Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiStuff Happens
The Pentagon's Argument of Last Resort on Iraq
And this week Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen -- the man President-elect Obama plans to call into the Oval Office as soon as he arrives -- wheeled it into place and launched it like a missile aimed at the heart of Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan for U.S. combat troops in Iraq. It may not sound like much, but believe me, it is. The Chairman simply said, "We have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now. We have lots of bases. We have an awful lot of equipment that's there. And so we would have to look at all of that tied to, obviously, the conditions that are there, literally the security conditions… Clearly, we'd want to be able to do it safely." Getting it all out safely, he estimated, would take at least "two to three years."
For those who needed further clarification, the Wall Street Journal's Yochi J. Dreazen spelled it out: "In recent interviews, two high-ranking officers stated flatly that it would be logistically impossible to dismantle dozens of large U.S. bases there and withdraw the 150,000 troops now in Iraq so quickly. The officers said it would take close to three years for a full withdrawal and could take longer if the fighting resumed as American forces left the country."
As for the Obama plan, if the military top brass have anything to say about it, sayonara. It's "physically impossible," says "a top officer involved in briefing the President-elect on U.S. operations in Iraq," according to Time Magazine. The Washington Post reports that, should Obama push for a two-brigades-a-month draw-down, a civilian-military "conflict is inevitable," and might, as the Nation's Robert Dreyfuss suggests, even lead to an Obama "showdown" with the military high command in his first weeks in office.
In a nutshell, the Pentagon's argument couldn't be simpler or more red-bloodedly American: We have too much stuff to leave Iraq any time soon. In war, as in peace, we're trapped by our own profligacy. We are the Neiman Marcus and the Wal-Mart of combat. Where we go, our "stuff" goes with us -- in such prodigious quantities that removing it is going to prove more daunting than invading in the first place. After all, it took less than a year to put in place the 130,000-plus invasion force, and all its equipment and support outfits from bases all around the world, as well as the air power and naval power to match.
Some have estimated, however, that simply getting each of the 14 combat brigades still stationed in Iraq on January 20, 2009, out with all their equipment might take up to 75 days per brigade. (If you do the math, that's 36 months, and even that wouldn't suffice if you wanted to remove everything else we now have in that California-sized country.)
Getting out? Don't dream of it.
Going to War with the Society You Have
Back in December 2004, when a soldier at a base in Kuwait asked about the lack of armor on his unit's Humvees, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have…"
Rumsfeld was then still focused on his much-ballyhooed "transformation" in warfare. He was intent on creating a Military Lite -- the most pared down, totally agile, completely networked, highest of all high-tech forces that was going to make the U.S. the dominant power on the planet for eons. As it turned out, that force was a mirage. In reality, the U.S. military in Iraq proved to be a Military Heavy. In retrospect, Rumsfeld might have more accurately responded: You have to go to war with the society you have.
In fact, the Bush administration did just that -- with a passion. After the attacks of 9/11, the President famously pleaded with the American public to return to normal life by shopping, flying, and visiting Disney World. ("Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.") The administration and the Pentagon led the way. As the Pentagon's budget soared, its civilians and the high command went on an imperial spending spree the likes of which may never have been seen on this planet.
For them, Iraq has been war as cornucopia, war as a consumer's paradise. Arguably, on a per-soldier basis, no military has ever occupied a country with a bigger baggage train. On taking Iraq, they promptly began constructing a series of gigantic military bases, American ziggurats meant to outlast them. These were full-scale "American towns," well guarded, 15-20 miles around, with multiple PXes, fitness clubs, brand fast-food outlets, traffic lights, the works. (This, in a country where, for years after the invasion, nothing worked.)
To the tune of multi-billions of dollars, they continued to build these bases up, and then, in Baghdad, put the icing on the Iraqi cake by constructing an almost three-quarter-billion dollar embassy of embassies, a veritable citadel in the heart of the capital's American-controlled Green Zone, meant for 1,000 "diplomats" with its own pool, tennis courts, recreation center, post exchange/community center, commissary, retail and shopping areas, and restaurants -- again, the works.
In other words, abroad, we weren't the Spartans, we were the Athenians on steroids. And then, of course, there was the "equipment" that Mullen referred to, the most expensive and extensive collection you could find. As the Washington Times's Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote back in October 2007: "Watching them drive by at 30 miles per hour, would take 75 days. Bumper-to-bumper, they would stretch from New York City to Denver. That's how U.S. Air Force logistical expert Lenny Richoux described the number of vehicles that would have to be shipped back from Iraq when the current deployment is over. These include, among others, 10,000 flatbed trucks, 1,000 tanks and 20,000 Humvees." And don't forget "the 300,000 'heavy' items that would have to be shipped back, such as ice-cream machines that churn out different flavors upon request at a dozen bases…"
As Dr. Seuss might have put it: and that is not all, oh no, that is not all. In July 2007, for instance, the Associated Press's Charles Hanley described U.S. bases holding "more than the thousands of tanks, other armored vehicles, artillery pieces and Humvees assigned to combat units. They're also home to airfields laden with high-tech gear, complexes of offices filled with computers, furniture and air conditioners, systems of generators and water plants, PXs full of merchandise, gyms packed with equipment, big prefab latrines and ranks of small portable toilets, even Burger Kings and Subway sandwich shops."
And it doesn't stop there. In mid-2007, when the issue of our "stuff" first became part of the withdrawal news, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out: "You're talking about not just U.S. soldiers, but millions of tons of contractor equipment that belongs to the United States government, and a variety of other things… This is a massive logistical undertaking whenever it takes place." So, one might ask, what about those many tens of thousands of private contractors in Iraq and all their materiel? Presumably, some of them, too, would have to withdraw, mainly through the bottleneck of Kuwait and its overburdened ports. This would, as the military now portrays it, be an American Dunkirk stretching on for years.
The Argument of Last Resort
Now, back in the days when we had less experience fighting losing wars, Americans in retreat simply shoved those extra helicopters off the decks of aircraft carriers in chaos, burned free-floating cash in tin drums, and left tons of expensive equipment and massive bases behind for the enemy to turn into future industrial parks. At the U.S. Embassy in Saigon in April 1975, while everything in sight was being burned or destroyed including precious advanced electronic equipment, money actually rained down from the Embassy incinerator on the roof upon amazed Vietnamese allies huddled below, waiting for a promised airlift to safety that, for most, never came.
Withdrawal then was unsightly, unseemly, and environmentally unsound. But, as we know, the lessons of Vietnam were subsequently learned.
Today, the Pentagon and the military top command plan to be far more responsible consumers and far better environmentalists, however long it takes, and the Department of Agriculture's "stringent requirements" for the "power-washing" -- this, in the desert, of course -- of every object to be returned to the U.S. will help ensure that this is so. "Ever since U.S. authorities found plague-infected rats in cargo returning from the Vietnam War," the AP's Hanley has written, "the decontamination process has been demanding: water blasting of equipment, treatment with insecticide and rodenticide, inspections, certifications."
And don't forget the shrink-wrapping of those helicopters -- who knows how many -- for that long, salt-free sea voyage home.
Think of this as a version of the Pottery Barn Rule that Secretary of State Colin Powell supposedly cited in warning President Bush on the dangers of invading Iraq: "You break it, you own it." For the departure from Iraq, this might be rewritten as: You bring it, you own it.
You might say that, in the end, Bush's secret plan for never withdrawing from Iraq was but an extension of his shop-till-you-drop response to 9/11. The idea was to put so much stuff in the country that we'd have to stay.
And now, as the mission threatens to wind down, the top brass are evidently claiming that an Obama timeline for withdrawal would violate our property rights and squander a vast array of expensive equipment. You'll hear no apologies from the military for traveling heavy, despite the fact that they are now arguing against a reasonable withdrawal timetable based on the need to enact a kind of 12-step program for armed consumer sobriety.
Ever since the President's surge strategy was launched in January 2007, this argument has been a background hum in the withdrawal debate. Now, it's evidently about to come front and center.
A new president will be taking office. His withdrawal plan -- he spoke of it more accurately on CBS's 60 Minutes as "a plan that draws down our troops" -- is a modest one. After those American "combat brigades" are out, it's still possible, as one of his key security advisers, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, told National Public Radio last summer, that as many as 55,000 U.S. troops might remain in an advisory capacity or as residual forces. And yet, with the Iraqis urging us on, so many of the arguments against withdrawal have fallen away, which is why, when Barack Obama sits down in the Oval Office with his top commanders, he's going to hear about all that "stuff." For those who want to drag their feet on leaving Iraq, this is the argument of last resort.
As Donald Rumsfeld so classically said, in reference to the looting of Baghdad in April 2003 after American troops entered the city, "stuff happens." How true that turns out to be. When it comes to withdrawal, the most militarily profligate administration in memory has seemingly ensured that the highest military priority in 2009 will be frugality -- that is, saving all American "stuff" in Iraq.
Irony hardly covers this one. The Bush administration may have succeeded in little else, but it did embed the U.S. so deeply in that country that leaving can now be portrayed as the profligate thing to do.
By the way, in case anyone thinks that the soon-to-be-Bush-less Pentagon has drawn the obvious lessons from its experience in Iraq, think again. It still seems eager to visit Disney World.
According to Wired Magazine's reliable Danger Room blog, military officials are now suggesting to the Obama transition team that the next Pentagon budget should come in at $581 billion, a staggering $67 billion more than the previous one (and that's without almost all the costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars being included).
But like Rumsfeld's Military Lite, the Pentagon's Military Heavy plans are likely to prove a mirage in the economic future that awaits us. Perhaps the U.S. should indeed salvage every bit of its equipment in Iraq. After all, one thing seems certain: Washington may continue in some fashion to garrison an economically desperate world, but it will never again have the money to occupy a country in the style of Iraq -- largely because the Bush administration managed to squander the American imperial legacy in eight short years.
Someday, Iraq and all those massive bases, all that high-tech equipment, all those ice-cream machines and portajohns, will seem like part of an American dream life. Money may never again rain from the sky.
42 Comments so far
Show AllThe Russians have the air transport that the US lacks.
It's business, however payment in $ may not be acceptable.
Power washing is all about DU dust.
What about reparations for the wanton ,illegal destruction of
Iraq infrastructure and society.
Rats returning to America? thats your military and "contractors"
PS, you can't "power wash" the DU out them.
The Russians have the air transport that the US lacks.
It's business, however payment in $ may not be acceptable.
Power washing is all about DU dust.
What about reparations for the wanton ,illegal destruction of
Iraq infrastructure and society.
Rats returning to America? thats your military and "contractors"
I would think that the Iraqis have earned to keep almost everything we have taken over there and/or built there. And yes, it is that last desparate attempt to stay as long as possible because, who knows, maybe one of those neocon think tanks will have come up on another brilliant idea about how to stay longer.
And it would be easier if obama would get the moxie to fire the neocon generals and put a big halt to the cia's doings. If the cia is the president's private army as Chalmers Johnson calls it thus, then if the president stands them down, then they would become less invasive throughout the world.
This situation is another confirmation of the following thesis: Dubya, Cheney, & Co. "transitioned" to government because they were quite inept at real business (Bush & Arbusto, Cheney & Haliburton, etc.). Their boondoggle has left the new management with an immense clean up job. This means getting the heavy equipment out, because if it is left over, the faction that gets its hands on it has a huge advantage in the coming conflict over who will rule (history provides a valuable lesson regarding this, as Mao's armies were able to filch the majority of the surrendering Japanese Army's equipment at the end of WW2, and it was a decisive factor in their beating the Kuomintang in 1949). Alternatively, don't be surprised if some of the heavy equipment falls off the trucks and winds up in the clutches of some US proxies and allies (the Kurds are the likeliest suspects in this regard).
www.wunderman-comics.com
Move the equipment you want to keep into Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and stock pile it for transportation back Home. Then start moving the troops out. As for the private contractors, well sorry their own their own. I bet they will be moved out quicker than the troops.
I would have no problem with some of the equipment and bases being left for the Iraq government. Heck it's the least we could do for them.
Rickster
Great idea about storing it in Kuwait, etc. Where there isn't a will... strange to relate, they can't think of a way.
I wonder if bringing all that stuff home would reduce the upcoming military budget.
When they can lose 4 or 5 BILLION dollars - just LOSE it - isn't "prudent housekeeping" of materiel, affecting concern for its retrieval, a little precious.
They'll be scared of the details of that mega embassy they're building coming out, when it will be staffed on the nomal scale.
What most homelanders either forget or aren't aware of is that the military is unfortunately the economic engine of our economy - a choice made decades ago at the end of WWII and not likely to change any time soon. It influences our domestic and foreign policy, makes all of us its potential enemies, and promulgates more war. But this is nothing new. We've been at war almost since the founding. We're the modern Sparta - without the ethical and philosophical armature that ancient Sparta had upon which they built their military and their reputation.
My suggestion about withdrawal from Iraq? Take the weapons and the ammo, leave everything else - unless the Iraqis want us to clean up some of the mess. Which we should then do after we withdraw combat troops - and contractors. We owe those folks bigtime. Can you say 'reparations'?
Bless fucking you. I really hope this mess ends. Please God, and some crazy demigod human, that these assholes lose their bullshit fantasies.
Bless fucking you. I really hope this mess ends. Please God, and some crazy demigod human, that these assholes lose their bullshit fantasies.
Could we have a yard sale? Maybe then we could spend a little of the money on burial plots for the one million people we have killed.
azjoe
Leave the shit there. We probably have no room to store it here anyways!
I'm concerned we might try to withdraw too quickly.
'Personally, I think "US out now" as a simple mantra neglects to consider the full range of possible disasters that could ensue. For one thing, there would be an Iraq civil war. Iraq isn't having a civil war in 2008. And although you could argue that what is going on now is a subterranean, unconventional civil war, it is not characterized by set piece battles and hundreds of people killed in a single battle, as was true in Lebanon in 1975-76, e.g. People often allege that the US military isn't doing any good in Iraq and there is already a civil war. These people have never actually seen a civil war and do not appreciate the lid the US military is keeping on what could be a volcano.
All it would take would be for Sunni Arab guerrillas to assassinate Grand Ayatollah Sistani. And, boom. If there is a civil war now that kills a million people, with ethnic cleansing and millions of displaced persons, it will be our fault, or at least the fault of the 75% of Americans who supported the war. (Such a scenario is entirely plausible. Look at Afghanistan. It was a similar-sized country with similar ethnic and ideological divisions. One million died 1979-1992, and five million were displaced. Moreover, all this helped get New York and the Pentagon blown up.)
I mean, we are always complaining, and rightly so, about the genocide in Darfur and the inattention to genocides in Rwanda and the Congo earlier. Can we really live with ourselves if we cast Iraqis into such a maelstrom deliberately?
And as I have argued before, an Iraq civil war will likely become a regional war, drawing in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. If a regional guerrilla war breaks out among Kurds, Turks, Shiites and Sunni Arabs, the guerrillas could well apply the technique of oil pipeline sabotage to Iran and Saudi Arabia, just as they do now to the Kirkuk pipeline in Iraq. If 20% of the world's petroleum production were taken off-line by such sabotage, the poor of the world would be badly hurt, and the whole world would risk another Great Depression.
People on the left often don't like it when I bring this scenario up, because they dislike oil; they read it as a variant of the "war for oil" thesis and reject it. But working people, whom we on the left are supposed to be supporting, get to work on buses, and buses burn gasoline. If the bus ticket doubles or triples, people who make $10,000 a year feel it. Moreover, if there is a depression, the janitors and other workers will be the first to be fired. As for the poor of the global South, this scenario would mean they are stuck in dire poverty for an extra generation. Do you know how expensive everything would be for Jamaicans, who import much of what they use and therefore are sensitive to the price of shipping fuel? It would be highly irresponsible to walk away from Iraq and let it fall into a genocidal civil war that left the Oil Gulf in flames.'
Harvey
I'm concerned we might try to withdraw too quickly. ???
This poster must be working for AIAC & the right wing Israeli warmonger neocons because that's what they want !!!
They got us "into" Iraq but that was only their first stop the main objective was Iran & Syria & the whole Middle East.
The End Result was Total domination of the Middle East by Israel & its puppet the USA.
American Jewish dual loyalty to the Likudnic Israel must be stopped !!!!
http://nowarforisrael.com/
http://wake-up-america.net/
Harvey,
American Politics is a well choreographed puppet show Hollywood style, funded and run by AIPAC.
The "so called" Terrorism is a retaliation against the US government for American policy in the Middle East and its support of Israeli occupation in Palestine!!
James Petras tells it like it is and the only Americans that don't know it are the North Americans !!!!
These Zionist lobbyists/Propagandists/Politicians/ Financiers et al have hijacked American Foreign Policies, American Freedom of Expression.
Jews worldwide with their support of the Nazi tactics used by Israel against the Palestinian people are causing Anti Americanism worldwide.
All the violence, killing ,mayhem & destruction in the Middle East today and for the last 60 years can be traced back to Israel all the Depleted Uranium & Cluster bombs in Iraq & Lebanon. !!!
Zionism the real enemy of the Jews !!!!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20061026&articleId=3604
http://nowarforisrael.com/
http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html
http://www.representativepress.org/whylie.html
With the Pentagon, it's always two choices - win or lose, stay or go, etc.
But who said we have to bring all that shit back? How about storing some, moving some to friendly close-by countries, like Kuwait and the UAE, and giving a few tons of it to the Iraqis as a partial down payment on "we're sorry we f**ked y'all up so much."
Combined with all the broken crap (as if all 10,000 flat-bed trucks are working just fine,) we'd leave behind anyway, we're probably looking at, say, maybe 40% coming back to the USA, which means a year-and-a-half, tops.
Added bonus - lots of jobs created as the Pentagon sets to replacing the stuff we left behind.
One sentence can describe the situation.
OVER EQUIPED, OVER PAID, AND OVER THERE.
The material should be negotiated to be left - it probably has already been threshed through in way similar to this blog. I hope the Iraquis state clearly what can and cannot be left ON THEIR TERRITORY. Will the delpeted uranium dust be "power washed"?
Sioux Rose
Am I the only one who gets flashbacks of the unique possibilities attendant upon the army's stuff left in the field of war as depicted by the film, "The King of Hearts"?
snydly
No.
Not much to add, as usual, to Tom Engelhardt's most informative essay. One example of how very true it is can be seen by looking at how absurdly, even comically, overburdened the troops are, in full battle gear. They seem to typically carry an extra 100 lbs. or so of extraneous gear, in backpacks bulging two feet from their bodies, countless electronic gizmos attached to helmets and waists, a few dozen different weapons, in all enough high tech accoutrements to lend credence to the mostly fatuous slogan, "an army of one." All these guys seem to be lacking is their own personal Disney fantasy ride. It's probably in that gigantic backpack somewhere.
Mordechai and piltdown man: Absolutely correct.
If civilian control over the US military means anything at all, it means Mullen is the first to go if he tries to bullshit the Commander-in-Chief about how those in his command structure are incabable of marching back down the hill at least as fast as they first marched up it. If he can't do it because withdrawal is supposedly too big a logistical headache, then sack him immediately along with the horse he rode in on. Replace Mullen with somebody competent who will follow simple orders as they come down the chain of command.
Tom and other CDrs:
If this is "the ultimate argument, the final bastion against withdrawal", then exiting Iraq within less than 16 months is going to be a lot easier than I feared it will be. As Noam Chomsky might put it, this rationale for delay is so stupid that even a child could see right through it.
If a Dunkirk-vulnerable parade of US forces south through Kuwait is a genuine worry, then now would be a real good time to patch up things with Turkey, a country that steadfastly stood tall as a US NATO ally throughout the Cold War through thick and thin, only to be shat upon - lustily and publicly - by Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld in their shameful propaganda run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. High time to apologize for the Bushies' arrogance and brazen, sleazy efforts to bribe and blackmail the Turkish parliament into granting Uncle Sam's coalition forces permission to invade Iraq from Turkish territory simultaneously with the attack launched northward from our Kuwait staging area.
You don't have to have West Point training to see that by withdrawing US troops and supply "stuff" north across Kurdistan into Turkey, while simultaneously withdrawing troops and supplies south back to Kuwait (and by air from all those US-constructed air bases inside Iraq), that there's flexible alternatives available to speed up the withdrawal process rather than pretending that the mission cannot be done. Where there's a will, there's more than one way.
On the larger point of this "ultimate argument" against the 16-month time frame for ending the occupation, I feel those tempted to advance this line of obstructionist reasoning better be careful what they wish for.
If the Pentagon and its Iraq occupation private contractors think American taxpayers are going to send more good money after bad, they'd better think again. Not many folks in my midwestern neck of the woods are going to be impressed with the idea that our military presence in Mesopotamia has somehow become "too big to fail".
If some tanks or helicopters or ice cream makers or other warrior toys do wind up being written off as junk because it's now no longer cost effective to bring that equipment back out, this would make a good point of departure to begin a full scale Congressional investigation and related Justice Department criminal probe into recouping the cost overruns, idiotic waste, no-bid contract extravagance, and outright theft of public funds that has characterized the whole Iraq debacle dating back to the days of viceroy Bremer.
Every cloud has its silver lining, as they say.
Bill from Saginaw
Excellent post and points. I'm pretty sure Obama has selected Gen. James Jones as his National Security Advisor and I'll tell you now, there won't be any B.S.ing going on about withdrawal and how to do it.
Time to "turn out the lights, the party's over!" And the no-bid contractors can bring home their own shit...at their own expense.
Suffice it to say, very bad Presidents get us into pointless wars, while only a good to great President will get us out of pointless wars. The only question now is, is Obama going to be a good or great President, or just another military-industrial enabler (aka very bad President)? Only time will tell.
Ralph442
I have always said: "War is like a fire, easy to start, hard to put out." But it is imperative it must be put out. The new war front for our survival and security should be the war on global warming. The military-industrial-congressional-entertainment complex must be redirected into this earth saving endeavor.
If we can not "sell" this war to the American public and the world at large, then the same propaganda techniques should be used that are used in selling other wars. The "enemy" must be given all kinds of pejorative faces, names and characteristics.
Give global warming buckteeth, a sneery smile, black mustache, dark complexion, a weird "foreign" garb, and a strange and lisping accent. Make him a "homo" or pedophile, a "socialist/liberal/commie." Whatever it takes to get after this life threatening monster, to track him/her/it down and cast him/her/it out of our precious earths delicate environment.
snydly
Here's a curly 'stache and gotee for climate change...
Sometimes it's helpful to make a few observations and see where they take us. The following may seem too simple, or over the top, but consider:
The IPCC ice core data charts, and the same as seen in Gore's Book printed, so it can be studied, show us that there have been about 6 ice age cycles in the last 650ky. We are on the up-swing of a temp/CO2 spike now, with GHGs now well out of historical norms. This begs the questions---What weather phenomenon has defeated and reversed the previous spikes, yet not drastically lowered the mean planetary temp? ---What is the trigger? temp, CO2, other? Obviously, the reversals occurred before the ice caps melted appreciably, otherwise there would be no data to harvest...Is, then, the reversal of our spike immanent, or even, overdue (tipping point)?---When does the ice of an ice age build up? All at once or gradually, as the temp/CO2 decreases? ---How is the atmosphere supplied with the moisture and energy necessary to transfer so much water to the poles as snow and ice? ---What role does methane play as it is released from tundra and the oceans? ---Was there massive methane release during the previous cycles? Or did the reversals act to put the methane back to sleep, so to speak, before it could compound the greenhouse effect? ---There were humans present during the previous cycles, how and where did they survive the reversals? ---What can the paleo-geologic record found in the magnetic striping of the mid-Atlantic ridge tell us about tectonic plate movement and possible, or sudden, volcanic warming of the oceans? ---Is it possible that the mass of melt water transferred to the equatorial bulge would be sufficient to change the angular momentum of the earth enough to tweak the plates into movement? ---Does USGS data show increased activity along plate boundaries that might be a "forcing of the forcings" related to shifting water mass or rising landmass?
The answers to these questions are not hard to compute. The answers dictate the type and intensity of response that is called for. The answers have probably been known for some time, by some people who have the connections and means to respond. The answers demand a change to the status quo, a change from "growth and consumption" to sustainability and survival. Look at the tops of the spikes and decide if we have any more time to dally around with any energy sources that add heat or GHGs to the ecosphere. Coal and oil are out. Nukes and geo-thermal are out. NG, too, even though it's cleaner. The grid has to change. Wealth has to be used in different ways. It's a different game, and we're all in the same boat.
We can have just as much fun surviving with wind and sun, as with burning and consuming---let's do it!
Additionally:
Subjectively, one of the main characteristics of a spike is that everything is relatively normal, until it isn't. We are getting lots of clues now.
The emerging scenario seems to be: rising temp melts land-borne ice along with sea ice. Fresh water disrupts the thermo-halyene circulation of the gulf stream and if we're lucky, that's as far as it goes--an ice age cycle of normal proportions is initiated and technologically enabled civilization is disturbed, but maybe not destroyed.
If ice melts at such a rate as to enhance the above, another scenario might unfold: Land-borne ice melt flows to the equatorial bulge (the planet is not a perfect sphere-it bulges at the equator because of centrifugal force) thus changing the mass distribution and angular momentum of the earth and putting enough pressure on the tectonic plates to start a geotectonic event that would activate the ring of fire and the mid-Atlantic ridge. The resulting undersea volcanism, (not to mention the earthquakes, and worst case, the popping of the Yellowstone magma dome,) would flash heat the oceans. That seems to be the hidden key to how and when an ice age starts, and how it gets the moisture and enough energy to move that much water back to the polar latitudes, forming the glaciers, part of which slide on down around Cincinnati, melt and recede over the next 110,000 years.
Apparently planetary methane has been sequestered for a very long time--dinosaur time. It would be very bad for us to loose enough heat into the mix to stir up the methane. The previous ice age cycle/reversals evidently have occurred soon enough to keep the methane down under frozen tundra and cooled ocean water. An additional factor related to tectonics gleaned from USGS info is that land masses such as Greenland, relieved of the weight of the ice, tend to rise, actually float higher on the magma. National Geog had an article on the mechanics of the melting that is shaping up on Greenland---flows of melt water form surface streams which drop through the thousands of feet of ice to the land surface, creating a layer of slush under incredible pressure. The next dot in that progression is: earth tremor, separation and departure of a largish section of that ice cap which, worse case, might produce a tsunami out into the Atlantic. Or worst case, a chain reaction of tsunamis as some of the crumbling islands in the east Atlantic loose a mountain or two (PBS).
A serious multi-disciplinary approach, including even rogue generalists seems called for.
So…amazing deductions, pseudo-science in prose, or story board for “The Day After The Day After Tomorrow”?
First, the troops couldn't be withdrawn until they achieved victory.
Now, they can't be withdrawn because of all the equipment.
Nobody said cleaning up Bush's mess wouldn't be costly or difficult.
Truman fired MacArthur. Ford ordered final withdrawal from Vietnam. Obama can bring the troops home from Iraq. He just needs the guts to stand up to the warmongering assholes who think that sending American soldiers to die in a lost cause somehow protects America's honor.
While we are building stupid infastructure in Iraq, the native inhabitants whom surround these areas are deprived of even the most basic resources. Not to mention the millions of poor Americans who are starving and have been kicked out of their homes. Oh well, priorties, priorites.
All hail Wall Street and corporations worldwide.
Thats the truth. Our Embassy building there is embarassing when we can't even provide basic services to the Iraqi. And yes, lets not mention those millions of Americans this money could have helped. It hurts the heart to think of it.
Embarassing is an understatement. It's like the Czar's palace and Louis XVI's residence in Versailles rolled into one. And the people who built them are just as arrogant. It would be fitting for the US to just leave them and let the Iraqis use them as they see fit. And we would be better off economically if we did that, and better off economically if we just left everything behind and got out quickly. It doesn't matter if we just abandon all that "stuff" that's in Iraq. Let the Iraqis have it all. Weapons too dangerous to let them have should be put in piles and blown up. We need to get everyone out of there and spend a lot of national energy "licking our wounds", i.e., giving the soldiers everything they need to make them whole, then start "minding our own business" i.e., rebuilding our infrastructure. ARE YOU LISTENING MR OBAMA? What a fucking sick world.
"Embarassing is an understatement."
OK, you got me! It is an understatement. A big one. And we can remove our equipment fast enough that we don't have to destroy much and still get our troops out soon.
As to helping our troops get back, I detest Gov. Goodhair as we call Perry, but I'm very proud of his action in this, Republican or not.....................
Gov. Rick Perry today announced the creation of the Texas Veterans Leadership Program (TVLP), a resource to help veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan assimilate to civilian life in Texas by providing employment and training services, resources and referrals. TVLP will be overseen by a state director, and will recruit 28 veterans to serve as local Veterans Resource and Referral Specialists, or liaisons in workforce centers across the state.
In August, he called on the Texas Legislature to provide in-state tuition to all qualified veterans, their spouses and dependents as gratitude for their service and sacrifice to our state and country.
It takes months to turn normal human beings into obedient automatons who can be pointed at people and things and ordered to destroy them - the process we call making a 'soldier' out of you. Okay. We make human beings into 'soldiers' who go off to war and see and do terribly destructive and repellent things but we don't make 'human beings' of them when they return. So we have huge numbers of veterans bouncing around the country like damaged, self-destructive time-bombs. We owe it to them to return them to human beings when they return from war.
The native americans where I live send more young men to the military than any other cultural sub-group of our nation. When one of their young men return from war, they also attempt to 'de-program' them back into 'human beings'. It's a cultural difference; some cultures care about people, especially their own people, some don't. I'll let you decide how our culture fits into the picture.
If Iraq was really a "nation" (it isn't, Iraq is a collection of differing tribes, sects and clans each of which has its own self interest as its primary motivation) shouldn't a large portion of items like 10,000 flat bed trucks and 20,000 humvees be left in Iraq so the new government can defend itself and provide much needed services to the citizens of Iraq?
And why am I thinking that some Bush Crony Capitalist is going to charge Uncle Sugar about $2.00 less to pressure wash a truck than what Uncle Sugar paid for it?
And as to the tanks and other armored vehicles that have been damaged (there are thousands in need of major repairs) I saw a documentary on TV a couple of years ago entitled “Ship Breaking” that was filmed in India where there was a twenty mile long beach that experienced very high tides. At high tide obsolete freighters, tankers and other ships were driven, as fast as they could go, ashore. At low tide the ship was nearly all on dry ground. Much like an army of ants dissecting the carcass of a dead animal, hoards of barefoot workers with acetylene torches would then cut the ship up into pieces weighing several hundred pounds which were then carried by hand by crews of 8 or 10 men to be shipped to steel mills as scrap steel.
I have little doubt that armored vehicles in need of major repairs(and there are many thousands in that category) could meet a similar fate.
I believe Obama's new National Security Advisor can speed things up. He is first class, brilliant and honorable. And nobodies yes man.
Ha ha, you are joking, right Thomas?
I most assuredly am not. This guy was Third Marines in 67-8 in Viet Nam, I can tell you he's no coward. Brilliant strategist.
He has varied experience since, understands the world quite well. He is honest and trustworthy, I would trust my family to him. The Republicans tried to get him but he refused, Condi tried to get him later as a deputy, refused again.
I think he will help us get out sooner. He is another soft power advocate.
Sounds just like what Israel is still doing today in Palestine. Difference is we only want military bases; Israel wants a whole country.
Hoa binh
Tom: the standard military procedure for "stuff" that is difficult, costly, or too time-consuming to take long during withdrawal has always been "blow it up".
One reason why that may not be done is that Karachi is closer to Basra than any US port. It will therefore be cheaper to ship "stuff" from Iraq to Pakistan and on to Afghanistan than from the US to Pakistan and Afghanistan. The military will ask for plenty of time to decide which "stuff" must go to Karachi. One trouble is: neither Basra nor Karachi are "100% safe".
On numerous occasions I have pointed out that withdrawing troops but leaving US civilians in Iraq is a dangerous gamble. One more "Fallujah" and President Obama must "protect American lives" by reversing any withdrawal strategy. Protecting US civilians is another reason to 'go slow". It will also be a reason to ignore any agreement with the Iraqi government.
I repeat: civilians who are not indispensable for the armed forces must leave Iraq first.
The false notion that our Government cannot order US civilians out of Iraq is too ridiculous to be discussed.
I confess.
I used to make a similar argument against withdrawing our troops from Vietnam.
In my defense, I was in elementary school at the time.
We have too much STUFF there to allow us to leave.
What an absurd world we live in.
PK
All President Obama has to do is tell these recalcitrant generals, "If you can't do it, I'll fire you and get someone who can." We'll be out in 16 months. We got in there like a streak and we can get out just as quickly.