Obama's Change on Iraq

President Obama spoke about the Iraq War recently. There were a few things that caught my eye because of their contrasts to the rhetoric used by the president and the president's party since 2003.

"To understand where we need to go in Iraq, it is important for the American people to understand where we now stand. Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt a serious blow by our troops and Iraq’s Security Forces, and through our partnership with Sunni Arabs. The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation. The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process"

First, this sounds like something President Bush would have said - and been ridiculed for. In fact, it sounds quite similar to what General Petraeus told Congress about the surge two years ago. Statements which of course got him summarily dismissed and ridiculed.

It also stands out in stark contrast to what Candidate Obama said in February 2007,

"We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

Another point from the president's speech that stands in contrast to the last 8 years is when President Obama called General Petraeus one of "our finest Generals" - forgetting, obviously, Petraeus's real name - "General Betray Us"

Throwing a bone to all the "we want a timetable" screechers of the last eight years, the president said he came "to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." Which was apparently another example of his forgetfulness - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told us "This War is Lost" two years ago.

President Obama also had many nice things to say about the military in his speech,

"And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done. And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible."

Which must be news to these guys; I doubt they think our soldiers achieved much in Iraq. But who can blame them, since neither did our president during his run for the White House?

The truth is, President Obama is simply following the trajectory set up and made possible by President Bush's last two years in office. There is nothing new or revelatory in this speech or in Obama's policy. The only thing strikingly new and different about it is the change in tone and tenor in the way the president - and by extension, the president's party - talks about Iraq.

After years of doom and gloom, we suddenly see the bright side.

What Diplomacy Means to Speaker Pelosi

Someone needs to get Speaker Pelosi a PDA. The ones equipped with the appointment reminder alerts.

Or maybe she just needs a reminder of who our enemies are.

Remember how Speaker Pelosi went to Syria recently, and was roundly criticized for doing so? The criticism revolved around her playing president and changing our national foreign policy. Even publications that basically agreed with her intent nonetheless realized her actions were a grave mistake. The NY Times agreed with Ms. Pelosi's view that the US needs to open dialogue with Syria, despite that country's elbow-deep involvement in worldwide terrorism, assassinations in Lebanon, and supplying the very IED's that are killing soldiers and citizens in Iraq. The idea is that even though Syria is nominally an enemy to the United States, we should still meet with them.

Now juxtapose that with what occurred in Congress this week. Congressional leaders succeeded in passing an Iraq war funding bill that also called for troop withdrawal by October, perhaps sooner. It was a divisive debate, and had a razor thin margin of victory.

The administration opposes the bill, and the president has vowed to veto it. The four star general overwhelmingly approved by the Senate to oversee military operations in Iraq opposes it as well. In fact, General Petraeus envisions a lengthy stay in Iraq.

General Petraeus travelled back from Iraq this week to visit the Congress and update them on the status of the "surge" policy enacted in January. Listening to the experts would seem to be a good idea, wouldn't it? The Senate apparently agreed and scheduled the meeting. But it seems that under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi the House of Representatives initially declined to accept the general's offer of expert analysis. When some in Congress protested, leadership changed direction and set up the meeting.

What happened next is why someone ought to start up a collection or something so that Speaker Pelosi can get herself a PDA. According to CNN,

Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami told CNN the Speaker realized "first thing (Tuesday) morning" she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the all-House members briefing Wednesday

See, if only she had a PDA she could have known that she had a conflict when she set up the meeting in the first place. I hear they even make cell phones with scheduling capabilities too. Maybe she should get one of those.

"Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami" wasn't sure what it was exactly that took precedent over meeting with the four star general, but apparently another "Democratic aide with knowledge of her schedule" was able to tell CNN in another story that,

Anticipating a close vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi skipped Wednesday's briefing with Petraeus to lobby for passage

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, that's why. She couldn't attend the meeting she set up with the commander of US forces in Iraq because she was lobbying members of Congress to vote against his recommendations.

Is it possible that Ms. Pelosi doesn't really need a high tech scheduler after all? Could it be that she simply couldn't be bothered with a face to face meeting with General Petraeus because she had her own agenda to further? Obviously she doesn't agree with what the General is doing in Iraq, so what's the point in even discussing it with him?

Except that she just flew halfway across the globe to meet face to face with a man that is doing things in Iraq that she presumably disagrees with. Things like blowing up our soldiers and killing innocent civilians. She maintains that we should have normal, open relations with men like him, men that are enemies to our country. But if that man is a US general who just flew halfway across the globe to meet with her, apparently open relations aren't needed.

A Worthy Mission- Mark Daily: Why I Joined

In my last post I linked to Mark Daily's MySpace page through the words "worthy mission." I think this fallen soldier's writings eloquently state the reasons we should all support our troops and their mission in Iraq. Here is the full transcript:

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

Mark Daily

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

Here's What Nancy Pelosi Missed

After meeting with both houses of Congress, with one notable exception, General Petraeus then gave a public briefing to the media. He said it was similar to what he told Congress, just without the classified info he gave in that meeting- information that Speaker Pelosi missed out on.

Here is a rundown of the pertinent points:

WHO IS THE PROBLEM?

-Al Queda

Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq

-Extreme Militias

There can be no sustainable outcome if militia death squads are allowed to lie low during the surge only to resurface later and resume killing and intimidation

-Sunni Insurgents

while we continue to battle a number of such groups, we are seeing some others joining Sunni Arab tribes in turning against al Qaeda Iraq and helping transform Anbar province and other areas from being assessed as lost as little as six months ago to being relatively heartening. We will continue to engage with Sunni tribal sheikhs and former insurgent leaders to support the newfound opposition of some to al Qaeda, ensuring that their fighters join legitimate Iraqi security force elements to become part of the fight against extremists, just as we reach out to moderate members of all sects and ethnic groups to try to drive a wedge between the irreconcilables and the reconcilables, and help the latter become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

WHAT OF THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT?

-It's Brand New

It is in fact important to recall that the government of Prime Minister Maliki is Iraq's fourth government in as many years.

-Unity Problems

it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation.

-It Needs Time

The focus of Multinational Force Iraq is, of course, on working with our Iraqi counterparts to help improve security for the people of Iraq in order to give Iraqi leaders the time and space they need to come to grips with the tough political issues that must be resolved.

HOW'S THE SURGE GOING?

-Good, Though We Just Got Started

We are still in the relatively early stages of our new effort, about two months into it, with three of five Army surge brigades and two additional Marine battalions on the ground, and the remainder of the additional combat forces scheduled to be operating in their areas by mid-June.

Baghdad is the main effort, and we continue to establish joint security stations and combat outposts in the city and in the belts around it. The presence of coalition and Iraqi forces and increased operational tempo, especially in areas where until recently we had no sustained presence, have begun to produce results. Most significantly, Iraqi and coalition forces have helped to bring about a substantial reduction in the rate of sectarian murders each month from January until now in Baghdad, a reduction of about two-thirds. There have also been increases in weapons caches seized and the number of actionable tips received.

In the Ramadi area, for example, U.S. and Iraqi forces have found nearly as many caches in the first four months of this year as they found in all of last year
Beyond this, we are seeing a revival of markets, renewed commerce, the return of some displaced families and the slow resumption of services, though I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and I again note that we are really just getting started with the new effort.

-Fighting, And Casualties, Increase As We Reenter Areas We Withdrew From In The Past

Our achievements have not come without sacrifice. Our increase in operational tempo, location of our forces in the populations they are securing and conduct of operations in areas where we previously had no presence, as well as the enemy's greater use of certain types of explosive devices, have led to an increase in our losses. Our Iraqi partners have sacrificed heavily as well, with losses generally two to three times ours or even more.

-It's Hard When All That's Reported Are The Car Bombs

As I mentioned, we generally in many areas -- not all, but in many areas -- have a sense of sort of incremental progress. Again, that is not transmitted at all. Of course it will never break through the noise and the understandable coverage given to it in the press of a sensational attack that kills many Iraqis.

You know, all of this is actually so foreign, I think, in the mind of most people who see the news and of course do see that day's explosion or something like that. And actually there is a city of seven million in which life goes on, and again, citizens are determined to carry on with their life.

ARE YOU SURE AL QUEDA IS THERE?

-Yes, Absolutely

It is clearly the element in Iraq that conducts the sensational attacks, these attacks that, as I mentioned, cause not just horrific physical damage -- and which, by the way, have been increasingly indiscriminate. Secretary Gates noted the other day that al Qaeda has declared war on all Iraqis, and I think that that is an accurate statement. They have killed and wounded and maimed countless Iraqi civilians in addition to, certainly, coalition and Iraqi security forces, and they have done that, again, without regard to ethnosectarian identity.

That significance of al Qaeda in the conduct of the sensational attacks, the huge car bomb attacks against which we have been hardening markets, hardening neighborhoods, trying to limit movement and so forth -- those attacks, again, are of extraordinary significance because they can literally drown out anything else that might be happening
So this is a -- you know, it is a very significant enemy. I think it is probably public enemy number one.

...Typically, in fact, still we believe that, oh, 80 to 90 percent of the suicide attacks are carried out by foreigners.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

-Iraqis Die

My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced and not to be doing what it is that they are doing right now.

"Render Them Hostile To Bush..."

NBC reported on their blog about 2 Pakistani boys who were recruited to be jihadists. The way that they were lured into becoming "freedom fighters" and suicide bombers is educational.

"We were told to fight against Israel, America and non-Muslims," said Muhammed Bakhtiar, 17, explaining why he wanted to become a suicide bomber. "We are so unhappy with our lives here. We have nothing," he said.

The terrorist recruiters preyed upon the boys' unhappiness and turned it into hatred. Hatred so intense and indoctrinated that the boys became willing to kill and die for it. This is not new. These are the tactics that terrorist groups have used for a long time.

What is interesting is that terrorist recruiters are not settling for poor Pakistani youth. They are also spreading their lies and hatred in the United States.

According to websites translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), terrorists are being instructed on how to join online discussion groups and blogs in order to influence US citizens' opinions on the war on terror and specifically our actions in Iraq.

Some excerpts:

"There is no doubt, my brothers, that raiding American forums is among the most important means of obtaining victory in the fierce media war... and of influencing the views of the weak-minded American who pays his taxes so they will go to the infidel American army. This American is an idiot and does not [even] know where Iraq is... [It is therefore] mandatory for every electronic mujahid [to engage in this raiding]."

"Obviously, you should post your contribution... as an American... You should correspond with visitors to this forum, [bringing to their attention] the frustrating situation of their troops in Iraq... You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known (as classmates... or members in a club who played baseball and tennis with you) who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves..."

"Also, write using a sad tone, and tell them that you feel sorry for your [female] neighbor or co-worker who became addicted to alcohol or drugs... because her poor fiancé, a former soldier in Iraq, was paralyzed or [because] his legs were amputated... [Use any story] which will break their spirits, oh brave fighter for the sake of God..."

"You should enter into debate or respond only if it is extremely necessary... Your concern should [only] be introducing topics which... will cause [them to feel] frustration and anger towards their government..., which will... render them hostile to Bush... and his Republican Party and make them feel they must vote ton bring the troops back from Iraq as soon as possible."

That pretty much speaks for itself.

I would also like to point out how aware terrorists are of the battle for public opinion. This corresponds with the assertions I have made recently in regards to war protests; that the very people our soldiers are fighting are aware of the protests and the effect they have on public opinion. They know that if they simply wait long enough they won't have to defeat us, we will eventually give up and go home.

We Are Not Going To Baby-Sit A Civil War

What's the difference?

What's the difference between a civil war fought over old colonial disputes that caused the brutal deaths of 800,000 people in 100 days- just over 11% of the country's population?

What's the difference between an ongoing civil war fought over religious differences that has so far caused the deaths of 420,000 people?

What's the difference between those two civil wars and another war fought for basically the same reasons?

The US has been and continues to be vilified for doing nothing as genocide brutally took the lives of over a million people in Rwanda and Sudan. How could the freest and richest nation in the world stand idly by while such atrocities were occuring? What happened to the "city on a hill", the beacon of virtue that America proposes to be?

Well, now America could be faced with the same situation. As Congress continues to rush towards a pre-emptive withdrawal from Iraq, the elephant in the room is the very likely scenario of Iraq descending into Rwanda-like genocide. Surely America won't stand idly by and allow this to happen again?

Well, there are at least two presidential candidates that will. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have staked their campaign wagon to a "leave Iraq no matter what" policy- even if that results in the death of countless Iraqis. As Senator Clinton stated, "I'm sorry, it's over. We are not going to baby sit a civil war."

What's the difference between Rwanda, Sudan and Iraq?

Politics.

Iraq The Model Re: The Real Front in War on Terror

Excerpts from a recent post on Iraq The Model:

"When The Taliban regime in Afghanistan fell young men waited in lines to get a haircut and when Saddam fell barbers became targets."

My father offered this simple example during a discussion we had about war on terror the other day. Although the example is very simple but the idea behind it is deep and aims at identifying the change of the main battleground for war with terror.

I wanted to talk about this because recently we've been watching the debate in America about redeployment of troops and identifying the real front we must focus on.

I see that al-Qaeda and terrorists in general didn't hide their position in this respect—despite the fact that they still operate in many parts of the world, they are clearly redirecting most effort and resources to the war in Iraq.

An Islamic state in Iraq whether to be led by al-Qaeda or one of the local extreme religious parties would be an enormous threat to the security of the region and the world and a turning point that might encourage fence-sitters to join the terrorists…the tide would be much more difficult to stop then.

Jane's Back: The Effect of War Protests

In January 2007 there was a war protest and march in Washington DC. Speakers at the rally included the usual politicians and Hollywood luminaries. One name stuck out at me though: Jane Fonda, otherwise known as Hanoi Jane. Ms. Fonda is infamous for her Vietnam War era outspokenness, when she spoke at college campuses extolling the virtues of communism, called herself a socialist, and told students we should all "pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist." She also called returning POWs "hypocrites and liars" for saying they had been tortured despite Fonda's claims the previous year that US POWs were treated well. Perhaps most infamous is her trip to North Vietnam during the war. On this trip she made ten radio addresses propogandizing about the goodness of North Vietnam and how US soldiers were "war criminals". She was even photographed laughing with enemy soldiers while sitting in the very same anti-aircraft guns that were used to shoot down US planes and ended in the pilots' torture and death.

Many have accused Jane Fonda of treason. They say she aided the enemy during a time of war. This is what came to mind as I read that she had spoken at the anti-war rally- the first time she has publicly protested the Iraq War. It is interesting to note the juxtaposition of her actions 35 years ago with the current round of protests. It seems most have learned a few lessons from Vietnam, as no one calls soldiers baby killers, war criminals, or "hypocrites and liars" this time around. In fact, these protestors take great pains to pledge their support to the troops.

However, despite these self-imposed limitations on their rhetoric, are the protestors aiding the enemy? This is a charge vehemently denied and one that will earn the accusor swift condemnation. But I wonder if it is true?

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Bui Tin in 1995. He was the North Vietnamese officer that forced the South's surrender. He said that the anti-war movement in the US, including the protests and statements made by Jane Fonda and others, were "essential to our strategy" and that North Vietnamese leadership listened to the US news reports "to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement." He further stated that "through dissent and protest (the US) lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." The North Vietnamese strategy became one of holding on long enough for the protestors to win the war for them. Eventually the protests forced the US to withdraw from Vietnam, leading to the Communist takeover of the entire country. This communist government, the one that Jane Fonda told us to pray for, went on to kill an estimated 2 million people in the years immediately following the war.

How does this apply to Iraq? If anything, the battle for public opinion has become even more important since Vietnam. In February 2004 CNN reported on a letter written by al Zarqawi and intended for al-Queda leaders in Afghanistan. The letter details Zarqawi's concern over American resolve, and explains the next steps the terrorists would take. In order to make things worse in Iraq and test US resolve, Zarqawi pledged to incite sectarian violence by singling out Iraqi targets to bomb. Less than a year later the Samarra mosque was destroyed and sectarian violence became a daily occurence. Now, one year after that terrorist designed bombing, US public opinion has been swayed, Jane Fonda is again marching in protest, and our Congress is passing "non-binding" resolutions denouncing the war. Are we due for a repeat of history? What will be the death toll this time as we abandon another country to chaos? Will Iraqi terrorists consolidate their power to the tune of 2 million murders, just as Communist North Vietnam did? I hope we won't have to find out.

Thanks For The Support, Dad

The following was printed in the Times-News Sunday, April 8, 2007

Boise had an anti-war rally over the weekend. The parents of a medic in Iraq spoke at the rally, and were quoted as saying, "It's hard to maintain morale with a lack of a mission."

Perhaps the bigger threat to troop morale is having the parents of your unit's medic speaking at anti-war rallies.

Or maybe it's having members of Congress essentially buying, and even more perverse, selling, votes in order to pass legislation hastening withdrawal.

Maybe morale is hard to muster when news outlets pander to war protestors in Washington while ignoring or downplaying 30,000 respectful, US flag-waving, veteran supporters of a worthy mission.

I'm sure happy thoughts abounded when Jane Fonda, that great lover of America's military, was a noted speaker at last January's war protest.

How are we to expect our soldiers' morale to be high when we bombard them with political rhetoric that they have failed, that they're "stuck in Iraq" because they're stupid, and that their lives and the lives of their fallen have been "wasted" on a country and its citizens- citizens who, until recently, were ruled by a genocidal dictator allowed to maintain power by a world community more interested in his bribes than in stopping his atrocities; a world community apparently convinced that since he "contained" his murders to his own people, it didn't warrant intervention.

If troop morale is low, it would be because instead of giving hope and resolve to our soldiers and the people of Iraq, America tells them sorry, it's much too hard, the price is too high, it's time to quit and come home.

Correspondence From Sen. Larry Craig

Dear Cameron:

Because of your previous contact regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, I would like to take a moment to share a brief update on the current debate in the Senate.

The Senate is now in its second week of debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This legislation authorizes funding, policy changes, and other activities for our military for the coming fiscal next year. While many important military and defense needs have been and will be discussed, the war in Iraq has become the main focus of debate. As you well know, this war has been a very contentious issue in America over the past few years, and there are people on both sides of the issue who feel very strongly about our presence in Iraq. This week we will be debating a number of amendments to this bill, including an amendment calling for more time to allow the troop our increase to assist in stabilizing the country, which I will support. I am anticipating a very open and possibly heated debate on this issue, and I can assure you that I will be engaged in that debate.

Throughout the upcoming debate, I will be maintaining a journal of floor activity on this bill to help keep Idahoans informed. You will find this journal on my website by following this link: http://craig.senate.gov/journal_dod.cfm.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns. As soon as the Senate comes to a resolution on this bill, I will send you a full summary of our actions.

Sincerely,

LARRY E. CRAIG
United States Senator

Mormons & Iraq

Let me begin by stating that I do not speak for the LDS Church. This essay is simply the fruit of my attempts to reconcile current events with what my religion teaches. However, there are many who share my faith but will not share the opinions I express. The LDS Church has not made a public statement regarding the “righteousness” of the Iraq War. So it falls to the members of the Church to use reason and faith to come to their own conclusions.

I am not one that believes that war is never justified. I believe the words of the prophets both modern and ancient are clear on the matter, and so I will not address that point here.

That leaves the question of when is war justified, and does the war in Iraq meet those qualifications?

I will use as the basis for this essay a talk given by President Gordon B. Hinckley in the April 2003 General Conference of the Church. I encourage all to read it. This talk was given shortly after the war started. President Hinckley began by quoting Revelation 12:7-9 about the War in Heaven. He called it a “terrible conflict for the minds and loyalties of God’s children.” He says that most of the world’s conflicts have been fought for essentially the same reasons.

Later, President Hinckley says, “the question arises, where does the Church stand in all of this?”

The following paragraph is in my opinion incredibly important.

“In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.”

And what is the “overriding responsibility” of which he speaks?

He answers this question in part by remembering a particularly devastating war between the Lamanites and the Nephites recorded in Alma. The Nephites were fighting for “a better cause”, their “homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, for their rites of worship and their church.”

He goes on to say that, “It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”

Through much thought I have come to the conclusion that liberty is a God-given right, but there are those that seek to oppress and have succeeded in stealing the liberty of millions of people, and it is our duty and obligation to “fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.”

This fight does not have to be by the sword, but often it does. Oppressors do not relinquish their ill-gotten power willingly. Saddam Hussein was one of those. Here was a man who mercilessly killed hundreds of thousands of people, if not more. He used biological and chemical weapons without remorse. When asked during his trial if he had ordered the massacre of a village’s entire population of men and boys, he said it was his right and privilege as president. He paid thousands of dollars to suicide bombers. He spent the better part of two decades procuring nuclear weapons capabilities with the intent to use them on anyone that stood in his way of world power. He stole the lives and liberty of countless people. It was, and is, our moral obligation to fight and defeat him and all those like him who seek for tyranny.

Times News Letter on "Spoils of War"

This letter appeared in the Times-News (Twin Falls) this week:


"Why America can win wars and lose the peace:

We don’t accept the rules established long ago in a far off land. You go to war when attacked or when you want or need something others have. When you win in either case, you take the spoils of war. That’s how England, Spain, Germany, Rome, France (under Napoleon) and all other major powers did it. That’s how they became world powers.

You may choose not to accept the concept, but it will change nothing. After the Second World War, we helped Germany and Japan recover. That recovery has caused the international decline in the value of the US dollar, allowed our own economic recovery to suffer to the extent that we import goods that we used to export and we export jobs that put Americans in a position where they can ill afford to buy the goods they used to make.

We went into Iraq, not to keep the world safe for democracy but for the oil. They have it and we need it. If you don’t believe that, I’d like to sell you some waterfront New Orleans property still under water. The problem is if we accepted the rules, we would not =be getting gasoline for 29 cents a gallon.

It isn’t as if we have never known the rules; we took the land from the natives who were here when we came. Oh, it isn’t as if we stole the land, we gave them glass beads, junk jewelry, cholera and smallpox. But we got the land. It’s just in recent times that we’ve lost the vision or the honesty to admit the way things work."

Vaughn Phelps
Twin Falls

Here is my response:


"Vaughn Phelps recently wrote about the “spoils of war”. According to Mr. Phelps, the European “powers” got their power by winning wars and taking the spoils. He wants us to believe that the US should “accept the concept” and do the same. He even goes so far as to blame the declining dollar and the trade deficit on our efforts to reconstruct Germany and Japan after WWII. I guess his thinking is that we should have conquered and enslaved them, at least economically. However, Mr. Phelps’s line of argument fails to remember that Germany was taken as spoils of war after WWI. Historical perspective teaches that Germany’s economic enslavement to the other European powers resulted in a Nazi-Germany caused Holocaust and the continent-wide destruction of WWII. It’s safe to say that the world learned its lesson. Instead of heavy handedness, we extended the hand of forgiveness and showed the axis powers countries a better way. They have in turn rewarded the world with technological advances and competition that has forced US companies to be better. And because their economies have prospered, they have fewer reasons to seek the “spoils” that war offers.

This strategy can work in Iraq as well. Let that nation be a beacon of democracy and free enterprise in a region of oppression and poverty. Let’s help Iraq prosper just as we helped Germany and Japan. If we are successful, the world will be a better place for them and for us. And we won’t even need any “spoils” to make it so."

This letter was printed in the Times-News Sunday, June 25, 2006

Iraqi Reporter Throws Shoe at President

Perhaps you've heard the story.

For context, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, from the archives:

It was dark when they brought a group of people (prisoners) in front of the vehicle. The drivers got out of our vehicles and turned on the headlights," he said.

Some prisoners tried to grab an automatic rifle from a guard, but failed because "we were so weak," he said.

Soldiers then opened fire. "I ran and fell into a ditch. It was full of bodies. I fell on a body. It was still alive. It was his last breath," said the witness. "It was really unbelievable, the number of people being killed like this."

Slightly wounded, he stripped off his clothes, thinking he was more likely to blend into the color of the sand if he were naked, the witness said. He then began running again.

"As I was running, I saw many pits, I saw many mounds, and I saw lots of people who had been shot," he said. "The desert was full of mounds that had people buried underneath."

The witness said he took refuge with Kurds living nearby, then traveled north. For the next 15 years he lived in hiding, moving frequently, until Saddam's ouster.

A Kurdish witness — Mutalib Mohammed Salman, 78 — told the court that his wife and 32 relatives disappeared in 1988 after troops overran his village in northern Iraq.

Salman said his wife's body and the remains of two other relatives were found in a mass grave after Saddam's regime was toppled in 2003.

Nancy Pelosi on Iraq Withdrawal

Have you ever noticed how politicians seem to talk alot? But that in all that talking not really say anything? Case in point, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation what would happen to Iraq if the US were to follow her plan to withdraw in the next 4-6 months. Her reply used up 443 words by my count, but not one of them answered the question. Mr. Schieffer had to ask and re-ask the same question 4 times, and Speaker Pelosi used 443 words to say absolutely nothing.

Why not, I wonder?

This letter was printed in the Times-News Monday, January 22, 2007

MoveOn.Org Tells Me What to Write

I'm on MoveOn.org's email list. They really don't like Governor Palin, and they want me to write my newspaper and tell them all about it. They've even told me what to write. (Now I see where you get your talking points from, DL) Their sources for their assertions? Why, MoveOn.org of course. Oh, and that other bastion of honest reporting and impartiality, ThinkProgress. At least it wasn't DailyKos.

Dear MoveOn member,

Did you watch Sarah Palin's speech last night? The speech told us a lot about her.

It told us that she can distort the facts and deliver mean-spirited zingers with the best of them. It told us that if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter ever need a stand-in, she'd be a great pick.

It told us that she can be condescending and dismissive of the real work Barack Obama did helping real people on the South Side of Chicago. It told us that she can uphold the long Republican tradition of lying about Democratic tax cuts—even though Obama's plan would give Americans a bigger break than McCain's.

But the speech—written by one of President Bush's speechwriters—didn't tell us the truth about Sarah Palin's extremist positions. And the more that people know her far-right views, the less they support her. (There's a partial list below.)

One of the best ways to get the word out about Palin is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Today's a great day to write because this is very relevant—it just happened last night. Plus, our online tool makes it easy and has great tips. Please take a few minutes to write a quick letter to the editor now:
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10140364-Fu9Y_Hx&t=3

Palin's speech and the reaction to it also made clear why McCain picked her. It wasn't a decision about who's most qualified to serve a heart-beat away from the presidency—it was a political decision about pleasing the far-right base of the Republican party.

Writing a letter to your local paper is a great way to make sure voters understand that. The opinion pages are the most widely-read pages of the newspaper. Write today, and your letter's a lot more likely to get published because it's so topical. It'll help sway the editorial board too.

Here are a bunch of points you might want to include in your letter:

* Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1, 2
* Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3
* Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4
* Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5
* Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
* Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
* Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8
* As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9
* She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." 10

The plain fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech last night. That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn't make her views any more palatable for voters. Americans don't really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.

Please help get the word out about where Sarah Palin really stands on the issues.
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10140364-Fu9Y_Hx&t=4

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Ilyse, Wes, Karin and the rest of the team

Not only does this email give me my talking points for a letter that will hopefully "help sway the editorial board", but it's noteworthy in that after almost a week of unrelenting criticism and rumor mongering about Governor Palin, it finally gives grudging respect to Senator McCain's choice as our next Vice President. Not that the rumor mongering will end, mind you. The talking points in this email are evidence of that. But it does reveal that Democrats are beginning to understand that Palin has completely changed this race.

And they're right to be worried.

An Incovenient Consensus

The results are in, and it doesn't look good for Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. A sampling of major newpaper editorial boards reveals that the Speaker's trip to Damascus was better left to those elected to do that sort of thing.

The Washington Post:

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

The Chicago Tribune:

After she met with Syria's thuggish president, Bashar Assad, she issued this doozy: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace."

It is also, administration officials quickly pointed out, the road by which arms are shipped to terrorists -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and insurgents in Iraq.

The New York Times:

There is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead.

USA Today:

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad — even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.

The Boston Herald:

Normally, there’s no objection to members of Congress of either party meeting with officials of foreign governments. But Syria is not a normal government. In addition to exporting terror, its agents have tried to maintain control of Lebanon by assassinating opponents there.

A trip like Pelosi’s effectively rewards an outlaw Syria for nothing. What the “negotiate no matter what” crowd forgets is all the previous failed attempts to get Syria to negotiate seriously. They make new attempts and comments like Pelosi’s “the road to Damascus is a road to peace” nothing but rank foolishness. From 1993 to 2005, there have been many more than 20 high-level visits to Syria for nothing.

Nancy Pelosi Already Knows

It looks like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is up to her old tricks again.

At this time last year she had "scheduling conflicts" when General Petraeus went to Washington to meet with the US House of Representatives and provide them with classified information and expert analysis of the situation in Iraq. Ms. Pelosi's spokesmen said that she just forgot about the meeting and didn't realize she had the conflict until that very morning. So I wondered if we should start up a collection fund so she could get a pda or blackberry or something. It just seemed like a pretty big deal to miss out on classified information from a four star general, especially at a time when Congress was debating including a withdrawal timeline in a war funding bill. Luckily I had an astute commenter point out that the Speaker probably already knew what the general was going to say, so there was no reason to grace him with her presence.

Well, now General Petraeus is scheduled to visit Congress again. Just like my commenter noted last year, Nancy Pelosi has already made up her mind as to what she wants the general to say:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Saddam Hussein's trial is not receiving the publicity it deserves. Recently however, Yahoo linked to a couple of articles that covered the trial.

Article One

Article Two

What Saddam Hussein did was murder 180,000 of his own citizens. Here are some excerpts of witness testimony:

It was dark when they brought a group of people (prisoners) in front of the vehicle. The drivers got out of our vehicles and turned on the headlights," he said.

Some prisoners tried to grab an automatic rifle from a guard, but failed because "we were so weak," he said.

Soldiers then opened fire. "I ran and fell into a ditch. It was full of bodies. I fell on a body. It was still alive. It was his last breath," said the witness. "It was really unbelievable, the number of people being killed like this."

Slightly wounded, he stripped off his clothes, thinking he was more likely to blend into the color of the sand if he were naked, the witness said. He then began running again.

"As I was running, I saw many pits, I saw many mounds, and I saw lots of people who had been shot," he said. "The desert was full of mounds that had people buried underneath."

The witness said he took refuge with Kurds living nearby, then traveled north. For the next 15 years he lived in hiding, moving frequently, until Saddam's ouster.

A Kurdish witness — Mutalib Mohammed Salman, 78 — told the court that his wife and 32 relatives disappeared in 1988 after troops overran his village in northern Iraq.

Salman said his wife's body and the remains of two other relatives were found in a mass grave after Saddam's regime was toppled in 2003.

What Do The Terrorists Want?

This essay was printed in the Times-News Monday, October 9 2006

In this War on Terror it is interesting to note the demands made by the other side. We know what terrorist want because they have consistently stated their demands and grievances in videos, audio tapes, letters, declarations, and websites.

A consistent theme is their demand that the US stop “meddling” in the Middle East, and to end our support for Israel. The United States' consistent support of a free society in Israel and efforts to give liberty to Iraqis, after decades of brutal dictatorship, stands in the way of the terrorist agenda. Liberty and freedom are the enemies of terrorists.

If we were to end our support of these free nations, as the radicals demand, terrorists will use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments.

This terrorist victory, and the control of a nation, will, the radicals believe, enable them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region.

The former terrorist leader in Iraq, Al Zarqawi, vowed, “we will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life.” Fortunately for Iraq, the Middle East, and the world, he achieved only one of his goals.