The Iraq War

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

So Rummy swooped down into the midst of about 1,500 of our Marines fighting in Iraq yesterday. His surprise visit was marked by the arrival of a gaggle (or whatever they call a whole bunch of 'em) of Black Hawk helicopters flying thisclosetotheground and zigzagging to avoid insurgent fire.

Prior to his "surprise" arrival, the COs made sure that their charges didn't ask Rummy the biiiiig question: "When can we go home?" Rummy, who has remained pretty much incommunicado the last few months (gee, I wonder if the Congressional hearings had anything to do with that? ), did tell the loyal troops that it was very unlikely that anybody would be going home before the Iraq elections. The big IFs are if we can train another 50,000 Iraqis to defend their own country and IF there is no increased violence surrounding the elections which are scheduled in January.

Look, I think everyone is conceding now that whether or not we should have gone to war with Iraq, now that we're there, we have to establish a workable peace to stabilize that area of the world. Unequivocally, no pulling out our troops until that happens. Neither Bush nor Kerry has really presented a concrete plan for bringing the troops home in a timely manner. All the chest beating and teeth gnashing without any concrete plans that neither party can disclose to the voters means more and more of our troops become cannon fodder. We're there; let's do what it takes to stabilize things and then get the hell out. We don't need to be every country's savior. We have enough problems with our own economy and health care to fix in this country.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

Interesting take on the U.S. Presidential elections and its relationship to British PM Blair from a columnist at the Iran Daily:

Blair and US Elections By Soheil Mohajer

While less than three weeks to the US presidential elections, the British Labour Party under Tony Blair has yet not taken a public stance over the two candidates.
If global conditions today were like four years ago when George Bush and Democratic contender Al Gore vied for the White House, Labour would obviously supported the Democratic Party and let the Tories take sides with the neoconservative Republican Party. But, times and events have changed since then.
In 1997, Britain's Labor Party managed to unseat the Tory conservatives after 18 years. Former US President Bill Clinton had then welcomed the change.
However, the Sept. 11 attacks on America and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq during which London openly backed the Bush regime under the pretext of fighting international terrorism, have led to visible shifts within the ruling Labour Party in the same way that global equations have changed ever since.
Today it would be fair to say that as the Iraqi situation goes from bad to worse, nobody could separate Bush from Blair. Bonds between the two leaders are such that the mass media in both countries refer to Bush and Blair as blood brothers!
When Senator John Kerry was nominated by the Democrats to contest the Nov. 2 vote, Blair refused to call Kerry and congratulate him as the leader of the party that shares almost the same values as Labour on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Blair's action, or the lack of it, upset the Democratic top brass in Washington.
Many analysts share the belief that Clinton's presidency was a key external factor that helped bring Blair's party to power after two decades.
At any rate, it is highly unlikely that Kerry's victory over the controversial and embattled American president next month will add to Blair's political weight or whatever is left of it.
In fact, some experts maintain that if Kerry gets the White House, Blair's position will be further weakened and Labour credibility will be undermined. The conditions will be more difficult for the pro-war Blair government because he is expected to call for elections next year.
However, based on recent surveys, Blair has a better chance of winning the general election than Bush getting a second term. Many observers say if Bush is defeated and the Tories lose the next general elections, differences within Labour will mount amid calls for replacing Blair with Gordon Brown.
Apart from ambitions and dreams, perhaps those members of the Labour Party who support Kerry and are loyal to Blair would prefer that Kerry get elected so that they can declare the Anglo-Saxon "mission" in Iraq has ended and thereby keep US-UK ties on track under Blair's leadership. Of course, such a scenario is possible. But it is not something Blair would bet on.

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

This article comes from truthout.com in which Gary Sick, who worked on the National Security Council under Pres. Ford, Carter and Reagan describes the current "Bush Doctrine" of foreign policy and why America has lost credibility around the world in this arena http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101304L.shtml:



Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

Why would a bunch of loyal soldiers fighting in Iraq decide to mutiny and refuse to go into battle a few days ago? And more importantly, if there was no email and internet, would the US citizens even know that this happened?

Looks like there are a bunch of men and women in the armed forces who have decided that it is far more honorable to refuse an order than it is to rush into what they believe would have been a suicide mission!

More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/101604X.shtml

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

Here's an interesting little tidbit from the Guardian UK about Iraqi war "reparations" from the 1991 Gulf War. Reparations to US companies who sustained financial losses at that time are finally getting paid. Lookee at who some of the payees are:

"Here is a small sample of who has been getting "reparation" awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18m), Bechtel ($7m), Mobil ($2.3m), Shell ($1.6m), Nestlé ($2.6m), Pepsi ($3.8m), Philip Morris ($1.3m), Sheraton ($11m), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321,000) and Toys R Us ($189,449). In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam's forces damaged their property in Kuwait - only that they "lost profits" or, in the case of American Express, experienced a "decline in business" because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505m in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12% of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq..."

Why don't those companies just forgive Iraq for those payments and let Iraq use the money to help its own people? I mean, I'm sure the companies mentioned above had already written off their losses and gotten their tax credits. So the American (and one Swiss company--Nestle) are getting paid twice? What's wrong with this picture?

The complete story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...328887,00.html

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

According to this story by the Knight Ridder News Agency, the Bush Administration went into Iraq fully intending to "win the war against Saddam" but not having a single clue how to "win the peace". And so we have what--10 Americans dying this week alone, at the start of Ramadan, the highest holy event in all of Islam?

More here: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

More information is coming out about the platoon that refused to obey orders to deliver a shipment in Iraq last week. Sounds like the "isolated incident" the Army general command is quoted as saying actually could be said for most National Guard Reserve Units and the conditions they face...less than up to date equipment and less training than the regular troops. Imagine that...class discrimination in the Army! My feeling is if we can't equip the National Guard Reservists with the same equipment and give them the exact same training that we give to our regular troops, that the government has no business sending these people to possibly die. That's like trying to fight off an attacker who has a handgun with one hand tied behind your back and your free hand swinging a stick.

More here: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6530392

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

Since our own government won't tell us how many troops we have in each region of Iraq, I guess we have to rely on the statistics provided by the Guardian-UK to know how many troops each of the committed countries in the "coalition" have on the ground in Iraq. We have what? 150,000 US soldiers there?

Deployment of Troops by Region

Baghdad:
30,000 foreign soldiers, mostly US; 32 Estonians at Abu Ghraib jail. Likely location for 650 troops from the Britain's Black Watch regiment.

Multinational Brigade North (inc Mosul, Arbil):
Around 11,500 Iraqi forces; 8,500 mostly US troops (Third Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division); South Korea (2,800).

North-Central Area:
US 1st Infantry; Georgia (150); Latvia (40); Moldova (30); Macedonia (30).

Western Area (inc Fallujah):
US 1st Marine Division; Azerbaijan (150); Tonga (45).

Center-South (inc Najaf):
Poland (2,350); Ukraine (1,550); Thailand (450); Bulgaria (420); Hungary (290); Romania (200); Mongolia (140); Latvia (110); Slovakia (110); Lithuania (50).

South-East (inc Basra):
UK (8,300, mainly 1st Mechanized Brigade); Italy (2,800); Netherlands (1,300); Japan (500); Romania (500); Denmark (400); Portugal (124); Czech Rep (90); Lithuania (60); NZ (60).


More story here: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=573216

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

Here are soldiers' in Iraq opinions of who they support in the Presidential race. Notice that the higher in rank, the more likely they are to vote Republican. Lifers are also more likely to vote Republican. Any soldier who wants to vote Democrat has to be very quiet about it because of the harrassment he would get from his superiors.

So much for freedom to vote your conscience!

Miulang

More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102204K.shtml

[mcnabbmcnow]

Re: The Iraq War

Here are soldiers' in Iraq opinions of who they support in the Presidential race. Notice that the higher in rank, the more likely they are to vote Republican. Lifers are also more likely to vote Republican. Any soldier who wants to vote Democrat has to be very quiet about it because of the harrassment he would get from his superiors.

So much for freedom to vote your conscience!

Miulang

More here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102204K.shtml

How do you explain that 73% of the military and their families, STILL are voting Republican this year? First off, the families aren't dealing with the peer pressure and why would anyone have to tell people who they are voting for? Couldn't they just vote Democrat and not tell any of their buddies? I think the military vote Republican because they understand the thugs we are dealing with, and the dangers to America. The danger isn't as real to us here.

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

How do you explain that 73% of the military and their families, STILL are voting Republican this year? First off, the families aren't dealing with the peer pressure and why would anyone have to tell people who they are voting for? Couldn't they just vote Democrat and not tell any of their buddies? I think the military vote Republican because they understand the thugs we are dealing with, and the dangers to America. The danger isn't as real to us here.

It's called "peer pressure". Studies that have been done on the troops indicated that a lot of people volunteer to serve in the armed forces because they like the camaraderie of being intimately associated with a group of like-minded individuals can bring them. When a soldier is injured, more likely he will think about his "buddies" and "not letting my buddies down" rather than his own personal safety. For psychological reasons, it helps keep these people alive to know that someone is out there watching out for them.

However, if you deviate from the norm and have differing opinions, then you get subjected to hazing and peer pressure. Hence, the "don't ask/don't tell" policy of the armed forces. When someone is "outted" for being gay, the consequences can be severe. Same thing with having a different political opinion. The armed forces have traditionally been Republican, anyway. The higher in rank the person, the more likely they are to be a Republican. Lifers in particular tend to vote Republican. So if my drill sergeant is telling me that he's for Bush, do you really think as a grunt I would beg to differ with him and let him know I thought Bush was a schmuck, especially if my life depended on his liking me? I don't think so.

Miulang

[Miulang]

Re: The Iraq War

Here's an interesting little tidbit that came across the Reuters newsline on Friday.

The International Republican Institute, a US-government-funded body that promotes democracy around the world and which is helping oversee efforts to build political parties in Iraq, conducted a survey among Iraqi to determine their support for the US-backed government of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

Although the majority of Iraqis still think that their lives will be better now that they are "free" of Saddam Hussein, the percentage who agree has dropped precipitiously (by 20 points) since the interim regime was installed in July.

Even more interesting is the fact that if the free elections were held today, Allawi would probably not be the front runner. He comes in second to Abdel Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution who 51% of the polled Iraqis said they wanted to have a seat in the new national assembly, which will pick the new government. Allawi was in second place with 47% and Moqtada al Sadr, the rebel, a close 3rd with 46%.

The conclusion that was reported was that Iraqi citizens trust their religious clerics more than their secular, nonreligious leaders.

In an AP interview last week (also reported in the Reuters article) President Bush said last week he would grudgingly accept a fundamentalist Islamic government: "I would be disappointed, but democracy is democracy," when he was asked whether Iraqis might prefer an Islamic government to secular rule. "If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."

The survey also reported that "more than 45 percent of Iraqis believe their country is heading in the wrong direction, up from 31 percent 10 weeks ago; 55 percent do not believe the interim government represents their interests."

Reuters article here: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6585789

Miulang

[pzarquon]

Re: The Iraq War

How do you explain that 73% of the military and their families, STILL are voting Republican this year?

Almost as if on cue, the Honolulu Advertiser runs an article touching on the "third rail" of being a military family - holding a view contrary to the president or administration.

Although on the rise, military family criticism of the war in Iraq — publicly expressed — is still relatively rare. Military culture, tradition — even its laws — keep it that way... [and] "Even though there is nothing in the law that prevents military families from speaking out, it's certainly in the code, or culture," [Nancy Lessin] said from her home city of Boston. "That code basically says, in order to support the troops, you must support whatever activity they've been sent to engage in."

I'm fully accepting of the fact that a strong majority of the people in the armed forces and their families are supportive of the president and his policies. I am curious, though, if the current level of suppressed opposition - the numbers of official actions taken against servicepeople who make the mistake of speaking critically - represents an increase over past conflicts. It certainly feels that way.

[Linkmeister]

Re: The Iraq War

I don't feel like cutting and pasting the entire post, so I'll just suggest you go over here and follow the link provided to find out just what other bits of incompetence and knavery the current Administration got up to post-Saddam.

[Konaguy]

Re: The Iraq War

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar.../ln/ln20p.html

Military families criticize Iraq war

By William Cole
Advertiser Military Writer

Valencia Miller hadn't planned on speaking out publicly against the war in Iraq, but the emotion of the moment clearly got to her.

The 20-year-old, whose husband is in Afghanistan with the 25th Infantry Division (Light), had just heard from Fernando Suarez del Solar, a California man whose Marine son was killed in Iraq on March 27, 2003, when he stepped on a U.S. cluster bomb.

Suarez del Solar, a Mexican immigrant and now a vocal Iraq war opponent, said the military lied about how much his son would get paid and how he died, and tried to stiff the family on the full cost of his burial.

Miller, a student who initially attended Suarez del Solar's talk at Leeward Community College last week to get extra credit in a philosophy class, had her own terrifyingly defining moment.

She was with Jenaiece Fraise in June when a chaplain and officer knocked on the door and told Fraise that her husband, David, a 24-year-old Schofield Barracks corporal, had been killed when his Humvee hit a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. At that time, Jenaiece Fraise's baby was 5 months old.