Iraq, the Surge and What's Next

It has been a while since I’ve written about the attack on Iraq because I’ve said almost everything I needed to say about Iraq far in advance of almost everyone else saying it, so I have little to do except repeat myself; from the start I believed Iraq would be a disaster.

For example, in December 2002 I wrote “Purity of opinion or voting record does not get you to humanist heaven.  For example, voting for someone other than Al Gore if one vehemently opposed George W. Bush was reasonably expected to help elect George W. Bush, and it did.  The difference in a number of states was smaller than the number of votes for various 3rd party candidates.  As a consequence, Bush is president.  As a consequence, we have a tattered wall of separation between church and state, a tax cut for the better off, no new social programs in sight, a ballooning budget and deficit, a weak economy, no answers for Wall Street abuses, and a potentially disastrous war in Iraq on our hands.”  (Go to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/DEC%202002%20newsletter.pdf .)

Every thing that has since occurred, while not a certainty, has been very predictable, as I, and later on, Al Gore, in his book, “The Assault on Reason,” have pointed out.  While pundits such as Chris Matthews of MSNBC (who make millions of $$) declared as Baghdad fell “that we are all Neocons,” I wrote at that very moment (May 2003) that “The days immediately following the symbolic toppling (of Saddam’s statue) brought sobering, if not distressing, news:  No weapons of mass destruction had yet been found; suicide attacks on US soldiers had occurred, leading to US soldiers inadvertently killing innocent civilians as a reaction; rival Iraqi religious leaders were hacked to death by an angry mob at a meeting designed to bring about reconciliation; looting and lawlessness broke out in major cities in Iraq; hospitals were in crisis mode due to the problems caused by war; protestors demonstrated in the Shia-dominated area of Iraq over the British choice of former Baath Party leaders to head an interim authority in Basra; some exiled Shi’ite factions boycotted a meeting of Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ites to discuss the future of Iraq; thousands of Iraqi civilians have perished, and many other troubling problems on the ground.”  (Go to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/May%202003%2010pg.pdf .)

All of these doubts about the Iraq enterprise were the result of applying the values of secular humanism and scientific skepticism – nothing more complicated was involved than simply being conscientious enough to ask the relevant questions and rejecting fanciful conclusions.

So here we are today; Iraq is a mess with, most likely, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis now dead, who would not have been dead otherwise, plus close to 4,000 American soldiers dead plus countless others maimed and mentally injured for the following results:

1)      More Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in Iraq and in the rest of the world

2)      More than trillion dollars to be spent by US taxpayers resulting in a lowering of the quality of life (bombs tend to destroy not create)

3)      Less security for US citizens because of less money available to be spent on Homeland Security

4)      Less personal freedoms in the US

5)      Less pride in America after understanding that the US started an unjustifiable war and used its military callously and recklessly

6)      A resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the continued non-pursuit of bin Laden due to the diverting of military and other resources to Iraq

There is no equation that can balance the scale of lives spent and results obtained.  This war is a disaster no matter what, and the reality is far worse.  And what is the obvious reality?

The Shia see the potentialfor dominant power over Iraq and see little need to compromise; and they are not compromising - oil will pay for their future tyrrany and the security to defend it.  Security for ordinary Iraqis obtained during the current surge in US forces is being accomplished primarily by ethnic cleansing – Sunnis are being chased out of Shiite enclaves, and the goal is a Shiite Bagdhad.  The Bush Administration, being totally amoral, will cynically point to the increased security as proof of progress – and Americans will buy it.  The media will not want to rub this fact too hard in American faces.

In Sunni dominated areas the US will pursue a different cynical tact: they will support non-Al Qaeda former Sunni insurgents; yes, the very same persons who were killing Americans not long ago, and enable them to create all Sunni areas in Anbar, etc.  Of course, they will become insurgents to the Shia dominated Iraqi government, but that will be their problem.

The only saving grace to the program of ethnic cleansing, supporting insurgents and looking the other way to the vicious militias of all sorts is that it may allow us to withdraw during a period of relative calm while each ethnic territory is effectively cleansed.  Of course, what happens after that is anyone’s guess but here’s mine: Iraq and Iran will get very chummy, Saudi Arabia will continue to support Sunni militias and Iran will support Shiite militias.  Civil War will continue, and Iraq will become a failed state.

Even the division of Iraq is doomed.  Such a division would create two land-locked countries, one for the Kurds and the other for the Sunnis, and their only routes of trade would be through enemy territory (the Shiite Iraq, Iran and Turkey.)  Good luck!

Many argue that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis - we started this and we ought to see it through.  This argument has merit but here is the problem: we have helped them hold elections; we have spent lives and money ridding them of Saddam; we have tried to reconstruct their country.  What can be done to fulfill our moral obligation that has not been tried?  My suggestion is this: convict those in the US government that perpetrated this war under false pretenses and then ineptly prosecuted this war.  At that point we will have admitted to the world that the US as a whole was duped and the dupers are being held accountable.  We will have done everything possible; other than changing history, nothing will be truly sufficient, so why continue to make things worse?

The US should have had only one military goal before the war in Iraq; the control or neutralization of Al Qaeda and bin Laden.  It abandoned that goal with the Iraq War and continues to shun this goal to the point where Al Qaeda has made a comeback.  A withdrawal from Iraq should be designed with only one military component in mind; controlling Al Qaeda in Iraq, an organization inadvertently created by the inept Bush Administration.

Unfortunately, they are totally incapable of performing or even centering on this clear task.  Nothing will resolve itself until the next Administration takes office, and it would not be surprising if this Administration does everything in its ability to avoid being affixed the blame for the disaster that is Iraq, even if it makes things worse in the long run.

Tags: Bush, Iraw, surge, Al Qaeda, Saddam, bin Laden, Al Gore

Lindsay Lohan vs. the Astronauts

According to the head of a panel of outside experts, reviewing astronaut behavior in the wake of the actions of astronaut Lisa Nowak, "Two specific instances were described where astronauts had been so intoxicated prior to flight that flight surgeons and-or fellow astronauts raised concerns to local on-scene leadership regarding flight safety.  However, the individuals were still permitted to fly."

Consider that if astronauts cannot be trusted to be sober before getting on board a space shuttle, what chance do we have of hoping Lindsay Lohan will be sober when driving a mere car?

Tags: Lohan, astronauts, Lisa Nowak, drunk

Slaves working on US Embassy in Iraq?

From the Wall Street Journal: Federal prosecutors are investigating the Kuwaiti company (First Kuwaiti) building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, probing allegations that foreign employees were brought to work on the massive project against their will and prevented from leaving the country.

Exactly how low will this all go?  The list of outrages is already incredibly long but damn it if they cannot keep topping themselves!!!

According to the Washington Post, “Two American civilian contractors who worked on a massive U.S. Embassy construction project in Baghdad told Congress yesterday that foreign laborers were deceptively recruited and trafficked to Iraq to toil at the site, where they experienced physical abuse and substandard working conditions.

Yup, we’re talking slavery.  According to the testimony before Congress, 51 Filipinos who believed they were being taken to Dubai were instead shipped from Kuwait to Baghdad, which is quite a difference, and then had their passports taken away, preventing them from leaving.  Their job was to help construct the US Embassy.

The Post wrote, unsurprisingly, that “State Department officials disputed the charges, telling a House committee that inspections had not substantiated the worst reported abuses.”

What a relief!  But then again, one can only wonder what this State Department would consider the “worst reported abuses.”

What next?  It is beyond imagining.

Tags: Bagdhad, slaves, First Kuwaiti, US Embassy

To Impeach or Not Impeach – Is That the Question?

Cindy Sheehan has “threatened” to run for election against House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi if Pelosi does not allow impeachment charges to be brought up against President Bush and VP Cheney.

Of course, this is crazy talk; exactly how would it look for Pelosi herself to promote such an action when in fact she, Pelosi, would stand to gain the Presidency if indeed the impeachment was upheld in the Senate?  Answer: it would look bad, and, by extension,  it might look bad for the Democrats in general.  And anything that might prolong Republican Party rule by handing them an issue for the 2008 Presidential elections would be counter-productive for the Democrats, true or false?  Answer: True!

At the most, Pelosi would have to passively allow it; the Right-wing spin machine would have a field day (and would probably have one anyway) if she gave the slightest impression she was behind or supportive of such an effort.  Please remember that in past impeachment proceedings, the target was the President and the successor was to be the Vice-President, not the House Majority leader of a different party no less!  This is a huge difference.  And of course, is there any chance that enough Republicans would go along with this impeachment?  Unfortunately there is no chancewhatsoever.  It’s all moot, wing-nut craziness.

Here is the sad irony of this craziness, however; the US will solve none of its problems unless and until Bush and Cheney are removed from office.

Can the US find an adequate way out of Iraq that does not lead to civil war, ethnic cleansing or genocide?  Can it find a way out that does not drive the Iraqi Sunnis into the arms of Al Qaeda and/or does not hand over a portion of the country to Al Qaeda?  Can it find a way out that does not lead to a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran?

Whatever the best course of action might be, there is no evidence that Bush & Co. are capable of finding it.  Impeachment is the only course of action available that will speed up the process of bringing competence back to the White House, but unfortunately, that is just crazy talk.

Tags: Bush, Cheney, impeachment, Pelosi, Sheehan, Iraq, Al Qaeda, genocide

Is Bush an Idiot?

Whenever I or anyone else makes the claim that President Bush is a dim, incurious empty suit, the reaction from both sides of the political spectrum can be outrage.  The Right, of course, objects because it would mean that they have been supporting this dolt for all this while.  That’s not flattering to their self-image.  However, many on the Left who lean toward conspiracy theories object as well because they want to believe that Bush and cronies had planned it all – because they are evil.  If the Bushites are incompetent, there is no way that they could have plotted 9-11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq for the purpose of gaining oil, money and power; therefore Bush is simply a devious and cynical genius of sorts.

The problem is that in no facet of Bush’s life has he displayed a talent for anything but failure, stupidity and shallowness.  Here’s the latest evidence of his shallowness, which has even some conservatives shaking their heads.

It’s a statement Bush made on July 17, 2007, with ten conservative journalists in attendance and reported by National Review’s Rich Lowry. Bush told them, “The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty.  Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am.  And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic.  One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free.  And nothing will change my belief.  I come at it many different ways.  Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective.  I do believe there is anAlmighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom.  And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist."

Here it is in all it’s juvenile glory: Bush believes that disasters such as his invasion of Iraq will succeed (when?) because it’s a faith-held certainty that freedom will prevail.  Please note, he specifically admits that this conclusion is NOT the result of scientific politcal analysis.  It’s purely a belief held on faith in his version of God.

Here is what the conservative Lowry had to say: “"You can believe freedom is a gift from the Almighty and still recognize that some cultural soil is more or less compatible with supporting political systems that protect liberty," he wrote.  "But Bush believes the spread of liberty is 'inevitable.'  If that is the case, why not spare ourselves all the effort and let the inevitable flowering of liberty take hold?"

Indeed, why?

Tags: Bush, Lowry, conservatives, God

Why Mitt Romney is Perfect!

Ever wonder why the Religious Right seems to be gravitating towards Mitt Romney, the Mormon candidate for president?  I know I have!

Well, I have the answer: It’s because of all the candidates running, Gov. Romney has the LEAST integrity, and it’s a lack of integrity that the Religious Right cherishes above all else.

Consider the RR’s support for all things Bush; that would include Karl Rove, a.k.a. Bush’s Brain.  Yes, Karl Rove is an agnostic; at least he has admitted that he is not spiritual and has trouble with believing.  There have been reports that Rove’s office mocks many of those Religious Right leaders behind closed doors.  Yet, rather than be disgusted by Rove and Bush, the Religious Right has supported them in an unprecedented manner.  Why?

Because the Bush Administration, as per Karl Rove’s direction, kow-tows to the Religious Right, giving them billions of dollars in un-Constitutional federal dollars for discriminatory religious programs.  (We can’t say they’re “charitable” programs if tax dollars are being used.)

So it’s clear: Rove’s lack of integrity is irrelevant to the RR.  What matters is the willingness to pander.

Now who has pandered more than Romney?  He’s reversed himself on gays, separation of church and state, you name it, and all for one purpose: to please the Religious Right.

Here’s the latest item: Here is Romney on the campaign trail critiquing Barack Obama’s position on sex education in public schools; "How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old.  In my view, zero is the right amount.  Instead of teaching about sex education in kindergarten to 5-year-olds let's clean up the ocean of filth, the cesspool in which our children are swimming."  However, according to a freerepublic.com article, “In a Planned Parenthood questionnaire he filled out during his 2002 gubernatorial run, Romney checked 'yes' to a question asking, "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"

He’s perfect.

Tags: Romney, Rove, Obama, Religious Right, sex education, Planned Parenthood

Freedom of Religion (for Certain Christians Only)

Item: (From Americans United for Separation of Church & State) Hindu Chaplain Rajan Zed, a Nevada resident, gave the opening prayer in the Senate at the invitation of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.).  As he began his remarks, two protestors interrupted the proceedings, asking for forgiveness from Jesus Christ for the “abomination” of failing to pray to the “one true God.”  (The sergeant-at-arms had to restore order.)  Religious Right groups have been agitating against the Hindu leader’s prayer since it was announced.  The Rev. Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association has asked his members to complain to their senators about the invitation.  The group’s news service reported that “Christian nation” activist David Barton said that Hinduism has few followers in the United States and that prayer to a “non-monotheistic god” is “outside the American paradigm.”

So, let’s make this clear: the Religious Right does NOT want to allow "prayer" in public situations, such as in school or meetings of a legislature; they only want to allow THEIR prayers in such situations.

Absolutely no where in the Constitution is Christianity given any preference over any other religion.  Yet it is those same Religious Right activists that insist on strict interpretations of the Constitutions and rail against “activist” judges.

Utter hypocrites!

It is all a lie – everything they say about prayer when battling atheists goes out the window when they are battling Hindus or Muslims.  When battling atheists on behalf of Christians, the Religious Right wants a religiously accommodating government.  When battling Hindus or Muslims they insist on “no special privileges” for specific religions.

Idiots and hypocrites.

Tags: Barton, Americans United, Hindus, Reid, atheists