SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mannie who wrote (41727)4/7/2004 10:39:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
"Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam." John Dean, do you agree?

truthout.org



To: Mannie who wrote (41727)4/10/2004 6:53:47 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
A Spanish Lesson
___________________________

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Columnist
The New York Times
Published: April 10, 2004

As my Uncle José, who is profoundly pro-American, puts it sadly: "There's so much anti-Americanism now. That is Bush's achievement."

MADRID — A crowd is gathered under a drizzle outside the U.S. Embassy here in the capital of a country that has been one of America's closest allies. Perhaps the crowd has come to express solidarity with the American troops being shot at (along with Spanish troops) in the alleys of cities like Falluja?

Try again.

"Murderers," the crowd shouts at the embassy. "Murderers! Murderers!" That kind of anti-Americanism is now widespread around the globe, and it will be one of President Bush's most important legacies.

It's not just that the Bush administration's arrogance and unilateralism have led Pakistanis to give Osama bin Laden a 65 percent favorable rating, compared with 7 percent for President Bush (the latest international polls from the Pew Research Center make you want to cry). Even in traditional allies like Spain, which we now need to fix the mess in Iraq, the good will after 9/11 has dissolved into suspicion and hostility.

Mr. Bush is now recognizing what critics of the Iraq war pointed out from the beginning: We could win the initial invasion on our own, but to win the peace we need allies. The administration's ham-handed diplomacy has left the American troops in Falluja dangerously alone and exposed.

Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, will almost certainly be pulling the 1,300 Spanish troops out of Iraq over the next few months. Ninety percent of Spaniards are against the Iraq war, and U.S. pronouncements about progress in Iraq have the same credibility as the cheery bombast of Saddam's last information minister.

"Iraq has become, thanks to the rashness of Bush, a monstrosity," warned El País, Spain's leading daily, in an editorial this week.

American conservatives had a field day after Mr. Zapatero's election, calling Spaniards wimps for reacting to the 3/11 train bombings by electing an antiwar candidate. But on the ground here, it's clear that accusation was deeply unfair.

Mr. Zapatero's last-minute surge of support had nothing to do with Spaniards knuckling under to Al Qaeda. Rather, Spaniards reacted to Prime Minister José María Aznar's dishonesty in blaming Basque terrorists for the bombing.

Take my Spanish family (my aunt married a Spaniard, and my five cousins were born and raised in Madrid). My aunt and uncle are conservatives who still voted for the governing party, but with disgust. As for my cousins, all swing voters, they ended up supporting Mr. Zapatero. Cousin Anna had initially decided not to vote, because she didn't like either candidate, but after the bombing she felt duty-bound to go out and participate in the democratic process and help elect Mr. Zapatero.

"I wanted to show that we would not be intimidated," she said, and that mechanism — an extraordinarily high voter turnout — was the primary one that resulted in Mr. Zapatero's election. Do Americans really think that Spaniards should have responded to the bombings by staying home apathetically on Election Day?

Accusing Spain of bowing to terrorism has exacerbated the Spanish alienation from the U.S., for this is a country that has lost 900 people to Basque terrorism over the years — and that Al Qaeda recently pledged to turn into "an inferno."

"You never get used to going to cemeteries; you never get used to embracing a widow," says one senior government official. "No one can accuse us of trying to find a way out. It's not only unjust, it's irritating and infuriating."

Still, Mr. Zapatero should announce that all 1,300 troops pulled out of Iraq will be immediately placed in Afghanistan. A major Spanish deployment there would make a huge difference in stabilizing that country, and it would underscore that Spaniards are willing to shed their blood to fight Islamic militants, so long as there is a U.N. mandate and a clear plan.

It wouldn't have taken much to maintain our friendship with our allies. Sure, there are cultural gaps: Europeans are bewildered that Americans can feel more threatened by Janet Jackson's breast than by unregulated handguns. But the Bush administration had to work hard to take all the good will accumulated over the decades since World War II and the Marshall Plan, and replace it with distrust and hostility. As my Uncle José, who is profoundly pro-American, puts it sadly: "There's so much anti-Americanism now. That is Bush's achievement."

nytimes.com



To: Mannie who wrote (41727)4/11/2004 12:39:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
A Call for an Exit Door from Iraq
____________________________

by Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks
April 7, 2004
Published on Wednesday, April 7, 2004 by CommonDreams.org


I have watched with heavy heart and mounting dread as the ever-precarious battle to bring security to post-war Iraq has taken a desperate turn for the worse in recent days and hours. Along with so many Americans, I have been shaken by the hellish carnage in Fallujah and the violent uprisings in Baghdad and elsewhere. The pictures have been the stuff of nightmares, with bodies charred beyond recognition and dragged through the streets of cheering citizens. And in the face of such daunting images and ominous developments, I have wondered anew at the President's stubborn refusal to admit mistakes or express any misgivings over America's unwarranted intervention in Iraq.

During the past weekend, the death toll among America's military personnel in Iraq topped 600 -- including as many as 20 American soldiers killed in one three-day period of fierce fighting. Many of the dead, most perhaps, were mere youngsters, just starting out on the great adventure of life. But before they could realize their dreams, they were called into battle by their Commander in Chief, a battle that we now know was predicated on faulty intelligence and wildly exaggerated claims of looming danger.

As I watch events unfold in Iraq, I cannot help but be reminded of another battle at another place and another time that hurtled more than 600 soldiers into the maws of death because of a foolish decision on the part of their commander. The occasion was the Battle of Balaclava on October 25, 1864, during the Crimean War, a battle that was immortalized by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in his poem, "The Charge of the Light Brigade."

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Tennyson got it right -- someone had blundered. It is time we faced up to the fact that this President and his administration blundered as well when they took the nation into war with Iraq without compelling reason, without broad international or even regional support, and without a plan for dealing with the enormous post-war security and reconstruction challenges posed by Iraq. And it is our soldiers, our own 600 and more, who are paying the price for that blunder.

In the run up to the war, the President and his advisers assured the American people that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. For a brief moment, that outcome seemed possible. One year ago this week, on April 9, 2003, the mood in many corners of the nation was euphoric as Americans witnessed the fall of Baghdad and the jubilant toppling of a massive statue of Saddam Hussein. Less than four weeks later, the President jetted out to an aircraft carrier parked off the coast of California to cockily declare to the world the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

For those with tunnel vision, the view from Iraq looked rosy then -- Baghdad had fallen, Saddam Hussein was on the run, and U.S. military deaths had been kept to a relatively modest number, a total of 138 from the beginning of combat operations through May 1.

But the war in Iraq was not destined to follow the script of some idealized cowboy movie of President Bush's youth, where the good guys ride off into a rose-tinted sunset, all strife settled and all wrongdoing avenged. The war in Iraq is real, and as any soldier can tell you, reality is messy and bloody and scary. Nobody rides off into the sunset for fear that the setting sun will blind them to the presence of the enemies around them.

And so the fighting continues in Iraq, long past the end of major combat operations, and the casualties have continued to mount. As of today, more than 600 military personnel have been killed in Iraq and more than 3,000 wounded.

Now, after a year of continued strife in Iraq, comes word that the commander of forces in the region is seeking options to increase the number of U.S. troops on the ground if necessary. Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development. Surely, the Administration recognizes that increasing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will only suck us deeper into the maelstrom of violence that has become the hallmark of that unfortunate country. Starkly put, at this juncture, more U.S. forces in Iraq equates more U.S. targets in Iraq.

Again, Tennyson's words bespeak a cautionary tale for the present:

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Like Tennyson's Light Brigade, American's military personnel have proved their mettle in Iraq. In the face of a relentless and seemingly ubiquitous insurgency, they have performed with courage and resolve. They have followed the orders of their Commander in Chief, regardless of the cost. But surely some must wonder why it is American forces that are still shouldering the vast majority of the burden in Iraq, one year after the liberation of the country. Where are the Iraqis? What has happened to our much vaunted plans to train and equip the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military to relieve the burden on U.S. military personnel? Could it be that our expectations exceeded our ability to develop these forces? Could it be that, once again, the United States underestimated the difficulty of winning the peace in Iraq?

Since this war began, America has poured $121 billion into Iraq for the military and for reconstruction. But this money cannot buy security. It cannot buy peace. $121 billion later, and just 2,324 of the 78,224 Iraqi police are "fully qualified," according to the Pentagon. Nearly 60,000 of those same police officers have had no formal training -- none! It is no wonder that security has proved so elusive. The time has come for a new approach in Iraq.

The harsh reality is this: one year after the fall of Baghdad, the United States should not be casting about for a formula to bring additional U.S. troops to Iraq. We should instead be working toward an exit strategy. The fact that the President has alienated friend and foe alike by his arrogance in "going it alone" in Iraq and has made the task of internationalizing post-war Iraq an enormously difficult burden should not deter our resolve.

Pouring more U.S. troops into Iraq is not the path to extricate ourselves from that country. We need the support and the endorsement of both the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors to truly internationalize the Iraq occupation and take U.S. soldiers out of the cross-hairs of angry Iraqis.

And from the flood of disturbing dispatches from Iraq, it is clear that many Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite, are seething under the yoke of the American occupation. The recent violent uprising by followers of a radical Shiite cleric is by far the most troubling development in Iraq in months and could signal America's worst nightmare -- a civil war in Iraq that pits moderate Shiites against radical Shiites. Layered over the persistent insurgency being waged by disgruntled Iraqi Sunnis and radical Islamic operatives, a Shiite civil war could be the event that topples Iraq from instability into utter chaos.

As worrisome as these developments are in and of themselves, the fact that they are occurring as the United States hurtles toward a June 30 deadline to turn Iraq over to an interim Iraqi government -- a government that has yet to be identified, established, or vetted -- adds an element of desperation to the situation.

Where should we look for leadership? To this Congress? To this Senate? This Senate, the foundation of the Republic, has been unwilling to take a hard look at the chaos in Iraq. Senators have once again been cowed into silence and support, not because the policy is right, but because the blood of our soldiers and thousands of innocents is on our hands. Questions that ought to be stated loudly in this chamber are instead whispered in the halls. Those few Senators with the courage to stand up and speak out are challenged as unpatriotic and charged with sowing seeds of terrorism. It has been suggested that any who dare to question the President are no better than the terrorists themselves. Such are the suggestions of those who would rather not face the truth.

This Republic was founded in part because of the arrogance of a king who expected his subjects to do as they were told, without question, without hesitation. Our forefathers overthrew that tyrant and adopted a system of government where dissent is not only important, but it is also mandatory. Questioning flawed leadership is a requirement of this government. Failing to question, failing to speak out, is failing the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

When speaking of Iraq, the President maintains that his resolve is firm, and indeed the stakes for him are enormous. But the stakes are also enormous for the men and women who are serving in Iraq, and who are waiting and praying for the day that they will be able to return home to their families, their ranks painfully diminished but their mission fulfilled with honor and dignity. The President sent these men and women into Iraq, and it is his responsibility to develop a strategy to extricate them from that troubled country before their losses become intolerable.

It is staggeringly clear that the Administration did not understand the consequences of invading Iraq a year ago, and it is staggeringly clear that the Administration has no effective plan to cope with the aftermath of the war and the functional collapse of Iraq. It is time -- past time -- for the President to remedy that omission and to level with the American people about the magnitude of mistakes made and lessons learned. America needs a roadmap out of Iraq, one that is orderly and astute, else more of our men and women in uniform will follow the fate of Tennyson's doomed Light Brigade.

###

commondreams.org