← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 18693 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-06-17
2005-06-17 08:56 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11912752.htm]Kansas City Star[/URL]
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - During the 72-mile drive home in April 2003, Rep. Walter Jones began to change his mind.
The Republican representative from North Carolina who voted for the war on Iraq had just left the funeral of Michael Bitz, a 31-year-old Marine killed in Nasiriyah. During the ceremony, Bitz's wife had read him the last letter she received from her husband.
Two years later, Jones on Thursday joined Reps. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Ron Paul, R-Texas, to propose a bipartisan resolution to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq no later than Oct. 1, 2006. The measure calls for President Bush to announce a withdrawal timetable by the end of this year.
"This has been going on in my heart for years," Jones said. "We all have reached the same conclusion: It's time for a public discussion of our goals and military goals in Iraq."
Jones said the almost 1,700 killed and 12,000 wounded in the Iraq war and its aftermath has been a high enough price to pay. He also said the U.S. military needs to be able to address the rising threat of North Korea and patrol the U.S. borders, where 16,000 illegal immigrants are entering the country each day.
"Nobody's talking about cutting and running," he said. "(But Iraq) cannot be forever dependent on America."
The man who led the campaign to sell "freedom fries" instead of french fries in the Capitol cafeteria to protest France's opposition to the war said he is ready to face the consequences of his change of heart.
"I will never worry about doing what's right," he said. "If doing what's right means I don't return to Congress, then that's God will."
Fellow North Carolina Rep. Robin Hayes, also a Republican, accepts President Bush's position that a timetable would encourage Iraqi insurgents simply to wait out U.S. troops.
"It is a free country, and Walter's entitled to his opinion," Hayes said. "But Iraq's entitled to be a free country, too. The first soldier we lost over there was too many, but the cost of freedom is significant."
But Abercrombie, who anticipates support for the resolution from both sides of the aisle, said keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely is asking the U.S. military to resolve problems that only Iraqis can resolve.
"That's unfair to the troops, their families and the country," he said.
The four representatives said Thursday that they recognize the measure might die before reaching the House floor. But Kucinich, who ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination on a platform of withdrawing troops from Iraq, said the debate surrounding the resolution would be the beginning of the end of the war in Iraq.
"It is time to thank our troops and say, `Come home,'" he said. "Our partnership reflects a shifting mood in Congress, caused by daily reports of more American dead in a war with no end in sight."
The resolution is loosely based on the Mansfield Amendment of 1971, which required President Richard Nixon to set a date for the complete withdrawal of American forces in Indochina.
"We're not trying to draw analogies to Vietnam, but there are parallels there," Abercrombie said. "It is clear that the military feels they have done everything they can do and it's time for the politicians to stand in."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., proposed a similar resolution on Tuesday, asking Bush to issue a timeframe for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
"The American people and our troops deserve a sound plan that is linked to real timeframes and real achievements," he told the Senate as he introduced the measure.
"I want to help these brave men and women succeed, by insuring that they have an achievable mission, sound planning and a reasonable timeframe in which to finish their part of the job."
2005-06-17 11:46 | User Profile
"It is a free country, and Walter's entitled to his opinion," Hayes said. "But Iraq's entitled to be a free country, too. The first soldier we lost over there was too many, but the cost of freedom is significant."
What an idiot.
2005-06-17 12:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE]"I want to help these brave men and women succeed, by insuring that they have an achievable mission, sound planning and a reasonable timeframe in which to finish their part of the job." Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis[/QUOTE]
There was no achievable mission, nor sound planning, nor an exit strategy during the propaganda run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Now you want one?
2005-06-18 03:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]There was no achievable mission, nor sound planning, nor an exit strategy during the propaganda run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Now you want one?[/QUOTE]As soon as you define an exit date, you just defined your own loss criterion, and your enemy's victory condition. You aslo let your foe see the light at the end of the tunnel. Do not give your enemy hope, or you will either lose of have to fight a lot longer.
Strategically, it is a huge mistake to draw such a line in the sand, partly due to the information war.
That said, there is a serious domestic issue that must be addressed. This is NOT something I'd want to see made public, I believe that the Congress needs to be given (via classified briefings, since this is a national security issue) a sound plan and justification for a plan that shows the paths, means, and costs of how Iraq will transform in the next two years to a place with a lot less Americans in it. I feel that the Congress needs to, this time as though they really mean it rather than posture . . . to ask the hard questions.
Why I should have any faith in Congress acting with resolution or integrity is . . . maybe a result of wishful thinking.
2005-06-18 11:27 | User Profile
There never was any intention to withdraw. WMD, terrorism, democracy - these are all just spurious excuses of the moment, and were never the reason for being in Iraq.
The empire will have its permanent bases in Iraq, and won't leave them unless forced to, or unless it moves on to its next victim - Syria, Iran, etc.
Now that we are in, we are stuck. No one wants to name the liars and state why we actually are in Iraq - for Israel. As long as no one faces up to this truth, the madness will go on.
We'll blunder on and on until the whole mess collapses or until we find something even worse to mess around with.
2005-06-21 03:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]There never was any intention to withdraw. WMD, terrorism, democracy - these are all just spurious excuses of the moment, and were never the reason for being in Iraq.
The empire will have its permanent bases in Iraq, and won't leave them unless forced to, or unless it moves on to its next victim - Syria, Iran, etc.
Now that we are in, we are stuck. No one wants to name the liars and state why we actually are in Iraq - for Israel. As long as no one faces up to this truth, the madness will go on.
We'll blunder on and on until the whole mess collapses or until we find something even worse to mess around with.[/QUOTE] I so hope you are wrong. I wish I had something substantial I could point you to and say "See, you are wrong and here is why."
I can't. That sucks.
2005-06-21 04:26 | User Profile
AA, [QUOTE]As soon as you define an exit date, you just defined your own loss criterion, and your enemy's victory condition.[/QUOTE] On the other hand one can make the argument that by establishing a date it puts the Iraqi government on notice that they better get their act together. It might even encourage some of those involved in the attacks to stand down. Ultimately, I think that this government is going to have to cut some sort of a deal with the more nationalistic elements of the resistance built around a near universal dislike of foreign interference whether it be the US or Al Zarqawi types.
Having written this I would agree with you if this government had popular support that this would be a bad idea. This country is going to have to solve its own problems no matter what occurs in the near future.
2005-06-21 05:03 | User Profile
Good points. I see it as a classical Catch - 22. The nascent council/government needs to stiff arm the Americans to gain street cred and improve security and trust, but their opponents can undermine security perception with a few bombs and drive them back to the Americans.
When Zarqawi is killed (I think that will eventually happen) there will be another guy to lead the fight. All a terror plan needs to do is deny security, the government has to provide security: harder task.
A deal. Yep, they sure as hell need a deal, and Sistani needs to tell Washington "I don't care if you like the deal or not, without a deal, the civil war never ends. That means you lose the war in the most important arena: political."
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AA,
On the other hand one can make the argument that by establishing a date it puts the Iraqi government on notice that they better get their act together. It might even encourage some of those involved in the attacks to stand down. Ultimately, I think that this government is going to have to cut some sort of a deal with the more nationalistic elements of the resistance built around a near universal dislike of foreign interference whether it be the US or Al Zarqawi types.
Having written this I would agree with you if this government had popular support that this would be a bad idea. This country is going to have to solve its own problems no matter what occurs in the near future.[/QUOTE]
2005-06-21 14:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]As soon as you define an exit date, you just defined your own loss criterion, and your enemy's victory condition. You aslo let your foe see the light at the end of the tunnel. Do not give your enemy hope, or you will either lose of have to fight a lot longer.
Strategically, it is a huge mistake to draw such a line in the sand, partly due to the information war.
That said, there is a serious domestic issue that must be addressed. This is NOT something I'd want to see made public, I believe that the Congress needs to be given (via classified briefings, since this is a national security issue) a sound plan and justification for a plan that shows the paths, means, and costs of how Iraq will transform in the next two years to a place with a lot less Americans in it. I feel that the Congress needs to, this time as though they really mean it rather than posture . . . to ask the hard questions.
Why I should have any faith in Congress acting with resolution or integrity is . . . maybe a result of wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]
The War of Agression on Iraq and Iraqis for the Sole Benefit of Israel is an immoral, disgusting, illegal, destructive, revengeful, hypocritical, useless endeavor that is doomed to end with America's deserved disgrace and chastisement and you're worried about us not "drawing a line in the sand"?
America has shown no soul, no humility, no wisdom, no forgiveness, no compassion, no remorse in waging death, destruction, and disgrace on Iraq. That has given the Iraqi Resistance all the "hope" that they need to continue waging the guerilla war until America leaves. And hoping the Iraqi government takes over the country is a false hope. The current government is false, therefore it is doomed to fail.
America made the Mother of All Mistakes in attacking innocent Iraq. There's no happy ending on the way, unfortunately, for Iraq, America, or the world. Wish I had more optimism, but I already know how God Almighty deals with wayward and disobedient nations.
2005-06-22 12:33 | User Profile
AA,
The International Herald Tribune
'Enemy on enemy' fire signals split among insurgents in Iraq By Sabrina Tavernise The New York Times WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005
KARABILA, Iraq U.S. marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: In the distance, mortar rounds and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them.
In the dark, one marine spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer. "Red on red," he said late Sunday night, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire.
Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange trend in the complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting one another in this constellation of towns along the Euphrates, from Husayba to Qaim. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.
A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said by telephone that there had been a split for some time.
"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the jihadists' grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."
The nationalist insurgent groups "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.
The insurgency is largely hidden, making such trends difficult to discern. But marines in this western outpost have noticed a change.
For Matthew Orth, a Marine sniper, the difference came this spring, when his unit was conducting an operation in Husayba. Mortar shells flew over the unit, hitting a different target.
"The thought was, 'They're coming for us.' But then we saw they were fighting each other," he said during a break in operations Monday. "We were kind of wondering what happened. We were getting mortared twice a day, and then all of a sudden it stopped."
Access for the foreign fighters is easy through the porous border with Syria, where the main crossing, Husayba, has been closed for seven months to stem their flow.
"They will come from wherever we are not," Colonel Stephen Davis, the commander here, said. "Clearly there are foreign fighters here, and quite clearly they are coming in from Syria."
Marines have conducted a number of offensives in villages along the Euphrates, including one over the past few days in Karabila, to disrupt the fighters' networks. During raids on mostly empty houses here, marines found nine foreign passports, and of the approximately 40 insurgents killed, at least three were foreign, marines said.
Captain Chris Ieva said he could tell whether an area was controlled by foreign insurgents or locals based on whether families had cellphones or guns. Foreign fighters do not allow local residents to have cellphones for fear they will spy on them. Marines cited other tactics of foreigners. Sophisticated body armor, for example, is one sign, as well as land mines that are a cut above average, remote-controlled local mines and well-chosen sniper positions. [Chechens?]
When marines were fighting in an operation in the area in early May, five were killed after their tank rolled over a mine that had been set for vehicles with large distances between the treads.
In Karabila, marines picked their way through empty houses over the past four days, looking into the lives of insurgents and finding medical supplies and jihadist literature, including a guide that attempted to justify beheading by using Islamic scripture.
As the operation ended about 6 p.m. on Monday, marines lined the roof of the last house they took against the backdrop of plumes of smoke.
"Will some come back? Yes," said Ieva, the captain. "But the bigger fruit is disrupting them. We've made them uncomfortable in their own system."
10 killed north of Baghdad
Ten people were killed Tuesday in attacks north of Baghdad while about 70 insurgents were arrested in raids around Iraq, hospital and security officials said, according to an Agence France-Presse report from Samarra, Iraq. But the level of violence eased on the eve of an international conference on Iraq in Brussels, following two days of conflict that left at least 77 people dead. The Iraqi government also announced the recent arrest of Hussein Khalil Ibrahim, also known as Abu Ali, a suspected member of Al Qaeda's network in Iraq.
IHT Copyright é 2005 The International Herald Tribune | [url]www.iht.com[/url] [url]http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/rebels.php[/url] ================== Here's the way out of this mess and get back on what should have been our strategic objective in the first case, i.e., to go after Bin Laden and his network. The US has a brief window of opportunity to exploit this mutual dislike to its advantage by doing whatever it can by encouraging the Nationalist elements to take on the Islamists. To do this some sort of deal will have to be made whether Chalabi and his gang like it or not. The best the US can hope for at this late date is a marginal victory. Present policy will only result in a disasterous defeat that will affect not only the US position in the Middle East but worse, whether the US will remain the number one power in the world. I base this primarily on the shaky status of the dollar as the reserve currency and the number of government issued bonds owned by foreign banks and governments. This is the time to disengage and retrench, using the time gained to strengthen our own economy and get our house in order.
With the ideologues in the Bush Administration I would expect them to squander this opportunity the same way they have screwed up everything else about this campaign. If this happens the US will lose, if it already hasn't. I could make the case that at this time Bin Laden with the help of some fanatics has already won a strategic victory against the idiocy that is the Bush Administration. He really doesn't need to make anymore attacks here in the US. The Neocons are doing a good enough job destroying the country with the wasteful spending, "free" trade and open borders without any outside help.
2005-06-22 19:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]As soon as you define an exit date, you just defined your own loss criterion, and your enemy's victory condition. You aslo let your foe see the light at the end of the tunnel. Do not give your enemy hope, or you will either lose of have to fight a lot longer.
We don't want to give the enemy our loss criterion. But, what's our win criterion? Is that something we want to go on sacrifing American lives for, with no end in sight?
The anti-American insurgency is purely a result of America being there. That can be solved by America leaving. Whatever simmering there is of civil war is Iraq's business.
I believe that the Congress needs to be given (via classified briefings, since this is a national security issue) a sound plan and justification for a plan that shows the paths, means, and costs of how Iraq will transform in the next two years to a place with a lot less Americans in it.
Whatever "sound plan" Congress is given will be based on lies and propaganda.
2005-06-23 18:26 | User Profile
Happy Hacker
You are probably right about the dubious prospects of the Congress rising to the moment. They have not impressed me lately as doing much of anything other than shouting at each other.
Sertorious. Great link. A few rejoinders.
[QUOTE] =================== The International Herald Tribune 'Enemy on enemy' fire signals split among insurgents in Iraq By Sabrina Tavernise The New York Times WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2005
The nationalist insurgent groups "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added. [/QUOTE] There was green on green in Afghanistan last summer, a couple of warlords going at it in the Northwest, which was actually mediated and resolved by American intervention. The Red on Red issue is much more complex, since neither wants to work with us, unlike the Afghans who find some utility in working with us for a payoff of one sort or another. Who is using who, eh? :dry:
I dislike reports like this since I think too many people will jump to conclusions about this being a wedge we can exploit. May be able to, may not. Per my previous comment "what kind of deal can be brokered, and who should be the mediator?" Picking the right middleman is key. I don't think Americans could credibly play such a role, but maybe a Turk? :confused:
[QUOTE] 2. Access for the foreign fighters is easy through the porous border with Syria, where the main crossing, Husayba, has been closed for seven months to stem their flow.
"They will come from wherever we are not," Colonel Stephen Davis, the commander here, said. "Clearly there are foreign fighters here, and quite clearly they are coming in from Syria." [/QUOTE] Yep, same as last summer. Too many assets tied down in the Iron Triangle, not enough for a Screen or Guard mission at the border.
[QUOTE] 3. Sophisticated body armor, for example, is one sign, as well as land mines that are a cut above average, remote-controlled local mines and well-chosen sniper positions. [Chechens?] [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]4. Here's the way out of this mess and get back on what should have been our strategic objective in the first case, i.e., to go after Bin Laden and his network. The US has a brief window of opportunity to exploit this mutual dislike to its advantage by doing whatever it can by encouraging the Nationalist elements to take on the Islamists. To do this some sort of deal will have to be made whether Chalabi and his gang like it or not. [u]The best the US can hope for at this late date is a marginal victory. Present policy will only result in a disasterous defeat that will affect not only the US position in the Middle East but worse, whether the US will remain the number one power in the world. I base this primarily on the shaky status of the dollar as the reserve currency and the number of government issued bonds owned by foreign banks and governments. [/u]This is the time to disengage and retrench, using the time gained to strengthen our own economy and get our house in order. [/QUOTE] The underlined portion is a pretty good point, and a lot of folks feel we lost focus by going to Iraq rather than upping the assets on the effort versus Bin Laden. Chalabi is probably not a realistic player, too many Iraqi's think he is a puppet.
- I could make the case that at this time Bin Laden with the help of some fanatics has already won a strategic victory against the idiocy that is the Bush Administration. He really doesn't need to make anymore attacks here in the US. The Neocons are doing a good enough job destroying the country with the wasteful spending, "free" trade and open borders without any outside help. [/QUOTE] Yes. The victory was a moral one and a shock to the system of freedom and prosperity. Look at what we have done at airports with harassment of citizens. Look at the Patriot Act. Look at the damage to the airline industries and the economy. Look at the tax cut plus war and its damage, a self inflicted wound, to our long term debt structure.
Strategic Judo, that throw goes to Bin Laden. :wallbash:
2005-06-23 18:47 | User Profile
AA,
Are you familiar with this man? [url]http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm[/url]
2005-06-23 19:04 | User Profile
Massive Grin
Yes indeed, Col Boyd, the father of the OODA loop, which has since been applied to business change cycles in seminar after seminar I have been sent to, kicking and screaming, is a familiar name. I think he passed away last year. First read of his stuff in a book about the F-18 Hornet acquisition mess, The Pentagon Paradox. Forget who the author was.
I would suggest that Boyd's ideas, typically oriented on staying inside the opponents decision cycle, were a driving force in how General T. Franks, his stadf, and his subordinate commanders envisioned the tempo and detailed campaign plan for their flying column attack through southern and central Iraq in 2003.
[QUOTE=Sertorius]AA,
Are you familiar with this man? [url="http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm"]http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm[/url][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]
Independent of any specific geographical conflict, what sorts of strategies deal best with the types of conflict that go under the names "fourth generation warfare," "low intensity conflict," or, as favored by the late American strategist, Col John R. Boyd, "highly irregular warfare"? For our potential adversaries have surely learned that to challenge our high technology fighters and tanks in a "fair fight" will only produce defeat, but they may also be learning from Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and even Iraq that there are other ways to achieve their goals.
Boyd's insights on what makes an effective competitor may help us understand our strengths as well as our vulnerabilities in this new environment and what we should do to achieve our national interests at acceptable cost.
[/QUOTE] Yep.