The Center for American Progress will call on Monday for the withdrawal of virtually all American troops from Iraq, for the first time–including US trainers in addition to combat forces.
The new approach places CAP, a think tank with Clinton links, in conflict with the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group and most of the Democratic establishment who have supported retaining thousands of American trainers in a lower-visibility war in Iraq.
The new analysis is driven by a recognition that the United States would be training Iraqi troops in a sectarian civil war with no end in sight.
The conclusions reinforce those voices urging that the United States end its involvement in a “dirty war” and instead enforce the 1997 Leahy amendment, which prohibits security assistance to any foreign forces “against whom exist credible allegations of gross violations of human rights.”
The CAP report should lead to Congressional hearings into whether the Iraqi government and security units are human rights violators, paving the way for a possible Congressional amendment to terminate US support.
The present US “advisory mission” consists of five teams:
1. Coalition Military Assistance Team [recruiting, training, equipping, basing and sustaining Iraqi military units]
2. Joint Headquarters Transition Team [assists with command and control functions]
3. Coalition Air Force Transition Team [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance]
4. Civilian Police Assistance Training [training, equipping, organizing, mentoring Interior ministry police, commandos, etc.]
5. Ministry of Interior Transition Team [develops “law enforcement capacity”].
The CAP report further calls for all US troops to withdraw on a one-year timetable, except for troops redeployed to Kurdistan for one additional year. All US bases would be closed, and the Vatican-scale US embassy would be replaced by a network of smaller consulates to work at local and regional levels.
The sharpest debates are sure to occur about the proposals to phase out training. The pressure will be on the Iraq Study Group to reconsider its December 2006 recommendations based on the worsening situation on the ground.
Senators Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin and Joe Biden have supported the retention of 15,000 to 30,000 American trainers until the Iraqis “stand up.”
Just last week, Biden and Senator Barbara Boxer advocated a new partitioning of Iraq with a smaller US force left to fight Al Qaeda and train the Iraqi security forces. The most progressive Senate proposal, by Feingold and twenty-nine others, would still leave thousands of US troops behind in training functions. All of these positions will be re-evaluated in the weeks ahead.
Tom Hayden is a former state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice and environmental movements. He currently teaches at
© 2007 The Nation
How many examples from history do we have of American taxpayer money supporting militias and death squads?
If we pull troops out, our leaders will not give up on Iraq. They will just shift their strategy of control to other means.
If we demand a troop withdrawal, we must also demand a commission to investigate the post troop withdrawal actions of our government and allies.
B.ring
U.S.
S.oldiers
H.ome
George W. Bush Movin’ Out Campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB6PNTKM2xg
(instructional video)
A troop withdrawal is not going to happen anytime soon, no matter how much people think that it will. A more urgent and pressing matter to think of is how this Administration will booby-trap the White House should a Democrat get elected. Either way, they are determined to push through their agenda, and Congress will fold like a cheap suit as it usually does. We need to stay focused and figure out how to counter these bastards in the White House.
So many lives so badly wasted, so many more to follow.
Bring ‘em home.
Despite the overwhelming and undeniable polling that indicates a majority opposing the Invasion, there is a vast disconnect between the ‘08 horse race favorites and the positions of those frontrunners. Clinton never questions the legitimacy of the war and, of course, she is thrown into the position of having to defend her husband’s legacy. That and her view that she must demonstrate strength with shows of bluster. She is on record as stating that Iran is in the heart of our energy interests and poses a threat to Israel. There you have it, her NeoCon talking points, yet, as with her healthcare reform proposal that barely tweaks her previous disaster, she is heralded as the sure thing around the clock. No one ever points any of this out. No where do these opposing realities ever collide, other than an occasional booing from the eternal purists of the Left when Hillary tries out her latest blaming the victim routine, suggesting it is the fault of the Iraqis. Someone compared this approach to blaming the rape on the raped.
On two of the major issues of the hour, health care and Iraq, the frontrunner is out of sync with most Americans and closer in policy to the Right, but we are constantly bombarded with polls measuring her growing popularity and told that it just the antiwar Far Left wacko base that make demands.
We know what it is all about. We saw it with Kerry–a deeply unpopular politician–elitist, inappropriate, pontificating, strutting his machismo like a fool–a formula sure to lose, but he was the chosen one as the “most electible”.
Hillary is the chosen one of our corporate masters. She is an investment and now she has to be marketed to the consumers in a pitch that has nothing to do with what Americans want. The money is on Hillary because the Republicans are handicapped by crumbling illusions even if they are rarely held accountable, so the face and label are shifted even though the fantasy is sustained. And should Hillary fizzle, no great loss, any Republican naturally can be counted on to stay with the program from Israel to trade deals - it is who might challenge Clinton they worry about. We have yet to see whether the marketing bandwagon can again trump the growing awareness of the truth.
By the way, Mr. Hayden, drinking too much of that koolaide is bound to kill you. Al Queda, how stunningly convenient that suddenly, seemingly overnight, we are battling the fiercesome terrorist Al Queda. No one has EVER been able to say that who we view as insurgents are just regular everyday Iraqis fighting to free themselves from the Occupier–just like we would. Morphing them into Al Queda makes it so much easier to justify fighting a legitimate enemy.
While this appears to be an improvement over other mainstream withdrawal programs, with the Clinton forces having to admit to reality more and more, it still comes with too many strings and impossible conditions:
1) Redeploying an unstated number of troops to Kurdistan (which still does not formally exist) is problematic. The PKK and PKU (major Kurdish parties) are in a constant state of tension and on the verge of a civil war. There are many non-Kurdish interests in “Kurdistan” that are, and will continue to act violently, until there is an overall political solution. Both the Turks and Iranians are preparing to attack Iraqi Kurds. US troops will find themselves in the middle of all this: Iraq redux. The hidden agenda here is to protect “our oil” in the Kurdish-controlled north as the Shia pretty much control access in the South already.
2) What does “virtually all troops” mean. US planners continue to fantasize that somehow we will leave a residual force to protect our Baghdad embassy (or in this case the regional consulates that are supposed to replace it) and carry on unstated other functions, like chasing Al Queda around the country. US troops are not welcome in Iraq in any form and they will be attacked as they are now. The residual forces will be sitting ducks and larger forces will be sent to rescue them. We must admit that we are done in Iraq for decades (probably generations) to come. The only honorable thing left to do is to get out as fast as is logistically possible and create a healthy reparations fund controlled by international and Iraqi organizations to help rebuild the country.
3) As is usual, this withdrawal program makes no mention of the 125,000-150,000 US-paid contract workers, of whom about 50,000 are armed mercenaries. They must be a central part of any withdrawal program.
A progressive like Tom Hayden should be a bit more skeptical about a plan that comes out of a Clinton-related think tank.
RE: H. CLINTON NOMINATION: A DEFAULT CANDIDATE
Vern June 25th, 2007 12:24 pm
“The money is on Hillary because the Republicans are handicapped by crumbling illusions even if they are rarely held accountable, so the face and label are shifted even though the fantasy is sustained.”
Clinton is a default candidate in the same way that Bush was. ‘Continue the policies, continue the dynasty,’ explains her nomination and promotion.
You can fairly imagine the backroom Democratic Leadership Committee reasoning:
“Gentlemen, it is agreed that we will be promoting a right wing - er, ‘triangulating’ - Democrat who represents the ‘new DLC-Democrat’ position. The only question is who?”
“I submit to you that, a) in the absence of any other acceptable position, and b) in the absence of any difference of character or ability among potential DLC-imprint nominees, we promote the one that not only carries forward our position, but has that special dynastic something - the one who can claim distance (female, ‘injured party’) from her philandering spouse, but will be recognized as continuing his ‘triangulating’ policies.”
“If our right wing brethren, uh, competition, uh, respectable competing viewpoint party can do it, so can we.” End of discussion.
I sent this plan to Tom-and he wrote back saying he felt it was indicative of a comprehensive effort to end the war and contained the vital components to do so.
Why are we as activists not moving to make my plan a reality ?
An Exit Strategy for Iraq- originally and independently devised in September 2004.
By Howard Roberts
A Seven-point plan for an Exit Strategy in Iraq
1) A timetable for the complete withdrawal of American and British forces
must be announced.
I envision the following procedure, but suitable fine-tuning can be
applied by all the people involved.
A) A ceasefire should be offered by the Occupying side to
representatives of the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite and Kurdish communities. These
representatives would be guaranteed safe passage, to any meetings. The
individual insurgency and community groups would designate who would attend.
At this meeting a written document declaring a one-month ceasefire,
witnessed by a United Nations authority, will be fashioned and eventually
signed. This document will be released in full, to all Iraqi newspapers, the
foreign press, and the Internet.
( The inclusion of Kurdish communities in this sub-section was added in early September 2006-
as an attempt to define the goals of parity and fairness and to avoid any sectarian splitting
of Iraq.)
B) US and British command will make public its withdrawal, within
sixth-months of 80 % of their troops.
C) Every month, a team of United Nations observers will verify the
effectiveness of the ceasefire.
All incidences on both sides will be reported.
D) Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying
nations and the insurgency organizations and major community factions, that agreed to the cease fire will
protect the Iraqi people from actions by terrorist cells.
E) Combined representative armed forces from both the Occupying
nations and the insurgency organizations/community factions will begin creating a new military
and police force. Those who served, without extenuating circumstances, in
the previous Iraqi military or police, will be given the first option to
serve.
F) After the second month of the ceasefire, and thereafter, in
increments of 10-20% ,a total of 80% will be withdrawn, to enclaves in Qatar
and Bahrain. The governments of these countries will work out a temporary
land-lease housing arrangement for these troops. During the time the troops
will be in these countries they will not stand down, and can be re-activated
in the theater, if the chain of the command still in Iraq, the newly
formed Iraqi military, the leaders of the insurgency/community factions, and two international
ombudsman (one from the Arab League, one from the United Nations), as a
majority, deem it necessary.
G) One-half of those troops in enclaves will leave three-months after they
arrive, for the United States or other locations, not including Iraq.
H) The other half of the troops in enclaves will leave after
six-months.
I) The remaining 20 % of the Occupying troops will, during this six
month interval, be used as peace-keepers, and will work with all the
designated organizations, to aid in reconstruction and nation-building.
J) After four months they will be moved to enclaves in the above
mentioned countries.
They will remain, still active, for two month, until their return to
the States, Britain and the other involved nations.
2) At the beginning of this period the United States will file a letter with
the Secretary General of the Security Council of the United Nations, making
null and void all written and proscribed orders by the CPA, under R. Paul
Bremer. This will be announced and duly noted.
3) At the beginning of this period all contracts signed by foreign countries
will be considered in abeyance until a system of fair bidding, by both
Iraqi and foreign countries, will be implemented ,by an interim Productivity
and Investment Board, chosen from pertinent sectors of the Iraqi economy.
Local representatives of the 18 provinces of Iraq will put this board
together, in local elections.
4) At the beginning of this period, the United Nations will declare that
Iraq is a sovereign state again, and will be forming a Union of 18
autonomous regions. Each region will, with the help of international
experts, and local bureaucrats, do a census as a first step toward the
creation of a municipal government for all 18 provinces. After the census, a
voting roll will be completed. Any group that gets a list of 15% of the
names on this census will be able to nominate a slate of representatives.
When all the parties have chosen their slates, a period of one-month will be
allowed for campaigning.
Then in a popular election the group with the most votes will represent that
province.
When the voters choose a slate, they will also be asked to choose five
individual members of any of the slates.
The individuals who have the five highest vote counts will represent a
National government.
This whole process, in every province, will be watched by international
observers as well as the local bureaucrats.
During this process of local elections, a central governing board, made up
of United Nations, election governing experts, insurgency organizations, US
and British peacekeepers, and Arab league representatives, will assume the
temporary duties of administering Baghdad, and the central duties of
governing.
When the ninety representatives are elected they will assume the legislative
duties of Iraq for two years.
Within three months the parties that have at least 15% of the
representatives will nominate candidates for President and Prime Minister.
A national wide election for these offices will be held within three months
from their nomination.
The President and the Vice President and the Prime Minister will choose
their cabinet, after the election.
5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the
principal after one year, and on the interest after two years. If Iraq is
able to handle another loan during this period she should be given a grace
period of two years, from the taking of the loan, to comply with any
structural adjustments.
6) The United States and the United Kingdom shall pay Iraq reparations for
its invasion in the total of 120 billion dollars over a period of twenty
years for damages to its infrastructure. This money can be defrayed as
investment, if the return does not exceed 6.5 %.
7) During the interim period all those accused of crimes against the Iraqi people,
or against international law will be given access to a fair trial.
The extent of the implications of the international nature of the crime, and the
security standards which exist in Iraq will dictate the place of the trial, and it’s subsequent procedures.
All defendants will have the right to present any evidence they want, and to
choose freely their own lawyers.
If they are found guilty they will be given all necessary appeals provided for by the jurisdiction
of their trials, and will be sentenced in Iraq, after all these appeals are exhausted.
If they are found not guilty they will be released and given protection under international law,
with the strict adherence to these laws by the judicial organs of a sovereign Iraq.
Of more interest is this article found through a link on www.antiwar.org.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/06/24/2007-06-24_no_iraq_exit_yet_says_us_general.html
The key point is this. Read the factors that Gen. Patreus says will influence the beginnings of a troop withdrawal. Now read them again. Now, tell me what’s missing.
What’s missing is any discussion of decision making by the civilian leadership of the US. If this truly was a democracy with civilian control of the military, the correct answer from Gen. Patreus would be to say “We are here serving a mission defined by the civilian government of the US, and when they say for us to begin withdrawing, we will withdraw. Now, if you want to know what advice I’d give, here are the things that I think we should see before a withdrawal.”
But notice that you don’t see that. What you see is a General in the US military saying that he sets the conditions for a withdrawal.
Back during the Clinton years, I thought it was rather obvious that there were times when the US military did not follow and openly contradicted the policies of the civilian leadership in the US. And even in the Bush years, when there is less disagreement between the two, there are still times when the military basically just seems to ignore the civilian leadership and does what it wants. This seems to be an example of that. If you listen to Patreus, it sounds like he’s saying when the US military will withdrawal, and what the Congress or even what the President says doesn’t matter.
The founding fathers of this country were scared to death of a permanent standing army. And they clearly tried to make it very, very clear that the civilian leadership controls the military. That’s the real intent of that commander-in-chief clause that Bush tries to blow into dictatorial powers. But if you look closely and watch, the military does what it wants to do, and when there’s disagreement between even the White House and the military, its the military that gets its way every time.
A clear indication that we are no longer a constitutional republic.
tj is right. get the f out now. completely. no ifs, ands, nobody’s big butts.
sevenpointman, the man w/the plan, nobody supports your plan cuz it’s Bull$hit. i think your plan is actually the 45 point plan: first we go here, then we go there, then we do this and then we do that and if something goes awry we can always go back.
the sheer brutal criminality of the iraq war is almost impossible to grasp, even for progressives.
This is a welcome development that a centerist think tank is breaking ranks with the DLC Democratic presidential candidates.
However, and I can’t begin to tell you how many times I said this to my friends or written it on my blog, the United States will not leave Iraq unless and until one of two events takes place:
1. Either a battlefield defeat of American forces in detail, a la Stalingrad or Dien Bien Phu. This means high U.S. casualties followed by a massive surrender to the enemy. But considering the weapons and training of the Iraqi “insurgents,” whoever they may be at any given time, this is a high unlikely scenario;
2. A general mutiny of all, or at the very least a sizable majority, army and marine units now in Iraq. Also highly unlikely, as we now have a well-paid All Volunteer Force of career soldiers and marines.
I think, inspite of what well-intentioned politicians and think tanks may say or do, the United States is stuck in Iraq for some years into the foreseeable future.
Unless the CAP has the authority to go into Washington and throw the murderers of our children out of the Whitehouse they should stop their pointless yapping.
Unfortunately, instead we should be calling for a draft.
Jed-
NO____my plan is very simple: and can be broken down into three components:
a) Try to stop the major aspect of the fighting-the insurgencies’ dedicated resistance struggle with the immoral occupation of their country-by directly implementing a feasible cease-fire followed by a timed and rational withdrawal.
b) Create an environment that inhibits, by direction of international law, the usurping of any Iraqi resources. Allowing a self-goverrning
Iraq federalist state, to function without interference.
c) Arranges for the perpetrators of this War- The United States and The U.K. to pay hefty reparations for their previous activities.
Your -get the f-out is emotionally satisfying for about one-adult nano second.
After that it’s just another way to continue to justify the “sheer brutal criminality of the Iraq war”.
COMarc ,in my estimation, is on the mark, as is Frank Rich in the NY Times to focus on Patreus’ comments: the Noecons are displaying their master talent of living for another day - setting up a further extenuation of their insanly murderous privitisation.
I agree also with some of the above that it is good to have some mental energy focusing and deliniating a how to troop withdrawl.
But most of all I agree with Spike June that pointless yapping should be focused on the main topic of the day: removing the insane behavior out of the White House - the word is IMPEACMENT!
One Mind: IMPEACHMENT!
One Heart: IMPEACHMENT!
One Voice: IMPEACHMENT!
I’m trying to infect the hip hop community to “spit” out the impeachment word, what are you doing with it?
A DRAFT?? IF WE HAD A DRAFT WE WOULD HAVE TO ‘CREATE’ MORE WARS TO UTILIZE THE ARMED FORCES. WE HAVE ENOUGH WAR NOW. WAR HAS TO STOP BEFORE WE IMPLODE AND SELF DESTRUCT. UNTIL DIPOLOMACY REPLACES WEAPONS AND REASON REPLACES WAR TIME PROFITS THERE ISN’T A LOT OF HOPE FOR LIVING TOGETHER IN PEACE AND HARMONY ON THIS DWINDLING PLANET.
Annabelle, wouldn’t the national conversation around impeachment be the start of the diplomacy and reason you call for?
Wouldn’t the repudiation of current war behavior through impeachment diplomacy be the call to civic duty Scott Ritter has espoused?
THANKS, PUCK: I AGREE 1000% WITH IMPEACHMENT. I VOTED FOR A CHANGE, AS DID A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE BUT I CAN SEE THAT CONGRESS IS COMPLICIT IN THIS WAR AS THEY ARE WITH GOING ALONG WITH THE DISCINIGRATION OF THE RIGHTS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO US BY THE CONSTITUTION. THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY HAVE NOT DONE AND IN ANY OTHER JOB WHEN YOU DO NOT DO WHAT YOU WERE HIRED TO DO YOU ARE SHOWN THE DOOR.
THIS IS A KANGAROO CONGRESS CATERING TO THE WHIMS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION. WE WILL HAVE WAR AND WE WILL NOT HAVE IMPEACHMENT UNTIL WE HAVE CLEANED HOUSE COMPLETELY. AND, WE CANNOT HAVE CONGRESSIONAL POSITIONS FILLED WITH HONESTY AND INTEGRITY UNTIL WE HAVE SOME SERIOUS ELECTION REFORMS AND OBVIOUSLY THIS CROWD ISN’T THE ONE TO DO IT.
The US went into Iraq because Saddam wasn’t being a good boy. He rejected the dollar and switched to the Euro. He preferred to deal with non-US oil companies. In spite of intensive bombing and crushing sanctions, he continued to stand tall. He had embraced a new piety and was often seen making his prostrations. In spite of the animosity of the US lackeys of the region, his popular appeal was growing.
He had control of his oil and was preaching a mature pan-Arab point of view. He was a genuine threat to US hegemony. He never thought the US would invade, he didn’t believe it. No one familiar with the region believed the US would be so stupid. Brutal dictator though Saddam was, he nonetheless forged an Iraqi national identity and created a secular middle class.
Bush invaded to restore US regional hegemony and take control of the oil. These brutal and stupid people have systematically destroyed Iraqi national identity. This was a conscious policy carried out by L. Paul Bremer and others who disenfranchised the Ba’ath political machine and hanged its leader in a most degrading and barbarous fashion. These brutal and stupid invaders have carried out a secret campaign to ignire sectarian strife and cause Iraqi society to tear itself apart. The Iraqi middle class has been destroyed and any hope that a secular Islamic culture will revive in Iraq is lost.
So now the US just pulls out completely leaving behind the carnage and destruction of a liquidated nation?
If there was a chance that the US could command Iraqi oil with Saddam in place, there is no chance that the US will command the oil if it pulls out. The two parties agree on that score. The US will reduce troop levels but maintain permanent bases sufficient to influence the “Iraqi government” to US ends. (”The South Korean model”)
In the absence of the US, Islamist leaders will reassemble Iraq more or less on the Iranian model. US hegemony will be lost.
Therefore, the US will continue to encourage sectarian violence as it systematically reduces Iraq to vassalage from the safety of its fortified bases. It will soon deploy the “Bull” an IED-proof vehicle to reduce US casualties. It will deploy more air power. It will oversee and guarantee the continued agony of the Iraqi population and blame it on al-Queda as it sucks up the oil. Iraq bases provide excellant positioning to menace the entire region.
So, Tom Hayden, what about the oil? If you pull out all the troops and shut down the bases, how are you going to get that oil? How are you going to maintain control over a region that hates your stinking guts?
You can forget about middle of the road options like training them to “stand up”. If you don’t dominate them and keep them mired in sectarian war, they will kill you first chance they get. If they do stand up it will be to destroy the US presence.
“Cut and run” from Iraq and you’re going to have an Arab Oil Embargo faster than you can say Ehud Olmert.
So, the real issue is, how quickly can we break the oil habit so we can stop killing these innocent people!
Annabelle:
The Swiss (here we go again) have compulsory military service but have not had a war in 160 years despite being surrounded by warring nations. The point is, if and when plutocrat and legislator’s kids and grandkids are drafted, they tend to be more careful about their warmongering. Having their kids in the military also gives people an incentive to protest. Also, you don’t have a mercenary army like Blackwater looking to drum up business and war profiteers and politician’s feet are held to the fire. A draft not only results in less warfare, but allows us to cut the gargantuan military budget to the proper size.
Hey did all of you see the article about the high school students who were members of the Presidential Scholar Program surprise Bush during the award ceremony by handing him a letter urging him to ban all forms of torture and restore full human and civil rights to the detainees accused of being terrorists. 50 students signed the letter and what was his reply? The usual bullshit - “The United States does not engage in torture and believes in human rights.” LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO HAD THE BALLS TO STAND UP TO CHIMPY AND PLEAD HIM TO END HIS TORTURE PROGRAM!!!!
Ah, this thread is a breath of fresh air from a passionate and decent group of Americans and others aroused to the fury of the righteous at the continuing mass murder of an entire people by one of the most brutal regimes in human history - - the Bush/Chenney nightmare.
jeddediah, tj, annabelle . . . you are right on the mark.
ets, I would not be too pessimistic about the capability of people who have held dying children and parents to prevail as you are in your Point 1. The demons are making many mistakes and they will make more as you will see in short order.
sevenpoint: you say:
” 5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the principal after one year, and on the interest after two years . . .”
The economic premises of your point here as well as in Point 6 (”$120 billion in reparations”, and that also as an “investment” if the ugly anglo-american does not believe he owes reparations for one of the most heinous war crimes in recent history) are, to say the least, unacceptable to any humane progressive anywhere in the world. I know you are trying to forge a reasonable sounding plan that the ugly anglo-american will accept. You may mean well but you have to change these presuppositions in your mind because no trained economist in the Muslim world will accept this BS.
How can there be any “debts” an invaded, raped, brutalized country and people owe to anybody, especially anglo-americans and europeans? And to even think that $120 billion over 20 years would cover the brutal murder of 2 million (so far since 1992) Iraqis (that is $3 per corpse per year), let alone the 2-3 million wounded, 2-3 million refugees, a $trillion dollar infrastructure ruined is . . . (I am at a loss for words).
As for CAP, all I can say after I looked at their website and people running the show (no black, brown, or oriental faces there)is that it is missing the letter “R”.
Annabelle: I would say that congress plays not to the whims of the current occupant but to the whims of the Ameican public that ARAB pointed out.
This is why my current public argument foucus’ on 2 points: Bechtel privitisation is not Iraqi freedom, and al Qaeda in Iraq was the same as al Qaeda in the US. I do this because these are the last 2 remaining lies (effective lies) of the occupants, and in a Band of Brothers series in the Detroit Free Press the only reason there is any type of troop support for “the mission” is due to the misperception around privitisation. Once “the Mob” consciousness consumes this…
I would also offer to feel the energy around your 1000% shout out. To me that’s the energy that can bring about Ritter’s and your repudiation. I was just in the street with it yesterday and it felt real good!
Also, wouldn’t a concerted call for impeachment send the messege to the polititians (who turn on a dime for a vote) what’s coming down in the next election impeachment or not?
And in Support of ARAB’s commentary a little metaphor: are we not now the Dragon, having swallowed fascism with WWII, with the need to digest and shit the lady liberty raping meal out?
So ARAB, what about those jet streams for our toilets?
sevenpointman, i was just busting your chops. you have many good things to suggest, no denial. and i like your 3 points better than your 45; i am a dumbass, slow-witted amuricun after all, who needs easily digestable talking points that take no more than a few seconds to process
the reason i said what i said about comprehending the brutality of the iraq invasion is not to deny that we need to do things immediately to alleviate that situation (who could disagree w/that?), but we need to realize the kind of system we are dealing w/here. for the 2nd time in a generation, the US is totally eradicating another country (vietnam being the other, of course.) even when we are not destroying a country w/direct military action, we do lots of little things to f up people’s lives (as we did thruout the 70’s, 80’s, & 90’s).
the point being, we have a systemic problem. 40 years from now are you & i and the rest of us going to be having another conversation about ending another genocidal catastrophe in another country that another US administration has razed to the ground?
practical steps to help iraq are abundant and many are obvious. the system-wide issues of US policy will prohibt most of those from being implemented either until the US is defeated (which the US will be, as it was in vietnam; but still, we’ll be at it again in 20 or so years), or US citizens change the system.
Dear Friends:
Firstly, let me be quite honest there will never be a military withdrawal of any kind from Iraq. Unless as one of the commentators mentioned above a complete battlefield loss and either the capture of Mr. Maliki or the overthrow of the Green Zone leading with the surrender of thousand of U.S. soldiers. Iran is the next frontier on this war on terror and the armada of war ships and aircraft carriers off the sea coast implies this is no vacation on the Rivera.
Secondly, the Bush administration is deeply involve in the events of 9/11 and the World Trade Towers did not fall because of Osama Bin Laden and 19 Arabs this is the cover-up of this war on terror. Yes, we have been conned by the NeoCons and the “progressive” gate keepers and the rest of the major news media have orders to contain this truth. But, slowly the truth is getting out. Millions of ordinary persons now see the truth behind this scheme and as the crisis unfolds the reality will become much clearer as the economic bubble colapses and the crumbling facade reveals the manipulation of the market and the devaluation of a dollar that is worthless. Only brute might will prevail and the Bush administration/Military Industrial Corporate Inc has prepared well for the Third World War. Why, because of the impending doom of peak oil, global warming and the like. In fact, the plans are for population control or better yet depopulation of the planet on a massive scale, think of billions. Yes, my friends I will be praying, because only a miracle will save the diabolical intentions of this administration and its cabal of conspirators. Only laughter gets me by these days and I try to enjoy everyday with my family and children for they are the true innocents in this scenario. May God Bless us all for what is about to come. P.S. I’m going to Disneyland!
Maria is probably right about the plan in store.
However, history shows several scenarios for the outcome.
What’s it going to take for the tide to turn? Catastrophic change is probably the only way for the large number of people to take notice. This can be brought on by nature or our actions.
I watched the new series “Planet Earth”, the one about the rain forest. It showed chimpanzees raiding a neighboring colony of chimps; killing a juvenile and passing around the body and eating it in some symbolic fashion.
I think the whole thing is going to boil down to whether we are any more advanced than chimpanzees. With all our modern communication and civilization how can we justify raiding our neighbor’s home because they are richer in resources than our country?
We are presently a selfish nation in which the majorities are too infatuated with their own wealth building to chance changing anything.
What needs to be done, we are warned will be a death sentence to the economy. But, the consumer economy is in a death spiral anyway because it’s in conflict with the limited size of the planet.
Change is inevitable, and either we all get together on this and do what’s right now. Or, we can be victims when a powerful band of CHIMPS comes and raids us.