Iraq Report Sees "Grave and Deteriorating" Crisis
rudkla - 7. Dez, 10:26
Iraq War - Irak Krieg
Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2006
Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2006
The Myth of More
Michael Schwartz describes the Myth of More: "Almost without exception, whatever proposals are being raised about changing Iraq policy avoid mentioning, or explicitly reject, the idea that the United States should abandon its three-year-old attempt to occupy Iraq and actually withdraw its troops. Instead, each new suggestion or set of recommendations calls for the United States to do not less, but a whole lot more of something that is already a part of existing policy."
https://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120606F.shtml
https://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120606F.shtml
rudkla - 6. Dez, 22:49
Iraq: One by One, They Tell the Truth
"As Tony Blair flies out to meet George Bush, the latest admission of failure in Iraq has made the two leaders appear even more isolated." The editors of the Independent wonder when they will join the others who are telling the truth about Iraq.
https://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120606C.shtml
https://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120606C.shtml
rudkla - 6. Dez, 22:45
Bush's strategy of wishful thinking
Boston Globe
by H.D.S. Greenway
12/05/06
America has been consumed by semantic silliness over whether the catastrophe in Iraq is a civil war. It has been clear for almost a year that a civil war between Shia and Sunni factions is in progress, but the White House remains in denial, just as it previously refused to admit there was an insurgency. There are good reasons for not admitting to a civil war. During our own internal conflict, Southerners spoke of 'The War of Northern Aggression.' In the graveyards of New England, you find monuments honoring those who died putting down 'The Great Rebellion.' Neither side wanted to admit to any moral equivalence that the neutral term civil war might imply. Both sides wanted grander terminologies to justify their losses. In contrast, the Bush administration wants to minimize Iraq's struggles because insurgency and civil war spell failure...
https://tinyurl.com/umxy3
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
by H.D.S. Greenway
12/05/06
America has been consumed by semantic silliness over whether the catastrophe in Iraq is a civil war. It has been clear for almost a year that a civil war between Shia and Sunni factions is in progress, but the White House remains in denial, just as it previously refused to admit there was an insurgency. There are good reasons for not admitting to a civil war. During our own internal conflict, Southerners spoke of 'The War of Northern Aggression.' In the graveyards of New England, you find monuments honoring those who died putting down 'The Great Rebellion.' Neither side wanted to admit to any moral equivalence that the neutral term civil war might imply. Both sides wanted grander terminologies to justify their losses. In contrast, the Bush administration wants to minimize Iraq's struggles because insurgency and civil war spell failure...
https://tinyurl.com/umxy3
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
rudkla - 6. Dez, 15:29
Roots of Iraq debacle are in neocon ideology
Philadelphia Inquirer
by Justin Logan
12/05/06
Early reports indicate that the Baker-Hamilton commission will recommend that U.S. troops 'pull back' from the fighting in Iraq, perhaps cutting the U.S. presence in half. But James Baker and Lee Hamilton aren't in charge of U.S. foreign policy, and the report itself can do little more than provide political cover for the president to change course -- if he wants to. However, as President Bush said on Thursday: 'This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all.' Part of the problem is rooted in the neoconservative ideology by which the president is inspired. The track record of neoconservative thought is not good...
https://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16164905.htm
Baker-Hamilton can't save us
Cato Institute
by Justin Logan
12/05/06
Next week, the Baker-Hamilton Commission will make its recommendations on U.S. Iraq policy, and Congress will begin hearings on defense secretary nominee and Cold War realist Robert Gates. Both events will reflect the failings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. But even as a grudging acceptance of reality takes hold in Washington, the architects of the war are urging that we double down on the losing bet in Iraq. Amid spiraling sectarian violence, the leading advocates of invading Iraq seem now to have centered on an explanation for how their idea has driven that country to blood-soaked disaster: deposing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a secure, stable and democratic government would have required around 400,000 troops -- as well as a willingness to occupy Iraq for many, many years. But that was never going to happen...
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6818
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=James+Baker
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=neocon
by Justin Logan
12/05/06
Early reports indicate that the Baker-Hamilton commission will recommend that U.S. troops 'pull back' from the fighting in Iraq, perhaps cutting the U.S. presence in half. But James Baker and Lee Hamilton aren't in charge of U.S. foreign policy, and the report itself can do little more than provide political cover for the president to change course -- if he wants to. However, as President Bush said on Thursday: 'This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all.' Part of the problem is rooted in the neoconservative ideology by which the president is inspired. The track record of neoconservative thought is not good...
https://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/16164905.htm
Baker-Hamilton can't save us
Cato Institute
by Justin Logan
12/05/06
Next week, the Baker-Hamilton Commission will make its recommendations on U.S. Iraq policy, and Congress will begin hearings on defense secretary nominee and Cold War realist Robert Gates. Both events will reflect the failings of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. But even as a grudging acceptance of reality takes hold in Washington, the architects of the war are urging that we double down on the losing bet in Iraq. Amid spiraling sectarian violence, the leading advocates of invading Iraq seem now to have centered on an explanation for how their idea has driven that country to blood-soaked disaster: deposing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a secure, stable and democratic government would have required around 400,000 troops -- as well as a willingness to occupy Iraq for many, many years. But that was never going to happen...
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6818
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=James+Baker
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=neocon
rudkla - 6. Dez, 15:25
Dienstag, 5. Dezember 2006
CONGRESS CAN ONLY STOP THE IRAQ OCCUPATION BY CUTTING OFF THE FUNDS
ACTION PAGE: https://www.peaceteam.net
In the 1968 presidential campaign Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam, but would not tell anyone exactly he would do it. In as many words this came to be known as his "secret plan." Yet, after his election the war still dragged on for another five years with 20,000 more American deaths and 100,000 wounded.
Now along comes the Iraq Study Group supposedly with a plan for extricating ourselves from the strategic disaster in Iraq, if not the moral one. And let us be not deceived, their proposals will make no meaningful difference whatsoever in really bringing the troops home. John Murtha, who so far has only spoken out for redeployment (something short of immediate withdrawal), has said he believes they represent no actual change of policy. They are just kicking the can of casualties down the road and trying to fool us into thinking they might in fact leave.
The policy is, always was, and in the minds of the Bush cabal will always will be, to occupy Iraq indefinitely while we install 14 permanent military bases, where they have absolutely no business of the Iraqi people to be there. And until they are absolutely forced to do otherwise that is where they will stay, which is what is precisely meant by Bush's recent rejection of any kind of "graceful exit."
Dennis Kucinich is calling for an end to funding for the war and occupation now. Ultimately, that's the only reason the war in Vietnam ended at all. Congress stopped paying for it. That's what must happen now.
The Iraqi people want us out now and their patience is at an end. It matters not that demagogues in other countries are calling for the same thing. It is our misfortune that we have made it so easy for them to exploit our strategic idiocy. But it is NOT an excuse to prolong the inevitable. This may be our last chance to use withdrawal of our unwelcome troops as some kind of bargaining chip. In perhaps another six months we WILL be forced to leave, and not by naysayers of some kind at home as the right wingers have accused, but by the Iraqi people themselves.
In the meantime, Bush, pathologically obstinate to the ignorant last, will continue to say we will win if we just keep fighting. Fighting who? They still haven't got a clue as to whom they are really fighting. That's the plan whether they will admit it or not. And no report the Iraq study group is likely to produce will have any impact worth writing home about. It's up to us to demand an immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, INCLUDING their support staffs, lest that be the excuse to keep any combat troops in place. Only cutting off the money will force their hand.
Not next year. Not in six months. Now. NOW now. We demand it.
ACTION PAGE: https://www.peaceteam.net/
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours.
Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2006, Patent pending, All rights reserved May be reproduced for activist purposes
In the 1968 presidential campaign Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam, but would not tell anyone exactly he would do it. In as many words this came to be known as his "secret plan." Yet, after his election the war still dragged on for another five years with 20,000 more American deaths and 100,000 wounded.
Now along comes the Iraq Study Group supposedly with a plan for extricating ourselves from the strategic disaster in Iraq, if not the moral one. And let us be not deceived, their proposals will make no meaningful difference whatsoever in really bringing the troops home. John Murtha, who so far has only spoken out for redeployment (something short of immediate withdrawal), has said he believes they represent no actual change of policy. They are just kicking the can of casualties down the road and trying to fool us into thinking they might in fact leave.
The policy is, always was, and in the minds of the Bush cabal will always will be, to occupy Iraq indefinitely while we install 14 permanent military bases, where they have absolutely no business of the Iraqi people to be there. And until they are absolutely forced to do otherwise that is where they will stay, which is what is precisely meant by Bush's recent rejection of any kind of "graceful exit."
Dennis Kucinich is calling for an end to funding for the war and occupation now. Ultimately, that's the only reason the war in Vietnam ended at all. Congress stopped paying for it. That's what must happen now.
The Iraqi people want us out now and their patience is at an end. It matters not that demagogues in other countries are calling for the same thing. It is our misfortune that we have made it so easy for them to exploit our strategic idiocy. But it is NOT an excuse to prolong the inevitable. This may be our last chance to use withdrawal of our unwelcome troops as some kind of bargaining chip. In perhaps another six months we WILL be forced to leave, and not by naysayers of some kind at home as the right wingers have accused, but by the Iraqi people themselves.
In the meantime, Bush, pathologically obstinate to the ignorant last, will continue to say we will win if we just keep fighting. Fighting who? They still haven't got a clue as to whom they are really fighting. That's the plan whether they will admit it or not. And no report the Iraq study group is likely to produce will have any impact worth writing home about. It's up to us to demand an immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, INCLUDING their support staffs, lest that be the excuse to keep any combat troops in place. Only cutting off the money will force their hand.
Not next year. Not in six months. Now. NOW now. We demand it.
ACTION PAGE: https://www.peaceteam.net/
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours.
Powered by The People's Email Network Copyright 2006, Patent pending, All rights reserved May be reproduced for activist purposes
rudkla - 5. Dez, 23:00
Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq
There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.
https://tinyurl.com/y6l6j3
From Information Clearing House
https://tinyurl.com/y6l6j3
From Information Clearing House
rudkla - 5. Dez, 18:53
Was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, without a Security Council resolution, the most difficult point for you in your term?
Kofi Annan interview: Full Text: BBC:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6205056.stm
From Information Clearing House
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6205056.stm
From Information Clearing House
rudkla - 5. Dez, 18:51
The coming clash over Iraq policy
Independent Institute
by Ivan Eland
12/04/06
The Baker Commission report calls for a phased withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq and for the United States to talk to adversarial neighboring countries -- that is, Iran and Syria -- about playing a more constructive role in that country's civil war. If his rhetoric before the release of the report is any indication, President Bush will pretend to adjust his Iraq policy but spurn the commission's main recommendations. From this inflexible man, that course is not surprising. The president, somewhere in a parallel universe, continues to talk about 'victory,' despite a clear warning from then soon-to-be-sacked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that he should alter his failed strategy in Iraq and begin downplaying expectations in case that strategy change didn't work."
https://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1863
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Baker+Commission
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Rumsfeld
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Ivan+Eland
by Ivan Eland
12/04/06
The Baker Commission report calls for a phased withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq and for the United States to talk to adversarial neighboring countries -- that is, Iran and Syria -- about playing a more constructive role in that country's civil war. If his rhetoric before the release of the report is any indication, President Bush will pretend to adjust his Iraq policy but spurn the commission's main recommendations. From this inflexible man, that course is not surprising. The president, somewhere in a parallel universe, continues to talk about 'victory,' despite a clear warning from then soon-to-be-sacked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that he should alter his failed strategy in Iraq and begin downplaying expectations in case that strategy change didn't work."
https://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1863
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Baker+Commission
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Rumsfeld
https://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Ivan+Eland
rudkla - 5. Dez, 16:10
