more air power will be used as Americans withdraw, or try to hand over to the Iraqi Army, the instruments of modern warfare. Air power, in Iraq, which is heavily urbanized in a sense, will mean even MORE Iraqis angry at the United States. The cultural demand for vengeance by tribal or Arabic mores, means our troops will suffer even more fatalities as the new year opens up. Even the most precisely calibrated air attacks will kill more, not less, Iraqis, in a country where many live in towns, villages, or cities. The General is also right about the loyalty of Iraqi military units. There will be more not less Iraqi casualties if they cannot receive the full equivalent of American combat training. But the connundrum is: if we actually GAVE Iraqis a full eight weeks of basic training, followed by eight to twelve more weeks of advanced infantry training, they'd probably desert in huge numbers, now having received American training in combat, as well as a sense of how to actually FIGHT Americans. There will be no mass transfer of the needed equipment to Iraqi Armed forces, either, because again, to give them the body armor, transportation, weapons, logistics, intelligence and artillery and air support, would essentially BEG for thousands to promptly defect to the insurgency. So, there will NEVER be a successful transition of truth in capabilities as long as we are there in the numbers we have NOW. But, politically, everyone now knows, the United States is headed for the door. As such, they are probably happy to allow the Americans to go, but as Josef Bodansky states in his book, "The Secret History of the Iraq War," there are more than a few Middle Eastern "players" who want to not just see the United States leave Iraq, but leave in humiliation, as with our withdrawal from Vietnam and Lebanon. The lack of loyalty of Iraqi units will continue as the United States tries to broaden the training of Iraqi forces. I suspect, also, that the Bush Administration is against other nations training too many Iraqis, because ANY systematic training by European nations, for instance, will STILL give the average Iraqi soldier far more skill than he has ever possessed under Saddam Hussein. The factionalism and schism between Kurds, Shi'a, Sunnis, Christians, Turkmens, will all undermine attempts to pull a true post-Saddam unified government. However, one thing COULD bring about a temporary truce between these factions ... the unified call for American withdrawal. This is a tragic mess. The military is the finest of our times. They are dedicated and skilled. But they also know that they've been abused. I don't know whether THEY understand this, but as a combat infantry veteran, volunteer, who was in hospitals a year, around single, double and triple amputees, I can tell you this: ANY President and Vice President, who did not serve their nation IN HARM'S WAY, as they two did not, who allow their political subordinates to excoriate Max Clelland, John McCain, and John Kerry, with the savage attacks made on all of them, and even against John Murtha, CANNOT -- EVER -- claim that they have veterans welfare in mind. I SAW single, double and triple amputees put on their prosthetics, every day, for months. I SAW and heard them deal with their wives -- young men, some, not even 20 -- without legs and testicles or the ability to ever make love again! I HEARD those men whine and cry and beg for morphine at night, after having tried walking on prosthetics. "60 Minutes" did a profile of Max Clelland. It took him an hour or two to get his gear on, as a TRIPLE AMPUTEE, and he did NOT, as Ann Coulter charged, "self-inflict his wounds" in a manner dishonorably. Nor did John Kerry. Those actions tell anyone who is alive and awake, how these two men deal with Veterans. Because they KNOW they shirked their own duties, they despise veterans who were out there, and made serious sacrifices. So, they have misused and abused the best cohort of military we've ever had, in terms of professionalism. The very severe threat that could result from that treatment is a profound cynicism from a group of men and women who we do NOT want to turn into cynics. Our military has been shattered. The power of the United States in the world is NOT about nuclear arms any more. It is about having the finest, most competent, trained, and equipped CONVENTIONAL force ever assembled. But, by now, that conventional force has been shattered. If we do NOT leave in 2006, that force will begin to suffer effects so severe that it will take five or ten years to recover. And the windows of opportunity for leaving with grace are diminishing. I propose leaving by the end of 2006. Everyone will have to pull themselves up and decide whether they're ready to fight for whatever they believe in or not. But by this time, it's the Iraqis call, not ours. We've done a job that was nasty, but we've done it. Now is the time to leave. All the troops should be out by the end of 2006. Whatever will happen, will, as in the case of South Vietnam in 1975, happen. There's nothing else we can do. Our strategic well-being demands withdrawal by the end of 2006.

A foundation of air Posted by Stefan Gordon - 12/30/2005, 04:34 PM I admit that upon reading much of this I can do little else but stare at the screen, slightly dumbfounded and very disappointed. It is disturbing to me to read the extent to which people will rely on wild fantasies and conspiracy theories using only the bizarre conjecturing of paranoid, power hungry politicians and greedy journalists to support their case. I do not agree with everything that has happened in Iraq, but overall I am extremely pleased with the progress that has been made and I am proud of our President who has brought relative peace to the lives of many people in the middle east inside and outside of Iraq by using aggressive foreign policies many political leaders would not have the guts to use. While there is still much to do, we seem moving in the right direction. Perhaps the most disturbing and revealing fact is the lefts constant effort to equate this war with Vietnam. In a certain way this is true, in that we are losing this war inasmuch as the media and the left is attempting to convince the people that there is no possible success. A few years back CNN conducted an interview with a top North Vietnamese general regarding the Veitnam war. It was disclosed that North Vietnam had plans to surrender, seeing that their casualties were high and they had no way to obtain victory. Then wind of the U.S. reaction to the war begin to come to them, and he disclosed that they realized that if they could extend this war long enough they could win. So the orders changed, and the generals were told to sacrifice a hundred soldiers to kill a single American, because the negative press would lead to a Vietnamese victory. One of the most horrible things America has done in history is withdraw from Vietnam, leaving hundreds of thousands of American supporters to die. I do not wish to repeat Vietnam, but the key is not to give up, but to actually committ. Wars cannot be won by politicians, which is what we really should have learned in Vietnam. I would like to see more positive journalism and pro-American indoctrinization of the people in Iraq, along with a continued troop presence that will extend for the next fifty years to maintain stability. This is what we have done in other similar situations and it has been successful. I use as examples Germany, Japan, and South Korea. As far as the Bush oligarchies I have heard so much about from the posters here, I am disgusted at these blatant conspiracy theories that are supported only on speculation and tabloids. A well known professor of Islamic studies once said something amounting to 'it is possible that there is a giant invisible bunny rabbit, as there is no way to prove otherwise, but I personally doubt it.' These secret invisible groups who make invisible profits in some unknown way from a war that came from a united decision, both inside and outside the country may, indeed, exist, but it is my personal belief that such accusations come from power hungry politicians who care so little for the lives of both Americans, and oppressed people who had lived and died at the hands of an evil dictator, that they would say anything to gain power themselves. Keep talking progressives, and watch as america continues to vote you into oblivion.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Posted by Tony Foresta - Human being 01/01/2006, 10:20 PM Like the fascist dictator you worship, Stefan Gordon you invert distort, mangle, morph, evade, ignore, and obfuscate factbasedrealities and the truth and provide only hollow words and meaningless partisan hagiography to support your wildly inaccurate claims. You slime posters here as conspiratorial, but do not have the courage, or the intelligence to mention any single specific conspiracy or any particular accusation. You offer instead the typical totalitarian dictatorships response of an unsubstantiated blanket condemnation of anyone daring to question, challenge or oppose the facsist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government by sliming them FASLELY as conspiratorialist. While your mesmerization with the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government is evident - you fail to provide one single vetted proof to any specific piece of real evidence to support the Bush governments fascist totalitarian dictatorships mephitic policies or alledged accomplishments. Exacty who are where are "these many people in the middle east inside and outside of Iraq", - and exactly where in hell is this socalled "relative peace" you claim the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship have created? Can you provide any link or any single vetted proof of this wildly partisan and patently FALSE claim? Here's a little news you might want to spend moment investigating. "These secret invisible groups who make invisible profits in some unknown way from a war that came from a united decision, both inside and outside the country" DO indeed, exist. There are no conspiracy theorists here. Do a little google on the WHIG, OSP, OSI, PCTEG, cabals if you dare and get back to me. Then you might want to examine the obscene profits and no bid, openended, multi-million dollar contracts involving Ptec, CH2M Hill, Kroll, Inc, Hollinger Digital, Potomac Capital, SAIC, CACI International Inc., Louis Berger Group, Tetra Tech, Environmental Chemical Corp, Global Risk Strategies, Social Impact Inc., Military Professional Resources, Vinnell Corp, Dyncorp, United Defense, ESS, the Lincoln Group, the Rendon Group, Bechtel, Halliburtion, Blackwater Resources just for starters, and to name only a few. Then after you are exposed to the systemic profiteering ongoing in these war profiteering organizations, you might want to further investigate the curious interpenetrating web of connectivity with the facsist warmongers and profiteers in or beholden to the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship. I won't even bother mentioning the billion dollar record profits engorging the oil and energy oligarchs as a direct result of this governments fasist policies, but will if you so desire. Finally, this bizarre totally unsubstantiated and ludicrous comment: "I am extremely pleased with the progress that has been made and I am proud of our President who has brought relative peace to the lives of many people in the middle east inside and outside of Iraq by using aggressive foreign policies many political leaders would not have the guts to use." - proves you are either incapable of reading or comprehending simple facts, or you are so pathologically partisan and delirious in your lockstep infatuation with the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government totalitarian dictatorship - that your opinions and silly claims are rendered meaningless and moot, - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

WMDs and ICBMs Posted by Warren Hudson - 02/24/2006, 12:37 PM We didn't find any WMDs - YET. We may not, because they may be as stealthy as Saddam's delivery ICBMs. His ICBMs are faster than the speed of light, so that's why they can't be detected. So he probably already had them loaded on the ICBMs and they are flying around just waiting on Saddam to send the signal (mental telepathy, donchaknow) to hit The Great Satan. The Bush Swiftees (sometimes better known as sycophants) can see them, too, but they don't want to sound like kooks, so they rely on facts from uber reliable people such as Ahmed Chalabi. The Bush culture of corruption and cronyism has won the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court and the media, and the toadies are still bitter whiners and crybabies. Cognitive dissonance has to be whipping them to death. They are in the cult and can't help themselves. Maybe the 06 election will help them open their eyes.

War is a Racket! Posted by miki moon - 04/06/2006, 06:24 PM Some war profiteers went unmentioned in your article. War expenses allow corporate America (Boeing, Rayon, Halliburton, etc) to cash up. A rising oil price gives huge profits to oil producers, War on terror justifies every violation of civil liberties and the ongoing expansion of an totalitarian bureaucracy. Last but not least the medias can chant priced tales of American heroism. While America is loosing a war, insiders are winning. And the Bush/Cheney administration owes those insiders loyalty for being in power through insane amounts of campaign donations. Do you still wonder why Kerry and the Democrats do not oppose this fantastic war/business? And there is more; unchecked immigration by open borders, dwindling purchasing power by a growing inflation and an unhindered exportation of jobs to China. Americans are sold out by theirs politicians, who are products of a political system which was devised to serve the freedom and happiness of the American people. Ironic, isn't? External war always served to bring internal victory or in other words: war is a racket! A consolation for those, looking for a meaningful death in Iraq and elsewhere.

More Service Men Deaths Posted by Alan J Stanich - Consultant 05/23/2006, 01:20 PM I have read several comments stating a concern that if we pull out we will dishonor the troops that have already died in the battles for Iraq. I find this position completely indefensible. Ask This: How do we honor the brave dead troops, by creating more dead troops? If that is the position then we will be able to honor more deaths? How many need to die before we complete this “honor position” 3,000 10,000 50,000? Alan Stanich

Misunderstanding or deliberate actions? Posted by JOSEPH LEIATO - Last 410th BSB ITO - BRAC 25 (Bad Kreuznach, Germany) 01/29/2007, 06:42 AM From the begining of this LIC scenario the mechanics of METT-TP seem to have been misunderstood. How can that be? Each factor starting with the mission - which was never clearly defined and still isn't to this day! My father was the Director of USAID to Pakistan in the '60s, were he alive today, he would be amazed to see the SNAFU that this Admin and the Military Senior Leadership has allowed itself to become involved in. Gen. Eric Shinseki let the Congress and Rumsfeld know what the Troop factor in the METT-TP should be, and was fired for it (among other reasons, like possessing integrity...). Regardless of the mistakes that have been made, the most shameful is that the Military Senior Leadership is so afraid of not filling their "plates" that no one has the balls to come out and say what is right. So our troops continue to try to do the mission undermanned. Screw the accolades for doing an admiral job! Either fight the war correctly or leave. IMHO one drop of American soldier's blood is equal to a gallon of the enemys! In the end, not one American would shed a tear, it the entire country of Iraq were to disappear off the face of the earth... let's be honest. So why stay there? As my father used to say, "Except for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands [now FSM & RMI] and American Samoa the United States has no friends...only allies! I know they [ Pacific Islanders] could care less about Iraq, so that leaves the allies ...realistically, they have been minimal in their support. No wonder, in this Contractors War or the Iraq LIC - it's the money being made.

More of the same... Posted by JOSEPH LEIATO - Last 410th BSB ITO - BRAC 25 (Bad Kreuznach, Germany) 01/29/2007, 08:07 AM A Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is defined as one that does not directly threaten the national security of the United States. Iraq is considered to be an LIC. The first factor in the METT-TP mechanics - Mission is already a hazy one at best. What is the mission? And what is meant when everyone talks about winning? When you consider that in order for the Jeffersonian Democracy to exist, the Sharia Law has to disappear or basically have the Muslims renounce Islam then you know what the outcome will be. The most obnoxious attitude is that "we" know what's better for the Iraqi people! Doesn't everyone want to have shopping malls and Super WalMarts like we have? Having lived and grown up in these countries, I can assure you, that is not the case. Oh sure, the enlightened people we talk to tell us they want democracy , but not in the same form American's depict. The Iraqis as a whole are a simple folk, whose mores are unfathomable to most American's. For years under Saddam they suffered, where was the United States then? Oh, that's right we were supporting him. When he went to war with Iran, we sat back and hoped he would win. Regardless of what opinions a lot of bloggers in here have, fact is the cell members that were involved in the 911 attacks came from Egypt & Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan. That should have people thinking ... Finally, consider this ...If you were to take the troops we now have in country in Iraq and place them around their perimeters of their individual AOs (areas of operation) ...remembering they are providing security ...they would be about 2 km's apart!!! Hmmm... so would more troops bring security? Duh ...yes. Not only that, if patrols come around more frequently ...it would make it even harder to set up IEDs. Members of the 615th MPs just returned and said that they just didn't have enough troops to do the mission - as Gates found out during his little fact finding mission to Iraq. So as the METT-TP factor would indicate, troops increase to get to the level that Shinseki would do the job ...needs to be done.

Heros and Yellow Ribbons Posted by JOSEPH LEIATO - Last 410th BSB ITO - BRAC 25 (Bad Kreuznach, Germany) 01/29/2007, 08:20 AM As many returning troops have indicated... screw the ribbons and accolades about being proud and thanks for "doing your job" and being heros ...#1 - If they didn't go, they would be AWOL. #2 - they are trained to do what they do ...like any other job that you are hired to do, why would you expect to be praised for doing the job you were hired to do? Or do people expect them not to do it? #3 - A hero in the military is someone that does an act above and beyond the call of duty. Simply going to Iraq does not a hero make!!! Rather than all that, most every returning troop says that they would rather have the leadership do their job and get them what they need to do theirs more efficiently. Finally, to America: Take care of the soldiers that have been wounded and are currently in medical care and not to forget them like they did the Vietnam Veterans. For already, they have seen their former friends now in hospitals like Walter Reed with no visitors, or family in their time of pain.

Rhetorical Techniques Impede Useful Discussion of Iraq Posted by Wayne Avellanet - Author 02/13/2007, 10:21 AM The Bush administration has used a combination of logic tricks and Orwellian doublespeak to frame the discussion of Iraq. In order to have a substantive conversation on the topic we need to move past the rhetorical tricks. Here is a summary of those techniques and an example of each: 1. Proving the negative; e.g. We have to invade Iraq because 'you' cannot prove that Saddam does not have WMD. 2. Straw man; e.g. "Some would say that we should not support the troops." 3. Orwellian Doublespeak; "stand-up, Stand-down", "surge", "Iraqi Freedom", "Victory", "Baathists", "Al-Qaeda", "9-11"(applied to everything in Doonesbury fashion). Only by recognizing, addressing and reducing the impact of these Rovian/Lutzian techniques will we ever have an honest discussion. If I might briefly rewrite five years of history: I think that if the 9-11 commission had been allowed to do its job without antagonism from the Bush administration we would have seen the equivalent of the Warren Commissions 'one gun' theory. 9-11 would have been recognized for what it really was; a wake up call and nothing more. There are no heathen armies at the gates and there never were. Submit a comment - Jump to top of list