President Bush, in usual fashion, is sticking with a course of action in defiance of all common sense and experience, thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people. His latest quote: "If you don't like my plan of action, tell me yours." First of all, Mr. President, we wouldn't be here if you had LISTENED to the State Department and the military in the days and weeks after the initial military victory over Saddam's military in March of 2003. If we had prevented the looting and guarded other things besides the Iraqi Oil Ministry, that would have been a great start. In addition, we could have fixed their water and brought their electricity up to par that would have been great, too. We should have flooded the outlying villages with State Department, Red Cross, and other humanitarian agencies to assist. Maybe not disbanding the Iraqi military and civil service would have been a great move, I don't know.
Okay, since you did None of that, here's a plan for you. Start doing some of it. The Iraqi power grid is still as unpredictable as Rex Grossman on game day, unemployment is rampant, those who have the civil service jobs get paid in a "catch as catch can" basis, the Iraqi military and police force is a JOKE and sectarian violence has plunged the country into the beginnings of a civil war. Oh, not to mention, the border is not secure. There really aren't "Iraqis." There are Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, all using their new powers to exact revenge on their former enemies. If we think Iraq is ready to govern itself, just take a look at the execution of Saddam. That was a cluster f@*# to say the least. Or maybe you should look at the streets in Iraq. Death squads and militias rule the day and the only ones provided any humanitarian support to the people is Al Qaeda. Go figure.
A 24,000 troop increase does nothing. If you really were committed to saving Iraq, you would quadruple that number to truly pacify the country. You would mobilize almost every humanitarian asset you had available and descend on the country with a fervor to deliver services to the people. You would tell the Iraqi PM and his government that they need international help. You would go the UN and tell them that we are really committed to fix the problem, eat crow, tell them that you were wrong and that we need their help. You would tell Iran that if they didn't cease and desist with their interference in Iraq that there will be real consequences.
Lastly, I would sideline the VP on this one; it's a fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
They're Not Dissapointing Me
So far so good in the House of Representatives. I have to say that I'm impressed. They went straight for the jugular:
Passed a bill to provide for embryonic stem cell research;
Passed an increase to the minimum wage;
Passed a bill to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.
The first obviously hits the President and the right wing Christians. It's good to see science prevailing over "faith" for a change. The minimum wage increase is good, although I think it should be more like $10.00 per hour instead of 7 and some change. Do I need to say anything about the third? It's obvious that the homeland is really no more secure than it was before 9/11.
It seems that they are proving me wrong. I hope they keep pressing; it's good to see something actually getting done in Washington.
Passed a bill to provide for embryonic stem cell research;
Passed an increase to the minimum wage;
Passed a bill to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.
The first obviously hits the President and the right wing Christians. It's good to see science prevailing over "faith" for a change. The minimum wage increase is good, although I think it should be more like $10.00 per hour instead of 7 and some change. Do I need to say anything about the third? It's obvious that the homeland is really no more secure than it was before 9/11.
It seems that they are proving me wrong. I hope they keep pressing; it's good to see something actually getting done in Washington.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
The Gaggle That Is Iraq
So it's more of the same from El Presidente and his team of under-achievers. A 20,000-plus troop surge in Iraq to "pacify" Baghdad. Okay, so they'll end up slightly extending the green zone in the short term after fierce battles in which the American service members will bear the brunt of the fighting. Of course, we won't provide any social services or significant infrastructural assistance to the Iraqi people; we'll just let al qaeda do that for us since we squandered all of that money on Halliburton and countless other dead-end endeavors. So where does that leave us? Here are a few random thoughts on Iraq.
1. The Iraqi Army and police do not have the will to fight. At least not for the Iraqi democracy. Most of the Iraqis that actually were trained to fight and had the will now fight against us, since we disbanded the Iraqi Army after our "mission was accomplished." Also, the basic unit of loyalty and authority in Iraq is the clan/tribe; all other types and levels of authority are secondary. Hence, sectarian violence throughout the country and division in Parliament along tribal lines. They don't really understand democracy and national unity; Saddam kept them under control by force or the threat of force; he violently suppressed any organization that was threat to his power including rival tribes or clans. We westerners don't understand that.
2. It's really not up to the Iraqis to defend Iraq; it's up to the United States to do that. (here's a great perspective on that). Yes, we broke it and it's up to us to fix it. Let's get over the crap line that the politicians are using saying that it's time for the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for what's going on. Last I checked, they were living in a more secure environment (under a dictator, of course) but there was not open violence in the streets, there was more reliable electricity and running water. There were death squads, but everyone knew who they belonged to. There was fear of course, but not the level of fear that exists today. Let's face it; we blew it big time. If we really want to pacify the situation, we would need to commit additional troops in the hundreds of thousands; declare martial law; round up every single person suspected of being the "enemy" and make examples of them so no one else would dare to follow in their footsteps. In addition, we would need to commit billions into infrastructure repair and establishment, building schools and civil buildings, social services, etc. Seeing as we've wasted billions already, I don't see this happening, but it is OUR responsibility to ensure a stable future for the Iraqi people; it was us who brazenly invaded their country and turned their lives upside down. It is up to US to stay there and do the right things to help them; which doesn't include retreating (or redeploying) or cutting numbers of troops or increasing them by 20,000. We need 200,000 to do it right.
3. Sound Like Vietnam? It certainly should, since we are committing the same mistakes. We are trying to train people that ARE NOT warriors to be warriors. We are not providing social services to the people, but we are allowing the enemy to do so. We are fighting amongst ourselves about what to do because no one wants to admit that our sacrifice will be great in order to do the right thing. Who is suffering in the meantime? The innocent men, women and children of Iraq. We have lost them. We have lost their trust; we have lost their support. We treat them much like we treat our own poor; we talk around them and about them, but not to them. We don't endear ourselves to them; therefore, they do not endear themselves to us. They see us as invaders not liberators. They see us as enemies, not friends. There is much we must do to re-gain their trust. It would such a shame to leave the country in such shambles. This is a test of our national resolve. If we fail, our national prominence will significantly diminish. We can't keep repeating Vietnam; we have to actually do one of these things right. We should never have gone to Iraq in 2003, but now that we are there, we have to succeed.
1. The Iraqi Army and police do not have the will to fight. At least not for the Iraqi democracy. Most of the Iraqis that actually were trained to fight and had the will now fight against us, since we disbanded the Iraqi Army after our "mission was accomplished." Also, the basic unit of loyalty and authority in Iraq is the clan/tribe; all other types and levels of authority are secondary. Hence, sectarian violence throughout the country and division in Parliament along tribal lines. They don't really understand democracy and national unity; Saddam kept them under control by force or the threat of force; he violently suppressed any organization that was threat to his power including rival tribes or clans. We westerners don't understand that.
2. It's really not up to the Iraqis to defend Iraq; it's up to the United States to do that. (here's a great perspective on that). Yes, we broke it and it's up to us to fix it. Let's get over the crap line that the politicians are using saying that it's time for the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for what's going on. Last I checked, they were living in a more secure environment (under a dictator, of course) but there was not open violence in the streets, there was more reliable electricity and running water. There were death squads, but everyone knew who they belonged to. There was fear of course, but not the level of fear that exists today. Let's face it; we blew it big time. If we really want to pacify the situation, we would need to commit additional troops in the hundreds of thousands; declare martial law; round up every single person suspected of being the "enemy" and make examples of them so no one else would dare to follow in their footsteps. In addition, we would need to commit billions into infrastructure repair and establishment, building schools and civil buildings, social services, etc. Seeing as we've wasted billions already, I don't see this happening, but it is OUR responsibility to ensure a stable future for the Iraqi people; it was us who brazenly invaded their country and turned their lives upside down. It is up to US to stay there and do the right things to help them; which doesn't include retreating (or redeploying) or cutting numbers of troops or increasing them by 20,000. We need 200,000 to do it right.
3. Sound Like Vietnam? It certainly should, since we are committing the same mistakes. We are trying to train people that ARE NOT warriors to be warriors. We are not providing social services to the people, but we are allowing the enemy to do so. We are fighting amongst ourselves about what to do because no one wants to admit that our sacrifice will be great in order to do the right thing. Who is suffering in the meantime? The innocent men, women and children of Iraq. We have lost them. We have lost their trust; we have lost their support. We treat them much like we treat our own poor; we talk around them and about them, but not to them. We don't endear ourselves to them; therefore, they do not endear themselves to us. They see us as invaders not liberators. They see us as enemies, not friends. There is much we must do to re-gain their trust. It would such a shame to leave the country in such shambles. This is a test of our national resolve. If we fail, our national prominence will significantly diminish. We can't keep repeating Vietnam; we have to actually do one of these things right. We should never have gone to Iraq in 2003, but now that we are there, we have to succeed.
Lag Time and Politics
A lot has happened since I last blogged, most notably, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. They have pledged a lot a action in their first 100 hours of legislative time and got things off to a big start by taking the day off for the NCAA National Championship game. Business as usual? I'm not sure, but it doesn't bode well.
I am happy (on the surface) that their has been a changing of the guard in our legislative branch. There are two big problems, however, that I don't think the Democrats will be able to overcome:
1. Democrats lack of audacity (aka "balls). The Democrats suffer from "over think syndrome." They talk and talk, but lack decisiveness in their actions, leading to a fragmentation that kept them out of the majority for the past 12 years. We owe this changing of the guard more to President Bush's failures than the Democrats' successes.
2. Power corrupts. Everytime a minority takes the majority, there are always promises of ethics reforms and shouts that the party taking control will "clean up" Congress. The Republicans set themselves up 12 years ago as the moral authority. They promised to deliver us from the moral scourge that was the Democrat party. 12 years and many Republican scandals later, the Dems are saying the same thing. The problem is not party related. It's money and power related. the lobbies and corporate benefactors court the party in power very heavily. When the money and favors start flowing, it's hard for any politician, regardless of party, to say no. Being the majority party in Congress really means only one thing: it's just a matter of time before the scandals surface.
I hope they prove me wrong, but I really don't think so. The other shoe will drop; it's just a matter of time.
I am happy (on the surface) that their has been a changing of the guard in our legislative branch. There are two big problems, however, that I don't think the Democrats will be able to overcome:
1. Democrats lack of audacity (aka "balls). The Democrats suffer from "over think syndrome." They talk and talk, but lack decisiveness in their actions, leading to a fragmentation that kept them out of the majority for the past 12 years. We owe this changing of the guard more to President Bush's failures than the Democrats' successes.
2. Power corrupts. Everytime a minority takes the majority, there are always promises of ethics reforms and shouts that the party taking control will "clean up" Congress. The Republicans set themselves up 12 years ago as the moral authority. They promised to deliver us from the moral scourge that was the Democrat party. 12 years and many Republican scandals later, the Dems are saying the same thing. The problem is not party related. It's money and power related. the lobbies and corporate benefactors court the party in power very heavily. When the money and favors start flowing, it's hard for any politician, regardless of party, to say no. Being the majority party in Congress really means only one thing: it's just a matter of time before the scandals surface.
I hope they prove me wrong, but I really don't think so. The other shoe will drop; it's just a matter of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
