Stuck In Iraq

Well Kerry said it and despite the source it seems more true with each passing day - we are stuck in Iraq. First, it is doubtful that we are getting enough of the news from Iraq but the level of violence is clearly worse now than at anytime in the past. The violence is not random, rather it appears to be calculated to drive the civil war to ever higher levels. There are apparently at least two campaigns of violence there which seem to be more problematic than Al Quaeda-- Sunnis against Shiites, and Shiites perhaps for national dominance against Sunnis and to a lesser extent against Kurds. Yet, our government wishes to revisit the theme of fighting terrorists over there rather than over here-- seems like that denial thing at work again. In Vietnam, the historical revision suggested that the so-called enemy there was not ideology but ordinary people fighting an invader. In Iraq, we clearly are an invader. Clearly, we will be blamed for much of the destruction. Clearly, this nearly incredible loss of life has the potential to foster a real brand of terrorism for there has been an enormous loss of life, even the more conservative estimates exceed 100,000. This is a horribly excessive price to pay to take down a government as weak as the Saddam-Baathists.
The costs to the US in the range of 200 Billion for next year for Afghan-Iraq( 600 Millions per day) is also a horrible use of national resources--most of us would rather see that money educate all of our children or universal healthcare or to create new industries here. It's like a menu that offers Chicken soup or the e coli special--and somehow we don't choose the soup.

Iraq Commission Disappoints....

Well if you had low expectations concerning the contribution of the Iraq Commission you might still have been disappointed by its Report. The primary value of the report may well be in its appraisal of the Iraq policy and how much domestic political concerns have apparently affected it. It was startling to see the images and sheer levels of violence portrayed in the Report which appear in stark contrast to the information which has previously been provided to the press and public.
The public would have long ago concluded that Iraq had fallen into a grave and divisive civil war from which there is no apparent recovery based on the sheer breathtaking level of violence. The public would have had a very different reaction to the costs of the war in terms of Iraqi deaths and casualties.. One finds it difficult to imagine an entire world of governments and resources could not have developed a more effective and less deadly method to dismantle the puny military under Saddam's control at the time of the invasion.
The commission disappoints in its primary focus on the domestic political process by calling for resolution of the deployment issue in advance of the presidential primaries in 2008. There is a body of well founded opinion in the American public that much of what has transpired in Iraq: the timing of the invasion, the desperate use of flawed intelligence, the uncorroborated assumption of a Saddam role in 9/11; was in its totality dominated by the re-election of President Bush. This, if even minimally true, would be an omission of Presidential responsibility of an historic proportion. However, the Commission essentially legitimizes this approach by its own politically inspired sense of urgency-- a premature politically motivated onset to this war could certainly be made worse by an artificial timetable for resolution similarly tied to the election cycle. All in all, the new Congress should be even more interested in developing it's own factual basis for Iraq policy development and evaluation--the national mandate of November, 2006 seems to require it.

Iraq has Solutions- but not useful ones

Iraq and the US campaign there have been historic in the contemporary sense--events that could influence over a two year period or until the next election cycle. Yes, even history has been shrunk down to Republican Party dimensions-- so dominant have been the "politics only" style of running the US government. It was a Republican political success -the entire Iraq campaign from the business planning, to the fund raising, to the feeding of contracts to Republican friendly contractors, to the huge war profits pumped into the economy, to the mindless escalation of energy prices--a Party success of unparalleled proportions. Everyone knew that the build up to the invasion was a big lie--most ignored reality and supported the war. It is hypocritical now that so many more condemn the war--but mercifully war has that effect even when the coffins of our soldiers are carefully hidden from view. The military performed well but has provided excellent cover for the political operations that have flourished under the guise of the liberation of Iraq--for as the undeniable facts show-the liberation of Iraq is a mirage and the ethnic warfare for control over the vast wealth of the country has just begun. The future of Iraq is uncertain but there are many , many workable solutions but none have a sufficient relationship to the Republican Party position in the elections of 2008 and that is the problem. The business of the next war may be more important to the elections in 2008 and Iraq may be left to drift unless the Democrats stumble into taking over policy developments -which when done from the Congress-- only portends that things would be even worse in Iraq while the Iraq majority with guns and bullets do the work we hoped they would do with ideas and ballots.

Draft Not Needed to Limit War

The draft won't limit the initiation of force- oh it would be different if there were a universal draft- we would have more personal engagement to the power elites if their own children had to go off to earn their copororate dividends by risking their lives in combat-- Mr. Rangel we owe you a great national "thank you" for putting that thought into the mainstream.Using drafted soldiers would not really affect the decision to use force it would really only go to the end war public pressure as the casualties might begin to mount. We have seen the innate appeal to Americans to support troops once committed to combat. The modern constitutional interpretation of war powers- and post 9/11- gives unlimited discretion to commit troops to the Executive. The all volunteer army has shown it runs out of volunteers in these confused and unclear policy situations like Iraq--we have had to move national guard forces into the theater of combat and extend tours of duty to maintain person power as needed. This has been an effective drag on continuing to escalate the military role. The best approach to avoiding war is to interdict the cycle of wars tied to presidential re-election campaigns. With all due respect the hundreds of $billions, loss of thousands of lives, and further destabilization of a critical region was a too steep price to pay to unseat one petty dictator in Iraq and re-elect a mere politician in Washington, D.C..

Putting the Pub back in Republican

I think there was some small degree of soul searching in DC last night but a whole lot more heavy drinking among the rePUBlican establishment-- a particularly bitter defeat because of the arrogance of the defeated party--they thought they could just Rove the Democrats again.
The Democrats for their part have the high ground now because they do not have to defend the misCONDUCT of the war in Iraq-- they don't have to come up with answers about how to do it better- beca-a-ause it was their idea not to do it at all. And certainly it was their idea not to do it alone, and it was their idea not to do it so that we could accommodate the fund raising for the 2004 re-election of President Bush. So the Republican "spin artists" that want to put the burden of resolving the war on the House and Senate Democrats will be disappointed--the people already know who started this mess and who has made it even worse.
The Democrats will look into the things that led up to the invasion and they will be harsh as they should be when a leader misuses information to set off a war. More important though the Democrats will begin to find a voice to resonate with the public on things that are much more important than Iraq-- economic opportunity, jobs/careers; energy independence, and the almost completely ignored topic of the effects of industrial/commercial activities on the environment-- that story about the disappearing fish has some importance--what kind of world will we leave to our children's children.

GOP WINS AGAIN- yeah, they probably will

As a Democrat, I feel a need to start wearing a bag over my head--like the football fans in New Orleans-- call the Democratic Party the - "Has -Dems :because it seems there ain't no more of Dems. It was bad enough losing the Count to Bush in 2000. Then the debacle in Ohio in 2004 with the long waiting lines in the black neighborhoods effectively suppressing the vote in many Ohio communities . Now 2006 with all the newspapers using the polls to sell their big expectation stuff only to find that on election eve--there is no lead in the polls it's a statistical dead heat-- well that all well and good because now the rank and file know that they are needed and they must turn out; but turning out and being counted are different things. How many people will be turned away in the inner cities because they don't have a quality picture ID-- or that didn't hear about it before they went to vote. How many will be turned off by long waiting lines in places like Detroit where a new voting machine system will be in place. The Democrats to their favor seem more energized and more determined-- but what they lack are leaders and leaders on the technical side of fund raising and electronic campaigning. Having a message and getting it are still at odds in Democrat universe.

Did He Think That God Wouldn't Notice?

SEEMS that the leader of the faith based people has resigned... In the middle of campaigns to ban gay marriage .
They used to call them busy bodies or gossips-- now they call themselves "best friends" or spiritual guides or concerned this or that and such ...but there have always been people who want to tell everybody else how to live their lives.
They sometimes come at you with history--"The founding Fathers.." bit--or they come at you with a Bible in one hand and a mouthful of anger and judgment- the religious authority bit--but almost always with these "movement" types we have found that they talked the talk but couldn't walk the walk--Now the leader of the faith based people --who have been hammering away at gay rights and gay marriage to destroy them both--turns out to be GAY-- not only that but BUYING GAY SEX--Whoa!! the faith based people must be spinning in their graves and they ain't even dead yet!
This is the kind of moment in a play where Shakespeare would say the Very Vaults of Heaven would Crack...but you know-- with these particular faith based folks you wonder if Heaven has anything to do with it at all-- (what is that ...is that a whiff of Sulphur !)
I saw the faith based folks supporting a war that has taken many lives--not quite a thou shalt not kill crowd-- I saw them get on board to bring down reproductive rights--well at least that was with the thought of preserving life--then I saw them go after Gays to turn them into a kind of second class citizen -even amending the Constitution- be-e-e-c-a-a-u-u- s-e the faith based folks don't like what Gay people do--how they live--how they choose to live. And they have pretty much judged them and called them everything but a child of God.
Well it turns out the Gay folks aren't so different from the faith based folks after all-- and it turns out- and this is a HOOT- both groups(while at war over gay rights) are being led by Gay people.
Personally, I have gay people in my family, among my close friends, and even if there weren't I would hopefully feel the same way-- if you want someone to think your way ..fine ...try and convince them( I always welcome Jehovah Witness especially when they get me out of the shower, all cold and wet--I greet them warmly-- cookies and milk anyone? --and thank God when they leave--is there a more welcome sight in all of nature than the backs of a group of Jehovah Witnesses--I think not!).
But who is so cool that they can morally condemn other people? I mean unless they are hurting someone else--like a spouse abuser, a child molester( even if he is a congressman in charge of preventing child molesting); and I am thinking here that Fate, Karma, Universal Justice-- somewhere there is a special place for the secretly Gay religious leader who condemns Gay people in the name of God ( there's that Sulphur smell again--that is so weird!)
I'm expecting denials and worse before this story is over-- but for now I hope people think about this next week when they vote in several states to take away some of the civil rights of Gay people which is just another way of saying Children of God.
So maybe the faith based folks need to amend their definition of holy marriage-- one man and one woman-(and one other man preferably by the hour but we won't talk about that.... or the Sulphur).