Iraqi politicians are beginning to challenge the Bush administration’s overly optimistic assessment of the security situation in Iraq, according to veteran Baghdad reporter Tom Lasseter of McClatchy Newspapers.
"The American policy has failed both in terms of politics and security," said Moahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament, "but the big problem is that they will not confess or admit that."
Privately, some soldiers agree, says Lasseter. One intelligence officer — speaking anonymously because he feared reprisals — said that "our leadership has no real comprehension of the ground truth. I wish that I could offer a solution, but I can’t."
Meanwhile, The New York Times reported this week that about 3,400 Iraqi civilians were killed in July — the highest monthly death toll since the war began — figures that "seem to bolster an assertion that many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have been making in recent months: that the country is already embroiled in a civil war, not just slipping toward one, and that the American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias."
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Chrisfrommactown on Moore has had enough of House
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
53 Comments
“American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias.”
What a great place to be…
We are not helping.
Time to get out.
Heartlander provided a LATimes op/ed that indicated the rebuilding projects completed by Iraqis are those that are coming in under budget and remain standing after the construction. If this is true, us getting out will have to help the Iraqis assume responsibility for their problems. Where is the party of personal responsibility on this issue??? — “Stay the course.” Driving off a cliff? “Stay the course.”
Had enough, yet???
Well, it would help if the media would tell about all the GOOD things that are going on in Vietnam . . . I mean, Iraq.
For instance, we spend 250 million dollars a day in Iraq. And some schools got painted with that money.
So there!
*****
I think the insurgency is in its last throes, if you will.
Dick Cheney, about two years ago . . .
From another blog:
Two cows standing in a long line outside the meat-packing plant…One badly frightened and trembling cow says to the other;
“I hear only dead meat ever comes out the other side!”
The second cow replies;
“Yes…but we must carry on, so those who’ve gone before us don’t die in vain.”
Bush’s “Iraq policy”?
From DemocracyNow!
“The White House recently proposed changes to the War Crimes Act that would narrow the scope of punishable offenses under the Geneva Conventions. The new list would exclude humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners.
Ten years ago the Republican-led Congress approved legislation to make it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions.
The Bush administration now fears the War Crimes Act of 1996 could be used to prosecute civilians involved in the mistreatment and torture of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
The White House recently proposed changes to the War Crimes Act that would narrow the scope of punishable offenses. The new list would exclude humiliating or degrading treatment of prisoners.
Military law experts believe the Bush administration is effectively re-writing parts of the Geneva conventions.
According to the New York Times, President Bush wants Congress to make the United States the first country to repudiate the language of the Geneva Conventions.”
9/11! EVERYTHING IS GOING FINE! WMDS! LAST THROES! 9/11! AXIS OF EVIL! 9/11! CHALABI WILL RULE! 9/11! NEW WORLD ORDER! 9/11! BIRTH PANGS! 9/11!
When one looks over the stark devastated landscape of Lebanon, a once vibrant bustling democratic country and with what’s left of its gentle people, the question of why did this happen begs to be answered.First: The United States and Israel conspired to do this awful thing.That fact is not open for debate in a sane world. The flimsy insulting reasons given by those two suggest strongly that even they don’t really know their own minds.Lebanon was victimized by war crimes. But to serve what end? To serve a harebrained scheme {PNAC} concocted by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld leading the assembling of an assortment of defective people who like to call themselves neoconservatives, with aspirations for an American dictatorship?The megalomania of a small sect of the Jewish Religion called Zionists, now ruling Israel?All this combined with the Messianic beliefs of a deranged George W. Bush?Is it possible for a clear-minded person to do what has been done to the Palestinians, the Iraqis, and now the Lebanese and still have a clear conscience?Is it possible for you to know about all this and simply turn away?I saw an very old woman walking down dusty road, have lost her family, her home, and her village.She was crying.
“President Bush wants Congress to make the United States the first country to repudiate the language of the Geneva Conventions.”
Paul F. R. or outlander, would you please come here and defend this? I thinking that one of you can think of a number of good reasons for doing this. Maybe if you put your heads together…
When it rains it pours …
“Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in IraqBy THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTIPublished: August 16, 2006WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.
Also in the Guide The Race for the U.S. House Governors’ Races Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness.
“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/washington/16policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The media is clearly exaggerating the claims about the “bad” situation in Iraq. Sure a few Americans died but that was due to intense allergies contracted by all the flowers being thrown at the troops. Some may have died in the celebrating. Iraq is well known for it’s fireworks and in a spontaneous celebration showing how grateful they are for being occupied by a foreign force these fireworks sometimes damage soldiers and civilians.
Did you ever have that period of uncertainity after waking up following a large party? No doubt many American soldiers are feeling the stress of such celebrating. Long nights with loud music (Iraqi music sometimes sounds like explosions and gun fire but that’s their rendention of the 1812 Overture) means these guys just get worn out. The Iraqis love their late night parties they’ve simply refused to turn the power on forcing people to stay in darkness as an excuse to celebrate more.
Now there are some joykills out there who think everyone should stop celebrating and get back to work building things. Seriously you guys, get a life. There isn’t 50% unemployment, there’s 50% more time to celebrate. There’s no time to build things when there is so much time needed to welcome these liberators and remind everyone of the fact Hussein is no longer in power providing his stale stability, peace, jobs, clean water and electricity. Who really needs that?
The media needs to focus on the real facts and not distort the celebrations as some uncontrollable civil war. The party is in it’s last throws anyway so just relax.
“…the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.”
I’m not sure that I have EVER seen this level of stupidity in my entire life…especially in our government.
Did the Iraqi people ASK us to intervene?
Did the Iraqi people ASK us to force a democracy on them?
Did the Iraqi people ASK us to invade, destroy, and occupy their country?
If you answered NO to any of the above questions, you can at least think.
I did something I don’t usually bother with. I clicked on the picture up there so I could see it better. I recommend everyone do that.
Look at the abject misery in that womans face. Look at the debris strewn street. Look into the eyes of the presumably Iraqi men in the background, See the fear and the anger there.
THAT is the legacy of george bush. And it will stand and fester long after he has faded into the irrellevance he so richly deserves.
DAMNED INGRATE TOWELHEADS! DON’T THEY KNOW THEY BETTER OBEY THEIR MASTERS! WE’LL TAKE CARE OF THAT! ABU GHRAIB AIN’T NOTHING YET!
WHAT ABOUT THE GAY IRAQIS??? THEY NEED TO BE PROTECTED!!!
Come on JR!
You’re nmot a complete idiot! (are you?) That picture could have been taken in any of twenty mideast or African nations for the last 50 years!
90% of the muslims being killed today (and in previous years) are being killed by other Muslims. This poor ol’ lady is a twofer! The brave Hizbollah warriors hide behind women and children for protection and when that fails they get to use the bodies for propaganda.
No my friend, the UN has had 2,000 ‘peace keepers’ in Southern Lebonan since 1978. I’m afraid the legacy of this sad jihad momma belongs at Kofi Annan’s door.
I still love ya,
Hank
Bless those trolls. They make unreasonable people seem reasonable.
That the best ya got Hank?
( The subject WAS Iraq by the way. Your attempt to redirect is noted)
Ok.
I cannot prove the picture above is of a woman in Iraq. I am relying on Randy to have posted it honestly.
Are there any other parts of Randy’s header you would care to dispute?
“The American policy has failed both in terms of politics and security,” said Moahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament, “but the big problem is that they will not confess or admit that.”
Perhaps it is because the officer preferred to remain anonymous that gives you issue with
One intelligence officer — speaking anonymously because he feared reprisals — said that “our leadership has no real comprehension of the ground truth.”
Hey maybe Randy just made that up!
I’ll invite you to post a link or source to dispute3,400 Iraqi civilians were killed in July — the highest monthly death toll since the war began.
No?
Colin Powell was right but only by half. Iraq is broken. Maybe Iraq is even permanently broken. But having broken it george bush is gonna get to leave the mess for everybody but him to clean up.
Hank I even feel kinda bad posting to this as you have a son who is going there into that mess. But I have a son too. This mess is not going away and it only looks to get worse. My son is 12 and if george bush continues to rush headlong toward a regional mideast war my son might have to go there whether he wants to or not.
There are 25 million people in Iraq. If even half of them can be appealed to understand that they must make the best of what we have “given” them, that is more than enough to let them sort this out. It’s time to give them a date to be ready to do that by.
How about August 16, 2006….4:46?
The “W” stands for “Wacko”
Oh, nevermind.
Hank
Hehe, funny, KSGrl!
Sending in more troops so the others “won’t have died in vain” is like having 1 of your fingers cut off in a band saw accident, and then cutting off the other nine so the first one won’t have been in vain . . .
Hank – most of the civilians slaughtered by US-supplied bombs in Lebanon were hundreds of miles from the fighting. Nobody was hiding behind them; Israel was simply striking out at the civilian population in keeping with Olmert’s statement that he would exact punishment upon them.
“Sending in more troops so the others “won’t have died in vain” is like having 1 of your fingers cut off in a band saw accident, and then cutting off the other nine so the first one won’t have been in vain . . .”
hee hee hee hee CA. The VERY DEFINITION of stay the course….
Ben, my friend, that is simply not true. You need to get a better source of propaganda.
Lebanon is less than 125 miles long and 45 miles wide at its widest point. Most of the war casualties were south of the Litani river.
Israel would have wiped out Hezbollah if they had the will to fight the war as their generals wanted.
The fact that they were concerned about civilian casualties will mean more and more bloodshed in the future.
Hank
According to the latest proclamation of Bush’s Ministry of Truth, the phrase “stay the course” has been replaced with “win by adapting”. RNC Chairman Mehlman introduced the new slogan this weekend. Look for this new catchphrase to make the Rush O’Hannity circuit very soon. “Stay the course” has been given a new home in the memory hole.
“The fact that they were concerned about civilian casualties” – BULLSHIT! The Israelis didn’t give a damn about civilian casualties – not in Beirut, not at the deliberately targeted food warehouse far northeast, not anywhere. There were no Hizbolah fighter targets that far north.
Of course, the Israelis DID deliberately attack the Lebanese army even though it was not involved in any sort of efforts to defend Lebanon. And now we expect that army to do our bidding in the south of the country.
Hizbollah, on the other hane, hit primarily at military targets – as is evidenced by Israeli casualty figures which are mostly soldiers.
Ben
The Israelis bombed the Lebanese Army as they slept in their barracks.
The Israelis did that to kill as many as they could knowing they’d all be there sleeping.
Israelis are liars and crazed butchers…….worthless…
This was all so predictable and avoidable. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul can both say; I told you so to the shrub regime. Of course, there is no price too great to be paid in treasure and blood for ISRAEL! The battle hymn of the zionists is Onward Christian Soldiers!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!
The war the righties figure it, if 3400 of them die a month, it about evens out for 9/11.
Dear Ben,
Are you gettig this other propaganda from the same source that you got the “most of the civilians slaughtered by US-supplied bombs in Lebanon were hundreds of miles from the fighting.” BS?
Lies Ben, lies. Hezbollah won because Israel’s prime minister did not have the will to win. He should have let the military run the campaign.
Hank
What Bush sees as the ‘birth pangs of democracy’, the rest of the world sees as a miscarriage of democracy!
Lies? Hitting the food warehouse in the northeast didn’t happen? Hitting Lebanese Army barracks after they had announced that they would not defend their country didn’t happen? Hitting the UN post didn’t happen? Hitting fleeing refugees (who were obeying Israeli orders) didn’t happen?
Come on Hank – even YOU know better than that!
Olmert knew that the only way he could take out Hizbollah was on the ground in country and that they would fight back. That is a lot harder than bombing food warehouses and UN bases.
Both sides lost this “war.” Israel hit civilian targets and Hezhollah threw missles at whatever they could hit in Israel, including their own people. And it ain’t over by a long shot.
You all want to argue whose right and whose wrong, but he bottom line is they’re both wrong and innocent lives are caught in the middle and are getting killed. I find it difficult to understand how so-called intelligent people can sit and argue over something that smells evil on both sides: War is wrong. Have a problem believing that? Ask the common man caught up in this bull s**t. I think you will get answer you just might be able to understand.
You want something to argue about? How about the elections? Football? Favorite chese?
According to the latest proclamation of Bush’s Ministry of Truth, the phrase “stay the course” has been replaced with “win by adapting
Two cows standing in a long line outside the meat-packing plant…One badly frightened and trembling cow says to the other;”I hear only dead meat ever comes out the other side!”The second cow replies;”Yes…but we must carry on, eventually people will get tired of eating beef and change to chicken….we will win by adapting!.”Bush’s “Iraq policy”?
Would you believe it if I told you that all the land from the River Egypt to the Euphrates River belongs to Israel?Why, because God promised it to them.The Palestinians already have a state, it’s call JORDAN. If they want land of their own, let them go home to JORDAN!!Israel will always exist. God ordained it. He made a blood covenant with Israel and God always keeps HIS promises!!How else could such a teeny, tiny nation continue to exist in the midst of all that HATRED that surrounds them?
Pray for the PEACE of ISRAEL!!
TM – show me the document written BY GOD that shows that He promised that land to the Israelis. You cannot – it does not exist. All you have is stuff written BY the Israelis making that claim.
According to others God promised it to the Muslims.
I will pray for PEACE in the REGION – PEACE for ALL of the followers of the God of Abraham. Unlike you, I do NOT subscribe to any Master Race theory.
Oh no she’s loose.
Hey it’s refreshing. At least she is honest. An honest zealot.
This thread is about Iraq and the continuing spiral of that ill fated adventure. At least it was supposed to be. Israel DOES enter into it. It is apparent that US foreign policy is to a great extent dictated by folks of a like mind with TM. That being the unquestioned unfailing support of a nation with no natural resources, strategic liabilities, and frankly questionable motives all because “God” says so. I wonder how different our relationship with Islamists might differ and how much strife, war, and terrorism might be avoided if we held Israel more accountable and less “sacred”? I wonder how much strife, war, and terror is in store for us if we do not.
If Israel is the land of “Gods chosen people” and if He has ordained that land be theirs, then perhaps it is time to let God defend Israel. You know, see if He will. See if it IS his will.
You know both sides of the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict are lunatics.
“They would rather protect some sacred sand, than see their kids grow up” (thats a quote from bartcop.com)
These hokey slogans have got to go. A catchy slogan does nothing to help the situation. How utterly insulting it is for the republicans to think we are that stupid. Doesnt it just make you cringe when a fellow on the street says one of these slogans “stay the course”, “death tax”, “fighten them over there, so we dont fight them here” or “9/11 this 9/11 that” or the old a vote for________(insert democrat) is a vote for Al-Quada
“You all want to argue whose right and whose wrong, but he bottom line is they’re both wrong and innocent lives are caught in the middle and are getting killed. I find it difficult to understand how so-called intelligent people can sit and argue over something that smells evil on both sides: War is wrong. Have a problem believing that? Ask the common man caught up in this bull s**t. I think you will get answer you just might be able to understand.”
Walker, I wish you’d quit stealing my lines. You have it exactly right here.
The arabs in 2002 offered to finally recognize israel with the 1967 boundaries and conclude a full peace treaty. The Russians offered to help guarantee the offer and even the Iranians signed on. The zionist and the shrub regime rejected the overture out of hand! Ask yourselves why!
V.L.R.B!!
TM–
Oh, puhleez!
God is a real estate broker now?
The Palestinians and the Jews got along fine before the Zionists came in and forced a religious state on everybody.
I could never figure out something–because the Germans killed millions of Jews during the Holocaust (Ian, shut up, we don’t want to hear it), the Palestinians have to give up THEIR land.
Doesn’t make good nonsense.
BTW, the idea that God gave Jerusalem to the Jews would have been news to the Crusaders like Richard the Lion Heart.
They killed Jews just as fast as Muslims . . .
TM,
The jews are emphatically not the chosen people! Red the book of revelation until you understand that the whore/harlot actually represents the talmudic-zionist khazars! Do your own thinking and research and stop listening to apostate, psuedo-Christian coconuts like falwell, robertson and van impe!
V.L.R.B!!
I gotta agree with JM.
So what do we do? Kill them all and let God and Allah sort it out?
That was a poor joke, but Ben is right. Whatever, we’re headed toward some really bad stuff. It isn’t going to take care of itself on its own. Nor will Israel on its own or Islam on its own, take care of it. And it sure doesn’t look like BushCo wants to see a peaceful reconciliation (okay, that may never happen) or even give it a shot.
If we don’t try for peace, there never will be any. War proves only who has the bigger army/guns, not who is right.
RD, let me correct you,
God = Allah
They are the same person, probally a women for that matter, look how screwed up things are!
Tony,
I knew that, but I didn’t want to start a huge argument.
However, I disagree with the rest of it. Things would be much calmer if women ruled the world. ;)
If you could find a calm woman, LoL or maybe it is just the women I know!
God didn’t give the Jews the place called Israel, the U.N. did.
steve – and there was an attempt at that time to use peace-keepers to try to build something that might work. Those British peace-keepers were driven out by terrorism that culminated in the terror-bombing of the King david hotel in Jeruselum. Those terrorists went on to become the government of Israel.
“George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove should know better, but it’s no surprise they don’t. For almost five years now, every time they’ve got their backs to the wall politically, they play “the fear card.” The latest example: Dick Cheney claiming that Democratic candidates who dare to challenge the Bush White House on Iraq are ‘emboldening terrorists.’
“In Connecticut, New Jersey and Hawaii, this cynical Bush-Cheney strategy is running aground because our stand-up candidates are exposing the failed policies, botched strategies, and mind-boggling incompetence of the Bush White House that have squandered America’s treasure, kept Osama Bin Laden on the loose, and cost the lives and limbs of our brave young people.”
The above from the gigilo (John Kerry)…
I disagree with him because incompetence is the sole saving grace of the Bush administration. If they were able to do what they want to do, it would be MUCH WORSE!
Latest fear card, women caught trying to smuggle liguids onboard a flight! That’ll scare the shit out of the RWE’s.
I say support the troops. Bring them home
Retired Lieut. Gen. William Odom calls the Iraq War “the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States” and draws a grim parallel with the Vietnam War. He says that US strategy in Iraq, as in Vietnam, has served almost exclusively the interests of our enemies. He says that our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases leading to defeat. These were: (1) 1961-65, “containing” China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with US tactics, leading to “Americanization” of the war; and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding “Vietnamization.” Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third, says Odom, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. In March he wrote in the newsletter of Harvard’s Nieman Foundation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/whalen
also:
U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover
Disgusted with the leadership of the Iraq war, two retired generals say the GOP must go. Plus: More than 100 current military personnel join a campaign to get the U.S. out of Iraq — now.
By Mark Benjamin
Maj. Gen. John Batiste in Tikrit, Iraq, March 16, 2004, and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton in Baghdad, July 9, 2003.Oct. 25, 2006 | WASHINGTON — Two retired senior Army generals, who served in Iraq and previously voted Republican, are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress. The generals, and an active-duty senior military official, told Salon in separate interviews that they believe a Democratic victory will help reverse course from what they consider to be a disastrous Bush administration policy in Iraq. The two retired generals, Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, first openly criticized the handling of the war last spring, when they called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
“The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight,” Batiste, who led the Army’s 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a “lifelong Republican.” But now, he said, “It is time for a change.”
Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, agrees that Democratic control of Congress could be the best way to wrest control from the Bush administration and steer the United States away from a gravely flawed strategy in Iraq. “The way out that I see is to hand the House and the Senate to the Democrats and get this thing turned around,” Eaton explained, adding that such sentiment is growing among retired and active-duty military leaders. “Most of us see two more years of the same if the Republicans stay in power,” he said. He also noted, “You could not have tortured me enough to vote for Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore, but I’m not at all thrilled with who I did vote for.”
An active-duty senior military official who also served in Iraq said that, among a surprising number of his otherwise “very conservative” colleagues, there is hope that Democrats will gain control of Congress. “I will tell you, in the circles I talk to, the only way to enable or enact change is to change the leadership,” he said.
Political experts say there is no evidence of a large exodus of military voters from the GOP, and it remains unclear how Iraq will affect military voters at the polls. Particularly among officers and the top brass, the military has long been heavily Republican. President Bush led John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent just prior to the 2004 election in a Military Times poll, which largely surveyed higher ranking and career members of the military. Three separate studies in the past decade, including one due in dissertation form from Columbia University next spring, have put the ratio of Republicans to Democrats in the upper ranks of the military at 8-to-1.
But last spring a handful of retired commanders shook the military establishment to its core by publicly calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And palpable frustration and anger among officers over the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy clearly is driving some to do what was previously unthinkable: switch their allegiance to the Democratic Party, at least for the time being.
That may also be the case among the rank and file. As Salon reported recently, there are signs that support for Bush and the GOP is eroding in a Virginia congressional district saturated with military voters. Salon has also learned that more than 100 current members of the military have now joined a campaign formally appealing to Congress to immediately withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.
“The rest of us still in uniform cannot publicly articulate our own concerns, but there is a whole bunch of people out there who feel [this] way,” said the active-duty senior military official. When asked if he was a Republican, he responded, “I was in the past.” He railed against the Bush administration’s head-in-the-sand approach to the war. “What do we have today? Holy shit. Now you have sectarian violence? That is a new term, by the way,” the official fumed, emphasizing that before the war and even well into a volatile occupation nobody in the Bush administration “would even believe there would be an insurgency.”
It’s not that the current and former military leaders are suddenly eager to see liberal House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi take more power in Congress if the Democrats win control. Instead, the embrace of the Democrats, they say, is purely pragmatic. They hope the Democrats will succeed where Republicans failed and conduct critical oversight to help the Bush administration fix its stalled and failing strategy for Iraq. “Over five years our Congress has abrogated [its] oversight responsibilities,” Batiste said. “They have not held serious hearings about this war.”
The military leaders also say that Democrats might be willing to put up the massive infusion of cash they believe will be required to fix a military stretched thin, and to permanently increase the size of the Army. In July 2005, Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Hillary Clinton introduced a bill that would boost the Army by 100,000 soldiers. In the House, Pennsylvania’s John Murtha and Missouri’s Ike Skelton, ranking Democrats in military matters, have also indicated support for a beefed-up military. While the Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation temporarily increasing the size of the Army, a permanent move in that direction is anathema to Rumsfeld — who has battled for a smaller, ever more technology-dependent military.
The Bush administration’s handling of the war, meanwhile, has come under extraordinary fire from within the military. More than 100 service members, including those on active duty and members of the Reserves, have now sent “appeals for redress” to members of Congress asking for the “prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq.” The appeals are a form letter designed to air a complaint without running afoul of official regulations restricting what members of the military can say. Although they are sent individually, the unusual wave of appeals has been organized by antiwar groups including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out and Veterans for Peace.
It appears to be one of the first examples of an organized effort by active-duty and reservist military members in opposition to the war in Iraq. It also signals a level of desperation — since those troops who contacted Congress have potentially invited retribution from their superiors and put their military careers at risk. “It is significant because it is a clear voice from people who are dedicated to the military and dedicated to service, but not dedicated to this war,” said J.E. McNeil, the executive director at the Center on Conscience & War who is providing some legal advice to those participating. “For every one of those guys,” McNeil claimed, “there are 2,000 or 3,000 guys who are not willing to go public like this. These men and women represent the tip of the iceberg.”
Army Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman, said he was unaware of the appeals for redress, and declined to comment further.
A prompt withdrawal of troops, which some Democrats have called for, is not part of the major strategic overhaul sought by Batiste and Eaton. But the retired generals are hoping that a Democratic-controlled Congress can push back more forcefully against President Bush, who continues to argue in favor of establishing democracy in Iraq, and against partitioning the country along sectarian lines. Some in the military say that partitioning the country may now be the only hope of success in some form — a plan aired publicly by Sen. Joe Biden in May and backed by a number of Democrats.
“It will never be democracy,” Batiste said, pointing to the military’s several years of experience battling the insurgency in Iraq. Democracy, he said, simply runs counter to the powerful tribal and religious fault lines of Iraqi society. But he thinks that the country might still be successfully carved up among the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Sharing oil resources might seal the deal, Batiste said, and it could be spun as “some form of representative government” — if not a democracy.
“Either partition it into three countries or go into a loose confederation and have assurances on the sharing of natural resources,” Eaton agreed. “I think that is the best we can get out of this deal now.”
It’s too early to tell whether the acute dissatisfaction with Republicans will have staying power, says Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University who has lectured at West Point. But Wayne says it reflects real and widespread disappointment among military officers at the Bush administration’s wrongheaded approach. “I think in the short run, you are seeing anger” at the Bush administration, he explained. The uniformed officers “have been completely marginalized” by an administration that refuses to take their advice.
Batiste said he was tormented by reading daily casualty reports and knowing that the deaths are, in part, the result of a bungled, backward strategy that focuses on lofty but unattainable goals. But while he and others admit they have no particular love for the Democrats, they see the party as perhaps their last, best hope of reaping anything other than more death and destruction in Iraq.
How Many?
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/
How Much?
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
But … but … I thought we would be greeted with flowers … that Ahmed Chalabi would rule with ease … that there were no ethnic/religious divisions …