absolutely alex’s adventures & times

The Iraqi government has just fired 1,300 army and police personnel, for not performing up to par, if at all, during the recent offensive ordered by the country’s prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in Basra.

You can hardly blame them for not wanting to fight. The offensive was reportedly so haphazardly planned that it turned from an offensive into a farce, as the weaknesses of the government troops soon became obvious and quelling the Shiite militia became an embarrassing failure that resulted in more chaos.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that after five years, the training of Iraqi troops still remains sloppy and discipline is a joke. After all, the US government under the Bush administration has not set boundaries for improvement and is just meandering along with no exit strategy, no goals nor objectives, bleeding a staggering $12 billion a month on this fiasco while the US economy is fast going down the toilet.

So no pressure al-Maliki, you are doing a heck of a job. Take your time, you can sack all those incompetents and start all over again. The US isn’t going anywhere, not according to the Bush administration anyway.

It was pretty shocking — and surreal at the same time — to watch how the commander of the Iraq War, General David Petraeus, and the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, waffled and sidestepped the most basic and reasonable questions, such as what conditions had to be fulfilled before troops could be withdrawn, or when the war might end. The most disturbing thing is, Petraeus and Crocker don’t have the answers themselves.

They seem to have forgotten that the whole idea for the “surge” in the first place was to provide stability so that the Iraqis themselves could use the breathing space to strengthen their political and military institutions and US troops could step back, hand things over to them, and LEAVE. Good luck to anyone who still believes that any work was done towards achieving that.

Never mind that 4,000 American lives have been lost. Forget the fact, too, that the war is estimated to cost $3 trillion, according to Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University public finance Professor Laura Bilmes. Bush does not have a plan and with the way things are going, it is going to be up to the next US president to decide how to handle the mess. Which means more lives will be lost and more money down the drain for a disastrous, senseless military adventure, before there will be relief.

No wonder Bush’s approval ratings just fell again, to the lowest level ever in his two terms of office. 28 per cent said they approved of his performance, according to the latest Gallup poll. The only intriguing thing is, who are these 28 per cent who approve of his performance? Have they been living under a rock all this while?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

At this juncture when things are going downhill at a faster pace than the Bush administration can take a breather and when it needs the support of Congress to remain in Iraq more than ever, why did it stupidly allow the State Department to grant immunity to the Blackwater security personnel in the case under investigation? Have the Bush administration and the State Department lost their minds? Or are they just so arrogant that they just don’t give a damn?

It’s a mistake so glaring that other government officials are even calling it a misstep, or have said it would hinder or compromise investigations by the FBI. Some are even incredulous that the State Department had the temerity to grant the immunity. Perhaps I was sleeping during my government classes, but since when did the State Department have the right to grant immunity when cases are under investigation? Isn’t that the Justice Department’s duty?

Pardon me, I forgot that obstruction of justice, corruption and non-accountability are the modus operandi of this administration. It is so above the law that it can hand out immunity to its cronies any time, and get away with it. By now, we should have been used to tactics like pardon and immunity being trademarks of this administration to cover up for any type of wrongdoing.

Perhaps they are too busy congratulating themselves on doing a heck of a job and have totally forgotten to think about the consequences of granting immunity to thuggish behaviour that could have caused the death of 17 innocent Iraqi civilians. Or maybe they do know deep down – even if they aren’t willing to admit it to themselves – that the Iraq war is lost for good, so who cares about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilians anyway?

It’s just a shame that they’re way too stupid and short-sighted to realize that they’re making things even worse than it is, especially when the issue at hand involved defenseless civilians being killed. Wake up! Just wait for the outrage and retaliation that will erupt from the Iraqi side at the news of the immunity. The troops over there will have to pay the price, with their lives.

That brings me to the next question – why are these contractors, who are getting a handsome salary for their “work”, granted immunity and can’t be held accountable, while our troops, who likewise risk their lives and are not paid anywhere near the contractors, are not protected the same way? I’m not suggesting that crimes ought to go unpunished or swept under the carpet. I am just curious about the double standards here, especially the hypocrisy, when the line is always that we support the troops.

Giving immunity to the likes of the Blackwater hired guns will just perpetuate the arrogance that they have not failed to display. It will make them think they’re above the law and allow them to carry on with their trigger happy ways.

It’s pretty obvious that the State Department doesn’t want investigators to get to the bottom of this incident. Or it’s payback time to Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, who has given tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party.

Start getting worried.

It doesn’t look like we’re going to be leaving Iraq as soon as we want, even if Hillary or any of the other Democrats became the next president.

The New York Times reports that Hill and the other front runners in the Democratic presidential nomination race are starting to hedge, even as they keep up their demand that the Bush administration end the Iraq war, or they would if they captured the presidency.

Hill wants a small force to stay behind to fight terrorism, while John Edwards believes troops should be there to intervene in case civil war breaks out. Barack Obama is thinking along the same lines, advocating a number of troops to be there to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis, according to the NYT.

It might be infuriating, but at least they are realistic, and honest.

Reports have estimated that tonnes of equipment were shipped or flown to Iraq over the years, and that takes time to get out, if the withdrawal was to be conducted in an organized fashion. Apparently, even the sunniest prediction is that at least a year would be needed for all the troops to come home.

Whoever becomes the next occupant of the White House will also be forced to deal with the mess and the moral dilemma created by Bush and his cronies — how much involvement to commit, especially if a full-on civil war and slaughter take place. Or worse — what to do if the violence and unrest didn’t stop in Iraq but spread to other countries in the region.

Pity the poor sod who will be left carrying the baby when he or she takes on the top job.

And if that’s not enough of a hint that Iraq isn’t going to be a problem that the US can leave behind quickly or easily, consider this — the new war adviser to the White House actually said that there are considerations for bringing back the draft.

“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute told National Public Radio on Friday. “And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another.”

While saying that the volunteer army had served the US well, Gen. Lute stressed the pressure and demands that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have inflicted on the troops. Hence the talk that they are thinking about re-implementing the universal draft.

On the bright side, the policy change might take a while to realize and is most probably unlikely to happen, given Bush’s short remaining time in the White House and the lack of political capital he has to introduce such an unpopular policy.

But if a draft is reinstated, it would be a powerful deterrent for war. No one is going to risk going on some silly adventure if they knew that more people, even their own sons and daughters, could be sent to theaters of war to be hurt or killed. The draft could actually stay politicians’ hands and make them think harder before committing troops, given the backlash they know they would face from an angry electorate.

Cindy Sheehan is making good on her word of running against the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for a seat in the House of Representatives.

Last month, she threw down the gauntlet at Pelosi — impeach Bush for the lies and pretext for going to war with Iraq by July 23, or Sheehan herself would make a run for office to dislodge Pelosi.

Pelosi hadn’t started impeachment procedures and a fed-up Sheehan, who, like many other Americans had voted the Republicans out of office in 2006 in the hope that the Democrats would start withdrawing from the Iraq war, has decided to get into office herself to make change happen.

Sheehan shot to international prominence as the grieving mother of a fallen Iraq war soldier, who turned her grief into anger, holding a vigil for weeks outside Bush’s Texas camp and demanding to speak to him.

At the announcement of her run yesterday, she said her late son inspired her candidacy.

Sheehan also pledged to take the high road — she will not accept donations from corporations and will run as an independent on issues like universal health care and making ethics improvement a priority in government.

Does Sheehan stand a chance?

She does have name recognition from her anti-Bush and anti-Iraq crusade.

Fund-raising is not going to be easy, going against the infinitely more well-connected Pelosi. But Sheehan is probably going to draw lots of disgruntled Democratic supporters to her side, those who have become impatient with what they perceive as foot-dragging by the Democrats on bringing the troops home.

Sheehan’s candidacy will no doubt draw massive media attention and energize those who believe that both the mainstream Republican and Democratic parties have lost their sights and forgotten about the common people.

She might be a long shot, but she could still get a number of votes from people disgruntled with DC, and in particular, the Democrats.

Ratings for Congress are low — 29 per cent, even lower than Bush’s 33 per cent — and Pelosi could be vulnerable. This is one more battle Pelosi could ill-effort to be distracted by.

But kudos to people like Sheehan. This ought to wake the Democrats from their slumber and remind them that the people cannot be taken for granted.

More incompetence in Iraq, brought to you by the White House one-two of Bush-Cheney.

This time, it’s weapons that were distributed to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005.

The Washington Post reports that 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols, or 30 per cent of the total, given to the Iraqi forces have been found unaccounted for by the General Accountability Office.

The Pentagon has not denied or disputed the numbers reported by the GAO.

The bad news — these weapons could have fallen into the hands of enemy insurgents who were posing as Iraqi “security forces”. They would have collected the weapons, disappeared and regrouped with other anti-US combatants, using the very same weapons against US forces.

Yup, the Bush administration goes on and on about how Iran is arming the insurgents that are causing so much pain and suffering to the troops, but the bozos at the Pentagon practically gave those weapons away to enemy insurgents themselves.

Of course, Rummy was the master of the universe who thought him and the boys at the Department of Defense could sort silly, trifling things like that out, and butted the State Department out of their traditional responsibility of security training. And Rummy and the boys not only had no plan for the aftermath of the first attack, they simply screwed up the whole security training and equipping piece.

And it gets better. As of last month, according to the Post report, the Pentagon still hasn’t been able to tell the GAO what kinds of accountability procedures, if it had any, were in place.

But this isn’t the worst yet — guess who the genius of this mismanaged distribution of weapons and failure to account for them is?

That’s right, General David Petraeus, the very same guy who’s now in charge of the entire US force in Iraq, who was then taking care only of security training.

How very keeping-in-character of Bush. So, Petraeus didn’t have a proper distribution system and failed to follow established procedure? Gee, then he’s Bush’s kind of heck-of-job guy, give Petraeus a promotion!

The most dismal thing is, stories like this perhaps just doesn’t surprise or outrage anymore. This is just another incident to add to the long list of this administration’s incompetence. What’s clear is this administration’s ineptitude is causing the Pentagon to arm the insurgents against our own troops.

Is it possible that even more incompetence like this will soon be uncovered? The awful truth is most likely, yes.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Meet the Press today that the US might start withdrawing troops from Iraq by the end of the year. But it could very well be a ruse to cool down increasingly-intense opposition, especially by a growing number of Republican legislators, to the senseless war in Iraq. Gates said the outcome will depend on the progress report that will be out in September.

Should the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi be worried?

Prominent war activist Cindy Sheehan says she would run against Pelosi in California, with an eye on unseating her, if Pelosi doesn’t start action to impeach President George W. Bush.

Sheehan’s not fooling around. She has given Pelosi a two-week deadline, July 23, the same day that she and her supporters will make it to Washington DC after a 13-day march from the group’s war protest site near Bush’s Crawford ranch.

“Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership,” Sheehan said. “We hired them to bring an end to the war.” Sheehan told AP that she lives in a Sacramento suburb and will give Pelosi “a run for her money”.

Sheehan gave several grounds for Bush’s impeachment, among them such as misleading the American public about the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

How realistic are Sheehan’s chances?

For one, she does have nation-wide name recognition. Her anti-Iraq war protests were borne out of grief of the death of her son in Iraq in 2004, when she started to camp out at the Bush’s vacation home in Crawford in 2005. Her agony and protest drew thousands of supporters along with coverage by the national media.

The momentum towards impeaching Bush is also picking up in Sheehan’s favor. Just last week, a poll showed that a majority of Americans, 45 percent, thought that Bush should be impeached. However, 46 percent opposed the idea. Still, if there’s anywhere that would be more likely to have people who’d be likely to impeach Bush, California would fit that bill, and that puts Pelosi’s job at a certain degree of risk.

Sheehan’s candidacy will no doubt rally anti-Iraq war voters and generate huge interest. She could also get lots of financial support.

Pelosi is vulnerable, as is the Democratic Congress. When it took office in January, it had a 43 percent approval rating. But its rating has since sunk to about the same low levels as Bush’s, a bit below 30 percent. “And Pelosi’s own approval ratings have slipped, from 48 percent in a March poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press to 36 percent last month in a Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg poll. Over the same time frame, her disapproval ratings climbed from 22 percent to 39 percent,” the Washington Post reports.

It’s telling that Pelosi’s people have provided a response to Sheehan’s announcement, while the Bush administration hasn’t. Sheehan could be shaping up to be more than just a constituent and Pelosi’s camp is probably watching what Sheehan does next, while the Bush administration doesn’t care anyway.

It’s amazing that Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his personal life when it really affected no one outside of his family, while Bush goes on free to wreak more havoc, even as close to 4,000 Americans lives have been lost, over half a million Iraqis had perished, and billions of dollars flushed down the drain, due to the ill-conceived, meaningless war in Iraq predicated on lies.

The Washington Post today published a report of how the CIA had given the worst case scenarios of an invasion of Iraq back in 2002.The soothsayers at CIA had predicted an outcome that has become chillingly true – anarchy and territorial breakup in Iraq, a rise in global terrorism, and a rise in Islamic feelings against the US.

Assuming that the idiots at the White House can read, they obviously ignored any of the warnings in the prescient report and cherry-picked the information they wanted to make a case for going to war with Iraq, even though all evidence point against the action and public opinion, from experts in the Middle East, to generals, opposing the move.

It once again confirms what we have known and suspected all along – the Bush administration was always going to invade Iraq, it was just a matter of when. 9/11 came along as a bonanza for them to exploit the nation’s raw emotions and con the American people into believing the Iraqi invasion was part of the war on terror.

The worst thing is that they have been forewarned that the US would lose and be stuck in a quagmire that has no easy solutions, with less help from allies. And yet, they proceeded with the invasion.

The CIA report had also warned of lessening European support for US leadership, Afghanistan slipping into more strife with less attention and resources – again things that have come to pass.

So despite reports of attacks on US troops getting more sophisticated and even lethal, the Bush administration is exploring the idea of stationing US troops in Iraq for the long-term, like in South Korea.

Put a aside the vast differences in the circumstances between the Korean and Iraqi scenarios – the US being in Korea with the country’s and the UN’s blessings; the large splintered factions in Iraq versus the more homogeneous and united South Koreans; and the kind of tyrannical and iron-fisted government needed in Iraq under Saddam to hold a multi-ethnic nation together – the only party to welcome long-term US presence in the region is likely only to be Israel. Arab nations, which might initially be happy to see a counterweight to a rising Iran, might in the long term be extremely uncomfortable or even against a long term US buildup in their backyard.

So never mind that these long term bases will make the perfect target for insurgents, underline their rallying call that the country has being occupied by the US and act as an even more effective recruitment tool for fighters against the US. Never mind that more US blood will be needlessly spilled on this senseless adventure. Iraq will never become Korea, the circumstances between the two cases are just so vastly different.

Deep down, the Bush administration must know this, but again, have chosen to ignore the realities of the situation to impose their beliefs, which they arrogantly think will come to pass if they believed it enough or pushed it hard enough.

But ultimately, the administration’s top priority is made clear by the revelation of their wanting to stay there in the long haul — the protection of US oil interests by the permanent bases in Iraq. The other logical conclusion is that the US wants a launch pad into their next target, Iran.

Congress had better wake up and stop being weak-spined. It is time to force a pull out before it becomes entrenched, and the time to do it is now, as Bush loses traction with his base due to the immigration issue. And the American people too, should realize the dire consequences of a long-term stay in Iraq and make sure to vote in a new government that will prevent the Bush vision from being fulfilled.

While we celebrate Memorial Day with our backyard barbecues, I thought I’d share this poignant, heartfelt and devastating commentary by a father who’s lost a son in the Iraq war, first published in the Washington Post.

________________________________________________________________________

I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, May 27, 2007; B01

Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son’s death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging “the terrorists,” opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops — today’s civic equivalent of dereliction of duty.

What exactly is a father’s duty when his son is sent into harm’s way?

Among the many ways to answer that question, mine was this one: As my son was doing his utmost to be a good soldier, I strove to be a good citizen.

As a citizen, I have tried since Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I know that even now, people of good will find much to admire in Bush’s response to that awful day. They applaud his doctrine of preventive war. They endorse his crusade to spread democracy across the Muslim world and to eliminate tyranny from the face of the Earth. They insist not only that his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was correct but that the war there can still be won. Some — the members of the “the-surge-is-already-working” school of thought — even profess to see victory just over the horizon.

I believe that such notions are dead wrong and doomed to fail. In books, articles and op-ed pieces, in talks to audiences large and small, I have said as much. “The long war is an unwinnable one,” I wrote in this section of The Washington Post in August 2005. “The United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We’ve done all that we can do.”

Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others — teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks — to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as “the will of the people.”

To be fair, responsibility for the war’s continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son’s death, my state’s senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son’s wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don’t blame me.

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove — namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.’s life is priceless. Don’t believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier’s life: I’ve been handed the check. It’s roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation’s call to “global leadership.” It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It’s the way our system works.

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father’s footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier — brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. His son died May 13 after a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province.

It must be hard to be in Prince Harry’s position.

Today’s decision by the head of the British army, General Richard Dannatt, that Harry is not going to be deployed to Iraq, after weeks of mixed signals, seems like a blow to the Prince’s hope of serving in real combat with “my boys”.

While the reasons given for not sending Harry to Iraq are entirely valid, the decision will not only help insurgents in their propaganda, but also put Harry in a bad light.

It could eventually be hard for him to command the respect of those he leads, if he’s seen as being too vulnerable to be sent to a war zone. As a soldier, one trains to go to combat, so what is the point of being a soldier if one was trained yet shielded from action?

The prince himself is reportedly keen on going in Iraq, and could probably resign rather than take a desk job, the Washington Post reports.

One wonders how well the news will sit with the British public, especially those with sons and daughters serving in Iraq.

Would they feel a sense of injustice? Would they feel that a royal’s life is more valuable than their children’s? What kind of message will this decision send?

Of course, it didn’t help that he was under so much scrutiny by the British media, especially in recent weeks as this decision was pondered. As some have pointed out, it would have been wiser if this little detail of him possibly going to Iraq was kept under wraps because, how would terrorists or insurgents have identified someone in uniform, under a helmet?

Harry is duty-bound to serve his country and his people when and where he is needed, but he will no doubt be a valuable target. The risk not just for him but the troops serving alongside with him is likely to be high. If he was kidnapped or killed, the morale blow to the British army and the country would be severe. Even if he was kept safe, the effort and resources that are going to be needed for that would probably be unnecessarily wasteful and better deployed elsewhere to do more good.

It’s unfortunate that a choice like this had to be made. Perhaps difficult decisions like this will become history when the UK government finally understand the futility of the situation and bring all their troops home. Tony Blair, being too closely identified with Iraq and his loyalty towards supporting the US, might not have been able to reverse the decision. Hopefully, Gordon Brown will be the one who can make a clean break.

Finally.

Moderate House Republicans got President George W Bush in a room and told him in no uncertain terms – shape up on Iraq or we’d ship out.

They’ve set a fall deadline for the tide to turn on Iraq or Bush could risk losing their support.

If only it hadn’t taken them so long. They should have gone in there earlier to tell Bush the hard truth: that the American people oppose the war, Bush’s ratings are in the single digits in some districts and that this is hurting the GOP’s chances of retaining the White House and congressional elections next year.

But at the heart of it, their effort was not really due to the political impasse in Iraq or the number of Americans killed. These GOP Representatives finally did something because they wanted to save the party and their re-election chances. Nice.

Anyway, Bubble Boy has to be told the truth to his face. He’s so utterly un-curious and clueless about the world around him and constantly relies on his handlers to bring him the news, it is usually so filtered he probably doesn’t get the real picture. The report said he welcomed the feedback from the GOP members but one wonders if it would be acted upon.

By the way, is the Iraqi parliament seriously thinking of taking a vacation while the carnage continues? If they don’t care, why should more American blood be shed on this?

Meanwhile, there’s a growing sense that September could well be the make-or-break date. Under questioning by a Senate committee, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pulled back on Pentagon’s Tuesday announcement of a possible build-up of 35,000 more troops by December, clarifying that the decision isn’t “preordained” as it hinges on a September review. “There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter told the New York Times.

If Bush continues to veto funding bills, he might soon find himself out of dole for the war and be forced to bring the troops home even before that.