After the ‘Surge’

To NewsWkDickG: your screen name indicates that you are associated with Newsweek. I find one key item interesting in this public discussion. That is YOU have NOT presented FACTS to back up your theories. I, as a member of the public, on the other hand, back MY conclusions based on VERIFIABLE FACTS. I recall that there was reliable information that a WMD program did exist, based on information from Iraqi expatriates. As the old saying goes, the first victim of war is the truth. And that may have been done before it ever reached Bush. I believe the key expatriate was Saddam's main opposition, someone who had far more incentive to get the US back in than President Bush. I see no factual evidence presented by you that shows President Bush knew, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the WMD program was either faked to ended after the expatriate obtained the documents, and knew before we were actually in Iraq. I see no factual evidence backing up your conclusions of the arrangement of Bush, Cheney and special interests. We now know that the Spanish American War was started by a boiler accident in the USS Maine, not sabotage. This isn't the first war we entered with faulty information. I am not going to blame the war on Bush if he, along with many others, was given faulty or outdated information.

Another item you mention is the US deaths. I see steady reports of Iraqi civilian deaths. Even the weapons caches we find are stemming the internal sectarian violence, not stopping it. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of other Iraqis is far more than the current US military deaths. That, along with the weapons caches and continuing operations by private violent groups, backs up my contention that we are reducing civilian deaths. It shows that if we had not acted then a major bloodbath would have ensued at the fall of Saddam's government. There has also been a steady, if not optimistic, stream of reports of improving co-operation between the three main factions. I don't expect centuries of sectarianism to disappear in a couple of years, based on the US history of racial relations.

I write long messages because the public doesn't know me, and by presenting verifiable information then I show that I can be trusted. And when I have been shown wrong, including one recent posting on a story a couple of days ago, I acknowledge the error. I like the public to know my thoughts, but also how I arrived at my conclusions. If my conclusions are not supportable by facts then I need to rethink them. Sometimes facts I don't have are brought out by other posters. In a recent story someone with firsthand experience brought out facts that were contradictory to another poster who was using sources that were probably not unbiased. I had to go with the person with firsthand experience.

In your case I see no fact to support your position or change mine.

http://www.execulink.com/~sixgeraghtyz/Terrorism/weapons/DepletedUranium.html

???(The Pentagon???s) assertion that no Gulf War veterans could be ill from exposure to DU ... contradicts numerous pre- and postwar reports, some from the US Army itself.???

??? Sen. Russell Feingold
(D) Wisconsin
September, 1998
Depleted Uranium Watch ??? Stop NATO!
http://www.stopnato.org.uk/du-watch/

A comprehensive collection of articles and links covering every aspect of Depleted Uranium weapons ??? scientific, political, medical, environmental and social.




DEPLETED URANIUM EDUCATION PROJECT
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

Index page for an extensive collection of reports and news releases.

I would really love to see Newsweek address the depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq. How much has been left on the ground or oxidized? What will the ramifications be and for how long? I wonder why there isn't any media coverage of this very important issue? I wonder how much of the American public is aware of what our government has done to Iraq and other countries. An in depth investigative reporting piece would be very enlightening to most of us.

Giving piecemeal information regarding the messy situation in Baghdad cannot tell the full story, let alone the exact scenario.

The Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are still suspicious of one another. The fear factor is all over the place. Yet politicians have the cheeks to claim the ever elusive peace.

The US generals and Maliki have diverse agenda; the future of the nation continues to be beyond prediction. No outsiders can help the torn nation to return to normalcy except the Iraqis themselves ??? yes , I repeat, except the Iraqis themselves. (Tan Boon Tee)

To berenger: if you want to build a ski resort in Florida then that is your choice, with your money. If you want the government to build one then write you Congressperson. If you want our troops out of the Middle East, then write your Congressperson. I'd rather have the ski resort closer to central New York if I have a choice. Our military prescence in the Middle East allows Gulf nations to concentrate their efforts on a peaceful economy and have international security without their own military buildup. I am in favor of ski resorts over guns and bombs in a politically unstable environment. If anyone is going to have their trigger on a gun, I'd rather it be me than the other guy. Given that some military force is needed for security, who do YOU want to have control of the guns, the US or the pot luck selection of the Middle East leaders?

I believe that the President and White House staff has the legal right to not testify before Congress to some extent under executive priveledge. It is recognized by the Supreme Court, though not explicit in the Constitution. Its part of the separaton of powers. I don't have the legal knowledge to go any further. Impeachment gets frequently bandied about, but seldom acted on. Impeachment is kind of pointless now, isn't it?

The EPA ruling I think you are referencing says the President has to turn over the documents after approval, it doesn't say which President. The President may be doing nothing more than allowing the next President to decide what to do. That's hardly uncommon in the final year of a Presidency. The people need to decide who they want for the next President before the office of the President complies with the order. The White House has the right to edit the report to some extent, possibly affecting EPA policy. This is something a lame duck shouldn't do. I'm on the President's side on this one. I don't want him setting a policy that will outlive his Presidency if he isn't comfortable with it.

On the other hand, Bush's choice to disband the army is a disaster he should have forseen. Putting half a million men with guns out of work is something less than brilliant.

To NewsWkDickG: You have a degree in psychology and claim that you did not intentionally pick your screen name to represent youself as being associated with Newsweek? OK, if you say so. I'll consider that statement as accurate and believable as anything else you say.

Oh, have you ever considered that if the US can elect a sociopath to the office of President that there are other sociopathic leaders out there? What is your evaluation of Saddam, or Qusay or Uday? I remember Henry Kissinger saying, upon being confirmed as Secretary of State...'I'm not paraniod, now I know people are talking about me.' Abnormal Psychology? I'd say that anyone who voluntarily works to become the most powerful person in the world, and succeeds, is by definition abnormal. I fail to understand why any degreed psychologist would consider using conventional psychology evaluations on the people taking on the etraordinary jobs of the White House elite. We do not live in their world.

You also center on the White House staff. There is a check on the President's power you haven't mentioned, Congress. All Congress has to do is not pass the funding for the war and it stops dead in its tracks. That's why our founding fathers put three branches in the government, to prevent sociopathic Presidents from presecuting a war, among other things. But that's another story.

Holly Garfield: What does what you ask have to do with anything? Are you inferring that if someone else is wrong or dishonest that makes it okay for us and others to be that way? Why are you rationalizing that if we didn't counter Iraq that Dubai would have had to; and what is wrong with us not always being the police force for the world? What good does an indoor ski resort do us when our economy has been given to China and the oil producing countries (with profits skimmed for Special Interests and a select few)? Proxy war? Hell we have lost 4000+ Americans and 100s of billions of dollars on a real war that was falsely justified and only benefited insiders.
The Iraq War was originally presented as being necessary against a rogue regime that had WMD and terrorist connection, all of which proved to be untrue. It was next rationalized as being part of the War on Terror, yet it never actually was and instead it took resources from that effort in Afghanistan and against the real al Qaeda (where now greater effort is still needed). Now it is offered that it is Iraq???s civil war when it never has been their war and really only our conflict for our leaders??? questionable reasons ??? in order to have it actually be a real civil war, the first thing necessary would be for us to get out. We have seen rationalizations offered as if the ???end justifies the means???, that we have gotten rid of Saddam and that makes it all worthwhile and now that it is a civil war that will result in a stable democratic country (which really remains to be seen) ??? if we accept that logic, it would simply justify a real Pandora???s Box and be against our principals. All of this has transpired with deceptive information and questionable reporting throughout while Special Interests and a select few have greatly benefited and America has paid dearly in thousands of lives lost and hundreds of billions of tax payers??? dollars spent. Something is drastically wrong with all of that and to ignore it is to condone it and is to encourage more of the same, which is what Nancy Pelosi and others should see instead of just what is politically expedient.

To NewsWkDickG: I see that you seem to center your opinion of the Iraq War on the US government and some mystery set of 'special interests,' whatever they are. I see virtually every interest a 'special interest.' You don't even understand that a proxy war IS a very real war. We are fighting for those who can't fight for themselves. I saw Saddam as a leader who had no trouble opressing his people with a very heavy military hand while raping Iraq of its resources and letting his people starve and die. I saw a country that was ready to rip itself to shreds as soon as Saddam lost power in a bloodbath of epic proportions. I have no problem with losing the 4,000 lives we have suffered to prevent the much larger suffering that was coming if we stood by and did nothing. We have an all volunteer millitary. I have the utmost respect for the service people who are willing to go in harm's way to bring down a tyrant like Saddam. We never had the choice of having no one die, the only choice was how many mothers and fathers would lose their sons and daughters. The arms caches we are digging up all over Iraq confirm beyond any doubt that if we were not there that many, many more mothers would lose their children in the end. I am satisfied that the price, as high as it seems to those not familiar with the history of war, is still the best that can be done.

I do not condone graft, corruption or dishonesty. I simply accept that it exists whether I condone it or not.

Why do you believe that Dubai and other Gulf nations would NOT have to counter Saddam;s military? We know for a fact, beyond any doubt, that he DID invade Kuwait. Or did you miss that story?

Why should an indoor ski resort in Dubai benefit anyone but Dubai? It's their ski resort, not ours. The world needs more indoor ski resorts and fewer armies.

Why should it only be a civil war if we leave? It sure looks like the biggest problem Iraqis have (the armed ones) is that we are stopping them from killing each other in greater and greater numbers. They are mostly angry at us for digging up their arms caches and getting in the way of their neighborhood feuds. If that's not a civil war I don't know what is.

I am sure the majority of Iraqis would be happy for the violence to end. I am sure the US, especially the military, would be just as happy. Unfortunately the minority is still big enough to override those wishes. If you had 99% of the people disarmed in a city of 1 million, you would still have 10,000 armed people. That's still a whole bunch of guns.

To NewsWkDickG: Golly gee, you mean that the Civil War wan't fought for special interests and political reasons???? You and I must be reading different textbooks. The South broke off to form its own country and the North wanted to get it back. If that's not invading a different country for political gain of special interests I don't know what is. Are you implying the Reconstruction wasn't a political and financial disaster preyed upon by ineptness, infighting, personal gains and corruption????? Shame on you!!!!!! As experienced businessmen often say about these things, its the cost of donig business.

Also to wrtr83: the FBI has several ongoing investigations into tour own current financial mess. We already have a number of high profile white collar indictments and convictions. Our Mr. Tycio, Dennis Koslowski, is a current resident of my local prison system. That along with Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom, Ms. homemaker Martha Stewart, Mr. junk bond Mike Miliken show that corruption is alive and well in the US. We are just better at routing it out, and a bit more public. As I have heard, don't steal, the government doesn't like the competition.

We still have managed to survive and thrive despite all of these problems. The Civil War ended up to the benefit of most. We are the industrial 600 lb gorilla even with orgainzed crime and political payoffs. Its not that we don't have these problems, its that we have learned to grow while they existed. This is one of the lessons that the hands on businessmen, the citizen soldiers, can bring to Iraq.

Given the technology and mechanization available now, I don't quite see this as a viable comparison to our revolutionary and civil wars. There is never really any good excuse for corruption. And there is never any excuse for needlessly invading another country and killing its citizens.

The narrative of the Surge vests itself in the continuing assertion by the American media[NEWSWEAK,among those most guilty],as well as their fellow travelers among the Left,that the Surge was a ''failure''. This oft-quoted observation was made no no less than three major NEWSWEAK contributors including Alter,Hirsh,and Dickey. Further it adopted a ''stuck within a civil war''on the one side,''American Alamos''[such as Fallujah and Ramadi], and a ''resurgent al Qaeda'' position which culminated in the infamous ''BETRAYUS'' ad run full-page in the New York Times which was later found to offered MOVEON a sweetheart ad deal it did not afford other organizations leaving the bovine Bill Keller,and his Howdy Doody sidekick Pinch Sulzberger explaining themselves[lamely,as usual],in a op-ed at the height of the ad furor.
''Failure-creep'extended into positions of Washington power. Joe Biden,clinging to his federalization scheme as a drowning man to a lifering,utterly dismissed the Surge. So too,in an incredibly stupid moment ,whereby the ''war was lost'',by the Senate Majority Leader,Harry Reid[D-NV]. As did an upstart senator from Illinois,Barack Obama,who asserted in Jan.of 2007 that the Surge would create more problems than it solved.
The near entirety of the American press corps and the Washington liberal establishment were wrong. The Surge was a brilliant success where its fruits will be required readings at military colleges worldwide.Petreaus stands as Americas finest general since MacArthur,who,unlike Schwartzkoff,and Powell,is directing on-ground,inside-the-shingle political reconciliation which has caused nearly every single province[including one last week that the American MSM barely addressed], to be turned back over to Iraqi control while tandemly whipping hell out of al Qaedas last remnents in Mosul[expertly covered by Americas new Ernie Pyles in Iraq,journalists Mike Totten,Mike Yon,and Bill Roggio].
The tune,as most evidence by Obama,is most certainly changing. The Surge[as well as the Iraqi KNIGHTS ASSAULT success in Basra which was orginally held up as another ''failure''by the MSM], is now seen to be an at the least,qualified success. No props to a supine media which should have observed these successes to begin with.