Deadliest Year, Impeachment & Bush at lowest approval ev

[Adam Gamradt]

I love trudeau's take on this very debate:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2007/db071106.gif

Doonsbury's pretty good stuff, but the whole Darth Cheney motif is played out.

I prefer the timeless wisdom of John Fogerty.

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, theyre red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, dont they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no millionaires son, no.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh,

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no military son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, one.

It aint me, it aint me, I aint no fortunate one, no no no,
It aint me, it aint me, I aint no fortunate son, no no no,

[laxfan25]

Let's accept the US Command spin on these numbers and say "The surge is working!" What now? What is "holding the peace" over there? Is it the increased presence of 28,000 troops? Since this surge is unsustainable beyond April - what happens then? This is but one of the dilemmas we face. It's not the Iraqis that are standing up that will allow us to stand down - it's the US efforts that are causing this drop, which means we've got to keep at it if that truly is what is holding the line.

Others do make the case that there has been substantial ethnic cleansing and partitioning of the country and Baghdad that have caused this drop in Iraqi deaths. Many citizens have turned to their own militias for protection, and once we leave they will be able to do battle again. There has been nothing done on the national government level to make this a lasting situation - so we are pretty much stuck with our finger in the dike, but also spending hundreds of billions of dollars in the effort - without asking the US people to make any financial sacrifice to pay the price. To me that is a bit hypocritical - to campaign for sustained tax cuts while running up the national credit card to record levels.

As for the comparison to WWII casualty rates - the number of soldiers deployed is much, much less. Medical care is much, much better with Medivac choppers whisking the injured out of the battlefield in record time. As of Oct. 1 the US death toll was 3,852, but the number of wounded was over 28,000. Those wounded veterans are also part of the price we've paid - not just the dead. Also, the "war" was over in 43 days - that's when major combat operations were over and the mission was accomplished. The US dead at that point? 140 lives. That means 3,712 additional have been killed keeping the peace since, and yes, we will assuredly pass another "grim milestone" in the not-too-distant future. 4,000 dead may not seem like a lot to some, but to the families of each and every one that has given his or her life for very questionable reasons, it is a very heavy price to pay.

The possible success of "the surge" also reinforces the negligence of the civilian adminstration in the conduct of the Iraq war. President Bush is fond of saying that he relies on "his generals" to tell him how many troops they need. If you remember back to the start of the incursion, the Army command was saying that we would need 400,000 - 500,000 troops to not only defeat the Iraqi Army but also to establish security in the aftermath. Those that were saying so were told by the Secretary of Defense to shut the hell up or get out. Now we're being told that it is the addition of 28,000 troops that is helping us turn the tide. One can wonder what might have been if we went in with the recommended number of troops, and also took the advice to not disband the Iraqi Army. That is all hindsight, and the clearest hindsight says we should have never been sold on this war to begin with, but it's too late for all of that.

It's ours now though, and we will be paying the price in men, material and treasure for many years to come. (But wait! We have the opportunity for one more quick surgical strike before this administration is drummed out of office. Let's not pass it up!)

I am not against our military at all, and I respect the efforts they have put in in trying to carry out an ill-conceived and contrived mission. After all, they are the ones that are bearing the direct cost - not us. No draft - no war tax - this one is easy!

[Dan Wishengrad]

Nice, relevant CCR reference, Adam. But I think Jackson Browne actually said it better:

You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you've seen it before
Where a government lies to its people
And a country is drifting to war

There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the USA stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends?
These governments killing their own
Or the people who finally can't take anymore
And they pick up a gun, or a brick or a stone

And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

There's a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
We can't even say the names
They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us everything from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars

I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight and to die...

[OAKS]

when will it end? or will this war ever end?

[Retired General] Abizaid Warns of 50-year U.S. Presence in Middle East

[Dan Wishengrad]

I would question whether this administration really wants us out of Iraq at all. Given the size (and cost) of the military bases we have built, it sure appears that we are planning to maintain a permanent presence there.

Too bad the Dems in Congress don't have the stomach for an Impeachment case against the V.P., who I believe has indeed committed treasonous offenses and should be thrown out of office and imprisoned. Since the GOP members of the House have voted with Kucinich, I think we should call them on their bluff and move forward with this NOW. Let's shed some sunshine on the whole sorry affair and specifically Cheney's role in taking the U.S. down this tragic and uneccesary path.

[Gvlax]

when will it end? or will this war ever end?

[Retired General] Abizaid Warns of 50-year U.S. Presence in Middle East

well we are still in Germany and the war was over over 60 years ago.

[laxfan25]

The Spanish-American War ended in 1898 and we're still in Cuba, Guam and Puerto Rico and only recently closed our naval base at Subic Bay in the Phillipines.
And of course we're still in Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming courtesy of the Mexican-American War, ended in 1848.
I don't think we'll be pulling out of those captured territories anytime soon!

[Dan Wishengrad]

Count me as in favor of letting Texas secede from the Union anytime they want to! LOL

[Zeuslax]

There is no doubt that we will have a long and sustained presence in the Middle East. But, I think what everyone really means to say is that we will have a long and sustained presence in Iraq. There isn't any politician strong enough or with enough Oxethia (as we say in Greek to change) that will change course.

We are constructing the world’s largest embassy. The embassy will essentially be a fortress and a minor league Green Zone. Having said a million times that we don't want to be seen as an occupying force in Iraq we proceed to construct a 104 acre complex that will cost over a billion dollars a year to run. What if we put that billion to work on national programs for energy reduction (lets be honest were not over there for the sand and glass production) instead of this embassy we would have a instant net result. Why not take half of this money and put it into local aid for the Iraqi people, which we know would have a better result?

[Dan Wishengrad]

Excellent point about the Baghdad U.S. embassy, Anthony. Along with what I said about the huge and costly military bases we have built, it should be obvious that we planned to remain in Iraq indefinitely to protect our (oil) interests.

But this only makes the lack of planning by the Chicken Hawks that much more unforgiveable a sin. Did Cheney really believe that we were going to be cheered as "liberators" and showered with flowers insetad of IEDs? He has to be either the biggest liar ever to occupy such a high position in America OR the most incompetent. Or could it possibly be both?

I am angry at the timidity of the Democratic majority in the House not to press forward with impeachment, especially given the drumbeats the VP is already beating for an invasion of Iran. We simply can't afford to allow him to remain in office until '09, not considering the havoc he can still wreak on America in the next 14 months. His high crimes are far worse than Andrew Johnson's, Richard Nixon's or Bill Clinton's, and he is more than simply guilty of violating his oath of office to protect, to preserve and to defend our Constitution.

[TheBearcatHimself]

The Spanish-American War ended in 1898 and we're still in Cuba, Guam and Puerto Rico and only recently closed our naval base at Subic Bay in the Phillipines.
And of course we're still in Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming courtesy of the Mexican-American War, ended in 1848.
I don't think we'll be pulling out of those captured territories anytime soon!

We're also still in North America, we have been stationed here continually since 1492 when the first white forces invaded and beat back the infidels.

In seriousness, anyone who thinks we are leaving Iraq soon is not defining "leaving" correctly. We will have troops of some sort in Iraq for decades because unlike Vietnam, Iraq is so factioned that there will always be some disadvantage groups (insert Kurds or next group here, whichever is convenient) who want us to help defend them. We can always rationalize being in the Middle East because there will always be a loosely defined "enemy." And our continued actions will never allow this ideological enemy to cease to exist. I'm not complaining, and if I were it would be pointless, we are in this for the long haul, or I guess I could say looooooooooooooooooooooong haul.

[Gvlax]

vote ron paul, only way our troops will be back in the US... he is that radical

[Dan Wishengrad]

Good post, Will, and you are correct about us now having to maintain some kind of military presence in Iraq through the rest of my lifetime, anyway. Sad and tragic.

Now to veer slightly off-topic, it's also sad to consider how America allies itself with a despot somewhere in the world one day, and then the next our own soldiers are dying to oust this same regime we helped to establish and/or prop up. Examples: In WWII our key allies were the British and the Soviets. Yeah, the USSR sure turned out to be a good and trusted friend the next forty years, didn't they? Next we armed and trained Ho Chi Minh and helped him establish the Viet Cong army following WWII. Long time UC Davis lax mentor Ray Grilecki (Maryland alum, '36?) was one of our lead operatives in Southeast Asia at the time, and Ray helped the CIA train Ho. Unfortunately 50,000 Americans later died in Viet Nam fighting this same army we had helped to build in the first place.

Then we gave money, weaponry and training to a guy named Osama Binh Laden (oh yes, we sure did!) when his Mujahadin army was fighting the occupying Soviets during their war in Afghanistan, near the end of our own Cold War. That alliance sure turned out great for America, didn't it?

Even more recently we helped arm Saddam Hussein and gave him all kinds of military hardware, weaponry, arms training and financial backing during the Iran-Iraq war in the '80s. Saddam was a key strategic ally of the U.S. against the spread of radical Shiite, Islamic fundamentalism which had arisen in Iran coinciding with the return of Ayatollah Khomeini from exile in France. Now that we have deposed this same dictator, we have seen Iraq fall victim to this same spreading Islamic fundamentalism we had propped him up to oppose in the beginning.

With "friends" like Josef Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, does the USA really need enemies?

[OAKS]

With "friends" like Josef Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, does the USA really need enemies?

Friends like the Ayatollah when we overthrew the Iranian democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax

We really haven't done a good job of spreading democracy throughout the world, whether those examples above or the many installations of dictators in Central & South American countries.

[laxfan25]

We really haven't done a good job of spreading democracy throughout the world, whether those examples above or the many installations of dictators in Central & South American countries.

Well that's because we really haven't made it our national mission to spread democracy until very recently. U.S. foreign interests have almost always relied on having dictators in power - it is much easier to corrupt and control a single or handful of individuals than it is to try to influence a democracy - that is a really messy form of government - way too many people involved in the process.
That is why we have helped to overthrow the democratically elected gov't of Iran and install the Shah. He got very, very rich as a consequence but we had easy access to his oil for decades, and he in turn spent a LOT of his profits buying weapons from the American military-industrial complex - and if yiou don't think the MID holds a LOT of sway here in the US of A...
Of course as the Shah was toppled we needed to install a counterbalance in the region - someone that would keep the revolutionaries occupied - "Hey you - the big guy with the bushy moustache - what's your name? Satan? Sadman? Oh, Saddam! Hey, you wanna run a country? We're here to help! Wanna buy some weapons?"
And of course there is that other country in the region that we hope never gets a whiff of democracy - Saudi Arabia. Man, if things go to hell (or a free and open election) there we are in BIG trouble.
It's tough playing the game of Risk when it's done with real people and armies.