|
A few
items for consideration. None of these consider the illegality and/or immorality
of going to war under false premises, or the now failed Bush Doctrine of
preemption, which obviously requires perfect intelligence and evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt. The first time
out, the Bush White House and Pentagon made a mockery of this criteria. Former Sen. Gary Hart’s quote, below,
should attract attention. He’s the co-chair of the February 2001 National
Security Report, aka the Hart-Rudman Commission, which warned that American
could be attacked and the subsequent updates, like the 9/11 Commission,
highlighting areas where the US remains unprotected, due to lack of sound
policy practice. Ex-Official: Human Rights Growing Worse in Iraq “Human
rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein, as
lawlessness and sectarian violence sweep the country, the former U.N. human rights chief in
Iraq said Thursday. John Pace, who
last month left his post as director of the human rights office at the U.N.
Assistance Mission for Iraq, said the level of extra-judicial executions and
torture is soaring, and morgue workers are being threatened by both
government-backed militia and insurgents not to properly investigate deaths. "Under Saddam, if you agreed to forgo
your basic right to freedom of _expression_ and thought, you were physically more
or less OK," Pace said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"But now, no. Here, you have a primitive, chaotic situation where anybody can do anything they want to
anyone." Pace, who was born in Malta but now resides in Australia, said that
while the scale of atrocity under Saddam was "daunting," now nobody
is safe from abuse. "It is certainly as bad," he said. "It
extends over a much wider section of the population than it did under
Saddam." Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3696105.html ALSO
SEE Mosque Outrage Brings
Solidarity http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32292 Murtha: “[The] only people who wants us in
Iraq is Iran and Al Queda…and China” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/26/ftn/main1346210.shtml Pentagon considers “the Salvador Option” to kill insurgents http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/02/roots-of-iraq-civil-war-may-be-in-salvador-option/ See poll
information below. Color highlights mine. Kwc U.S. stuck with few options in Iraq
By Dick Polman,
Knight Ridder Newspapers, March 6, 2006 We can't stay, and we
can't go. As the United States
nears the third anniversary of its invasion of Iraq, there is abundant evidence
that military and political options are narrowing, that President Bush's
democratization dream is lethally imperiled, that we are hostage to events
beyond our control, and that nobody can agree on whether our troops would be
better off digging in or pulling out. The fog of war has
frozen domestic politics. Bush's "stay the course" stance is being
soundly rebuked in the polls, yet divided Democrats haven't come up with a
better idea, a consensus alternative. Meanwhile, the clock ticks. The danger of
a full-blown civil war — predicted 18 months ago by the CIA, but dismissed at
the time by the Bush team — grows with each passing day. In political terms,
this is a dangerous situation for House and Senate Republicans who face voters
in November. Hints dropped by the administration last summer have had them
anticipating sizable numbers of U.S. troops coming home in 2006. They looked
forward to using this as evidence that Iraqis, in the aftermath of their
December elections, were policing themselves and freedom was "on the
march." Those hopes are in
jeopardy. With Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads roaming the cities, and
with negotiations for a unity government perpetually breaking down, longtime
Iraq observers are fearing the worst. In the words of Juan Cole, a Middle East
expert who blogs frequently on the war, "Iraq is a vial of nitroglycerine
that can be set off with one shake." Some might dismiss
Cole as a longtime Bush critic, but disillusion also is endemic within
conservative circles; witness William F. Buckley, icon of the modern conservative
movement. He contends that "the American objective
in Iraq has failed" and that Bush must "submit to historical
reality" and make "the acknowledgment of defeat." Polls show
discontent Most Americans aren't buoyant, either;
Bush's winter speeches have failed to dispel bipartisan gloom. In a Fox News
poll of 900 registered voters conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, 81 percent of
respondents — including 72 percent of Republicans — now believe an Iraq civil
war is likely. On a separate issue, 70 percent of respondents want to cut the
money for Iraq reconstruction. Translation: The public is rapidly losing faith
in the mission, and political analysts believe that, in an election year, a
war-weary public generally aims its ire at the party in power. But loss of faith in
the mission isn't necessarily synonymous with a desire to abandon Iraqis to
their fate. We are basically stymied on what should happen next. In a new poll
sponsored by Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville,
surveying 1,135 Americans during the last five days of February, 49 percent
said they wanted to "start reducing the number of troops" (in the
belief that we are impeding stability, and preventing Iraqis from standing up
for themselves), while 48 percent wanted to "stay the course" and
"finish the job" (in the belief that we are a positive force and a
bulwark against global terrorism). A troops-out
convert One fresh convert to the troops-out camp
is Suzanne Nossel, who served at the United Nations from 1999 to 2001 as a
top deputy to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. By phone, she charted her
change of heart: "I've
always been very concerned about leaving Iraq as a failed state, and the
ramifications for the image of American power around the world. I take that
seriously. Despite all the mistakes we have made in this war, the stakes have
been so high that I felt we had to stay and try to make things right. "But
now, facing the facts on the ground" — a reference to death squads,
militant clerics, ethnic fragmentation, and warring Iraqi leaders — "I
question whether we are making a contribution, and whether it makes sense to
stay in." Or, as she argued separately in an online column, "The only
thing worse than Iraq as a failed state is Iraq as a failed state with 130,000 Americans
serving there." Gary
Hart
said he thinks those troops are at serious risk. The Democratic ex-senator and
onetime presidential candidate, a specialist on defense issues, talked about
Iraq — and, in his view, the benefits of troop withdrawals — before a speech
the other day at the National Constitution Center. "Our army is in danger," he said. "If all-out civil war breaks out, we could
lose our army. If Sunnis and Shiites take to the streets by the thousands, it
could literally be impossible to get [the soldiers] out. ... I know that sounds
apocalyptic, but it's not out of the question. We need an exit strategy. We
have no choice. We're making things worse. Ninety percent of the insurgents are
Iraqis who don't like the fact that we have occupied their country. ... "I
know we can't just pack up and leave right away, but we're still acting as if
we hold all the cards over there. We don't. We're losing control of the
situation. ... The
British occupied Iraq for 35 years and finally had to leave because there was a
constant insurgency against them. We haven't learned anything." But others see the
chaos in Iraq as proof that we must stay, despite having spent more than $300
billion and expended about 2,300 American lives. And they're not all Bush fans. Troops must stay Marshall Wittmann, a centrist Democratic thinker and
frequent Bush critic, posted this on his blog the other day: "Is it
possible that Iraq will be lost? Of course it is. And it will be much more
likely that it will be lost if America leaves precipitously. Then, the
supporters of an early withdrawal will have to address the consequences of both
an American defeat, and that our international jihadist enemy will be
emboldened." And Missouri political
analyst Tim Lomperis, who served in Vietnam as an Army intelligence officer,
said by phone, "I know it seems like we've stepped into a volcano, and it
is depressing. "
But "I see Iraq as the Vietnam war that we can't afford to lose. We were
able to lose Vietnam and walk away because it was a peripheral outpost. Iraq is
not. It is central, the same way that Berlin was central during the Cold War. "Yes, Iraq at the beginning was a war of
choice. And yes, if we can't get a unity government, we're stuck with a
strategic mess. And it's true that we won't give the Iraqi troops some of our
helicopters and tanks, because we're afraid they'll end up in the hands of the
insurgents. But pulling out is not a realistic choice. If we do that, the
Islamic radicals will come after us, with Europe as the next front line. This
hasn't sunk in with Americans yet." Stalemate in
politics Sensitized to the ambivalent national
mood, Democrats in Washington remain averse to speaking boldly, or finding a
way forward. Some have signed on to a plan — co-written six months ago by a
former Reagan assistant defense secretary — that calls for "strategic redeployment," a euphemism for troop pullouts on
a timetable, by the end of 2007.
But more hawkish Democrats see a timetable as a gift to the enemy — and
to the GOP, which long has proved adept at labeling Democrats as soft. So even as there are
few good policy options in Iraq, there are few good political options at home.
Democrats as a group won't call for a pullout, because they want to look tough
to independent swing voters. Bush can't call for a big increase in troops,
because polls show that's political suicide. And even if he wanted to launch a
serious withdrawal, much of his conservative base would revolt. Hence, the fealty to
familiar talking points. On ABC the other day, he again used that tactic,
saying, "We're making progress ... spread freedom ... we will
prevail," phrases that brought to mind a comment to Bob Woodward in 2002: "I'm the commander, see? I do not need to explain why
I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president. Maybe
somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I
owe anybody an explanation." Given the restiveness
about Iraq, however, that view might not be sufficient anymore. In former U.N.
official Nossel's words, "Americans are
hungry for a hard-headed debate on the policies that could have an impact on
our standing in the world for years to come." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002844798_iraqoptions05.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bush Free Fall
continues with new polls: Four new polls show historic lows for Pres. Bush, with his approval rating below
40% in each survey. According to the LA Times/Bloomberg poll, only 34
percent approve of
Bush's handling of the Iraq war and just 44% approve of his job on the war on
terrorism; the Quinnipiac poll puts Bush's job approval on the war on terrorism
at only 39
percent. Similarly,
despite Bush's
denials of a possible civil war in Iraq, a FOX News poll finds 81
percent of the
American public who think a civil war in Iraq is likely. 52
percent do not find Bush "honest and trustworthy," tying
November's worst-ever mark in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. With numbers like
these, it's no wonder that traditional
Bush allies are distancing themselves. (Progress Report 030306) Majority of Americans think Iraq Civil War is likely: The latest Washington
Post-ABC News poll found that 80% believe that recent sectarian violence made
civil war in Iraq likely, and more than a third say such a conflict was
"very likely" to occur. Expectations for an all-out sectarian war in
Iraq extended beyond party lines. More than seven in 10 Republicans and
eight in 10 Democrats and political independents believe civil war was likely. In
the face of the continuing violence, fully half - 52% - of those surveyed says
the United States should begin withdrawing forces. But only one in six favors
immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/06/AR2006030600369_pf.html Zogby poll on new
military survey: A first-ever survey of U.S. troops on the ground fighting a war overseas has revealed
surprising findings, not the least of which is that an overwhelming majority of
72% of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country
within the next year. Further, a
new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows that more than one in
four (29%) thought the U.S. should pull its troops immediately. The poll,
conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global
Studies, also showed that another 22% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the
armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next 6 months. One in every 5 troops - 21% - said
troops should be out between 6 and 12 months. Nearly a quarter - 23% - said
they should stay "as long as they are needed." Among all respondents, 26% said they were on their first tour of duty
in Iraq, while 45% said they were on their second tour, and 29% said they were
in Iraq for a third time, or more. Three of every four were male respondents,
with 63% under the age of 30. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/on-a-new-poll-of-us-sol_b_16497.html |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
