This is a first for me! I've never "blogged" before! But tonight as I watched the New Hampshire Debate, I decided to change my voting idea from "Edwards" to "Richardson".
Does anybody else think that Obama and Edwards are "in cahoots" -- that if Obama gets the Dem. nomination he'll choose Edwards for his VP? They were a little too comfortable with each other.
I'm especially interested, now that I've seen Mr. Richardson's web site, in his stance on cancer research. That's great!
Well, if anyone wants to join me I'd be glad to talk!
Jen
"You know, every candidate in this race is asking for the biggest job promotion of his or her life. The voters ought to look at what we've done.
"What has the Senate done in the last 12 months? Since my colleagues took over leadership of Congress, have they gotten us out of Iraq? No. Did they scrap No Child Left Behind and reform education? No. Did they stop an Attorney General who wouldn't say that waterboarding is torture? No. Have they done something to create the next generation of great paying jobs? No.
"I know that we can do better. And I have done better.
"In the last twelve months, I helped shut down North Korea's nuclear reactor. We brought back the remains of 6 American soldiers from that country that had been missing since the Korean War. I extended health coverage to every child under 12 in my state. I raised teacher salaries. I cracked down on unscrupulous lenders. I passed a landmark clean energy bill to create clean air and thousands of jobs that cannot be outsourced.
Since the beginning of the Presidential campaign, Bill Richardson has been talking about de-authorizing or ending the war in Iraq and bringing all American troops home immediately. Richardson intends to bring home all of the troops within the first year of his Presidency. Read More »
While I know that everyone in American politics is supposed to have some ulterior motive behind everything they do in public, everything in my experience has indicated to me that Richardson's position on Iraq is genuine. Richardson isn't alone, either. The latest CNN poll on Iraq showed public sentiment for total withdrawal sharply rising to 39%, a clear plurality nationwide. Further, residual forces wouldn't even be an issue in the campaign were it not for Richardson. No matter what happens when the voting starts, and no matter what you may think of Richardson otherwise, that is an important contribution to the campaign. And yes, it is one reason not to be cynical about American politics.
Through his campaign stops, press releases, TV ads and postings on blogs, Richardson has been relentless in raising the issue of Iraq and forcing the media and other candidates to not ignore it. Read More »
I wish you could see this! You just wouldn't believe what's going on here in Iowa.
Right now, while Amanda's running around getting ready for our rally in Independence, I can hear the crowd shouting "We want Bill! We want Bill!"
We're getting huge crowds and packing houses everywhere we go. We've signed up 40 more volunteers today alone. Yesterday while campaigning in Hanover, NH the Governor even convinced one woman to vote absentee for him on the spot!
This is what we've been working for all year. You can feel the grassroots momentum taking over. People are literally flocking to the Governor.
But we've got just 14 days. 14 days to reach every caucus-goer in Iowa.
As the Governor says, "Iowans are known for making up their minds at the last minute." Right now, 50% of Iowa voters aren't sure who they are voting for.
Those are votes we can win.
Every time someone learns about Bill Richardson's proven leadership and experience, they decide to support him. And every single time we run a new ad, the Governor surges in the polls.
Check out our new ad showing voters the difference between the Governor and the other candidates on Iraq. We want to show caucus-goers there's only one candidate ready to bring ALL our troops home. The other major candidates won't even commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by 2013. That's over 5 years away!
So in these last 14 days, my job is to get this ad seen by as many folks as possible. And I'm counting on you to do your job and help me make that happen.
Friend, you signed up for this, and you've been behind us all year. Thanks to you, we've hit every target we've set.
But to keep up this momentum we've got to meet our goal of $400,000 by raising $20,000 every day between now and Jan. 3.
It's the only way we can keep this campaign running full tilt. And it's the only way we will win Iowa. Then the real race begins. I know we can do it.
Wow, the crowd outside is really going wild! Amanda's flagging me down, so I'm going to head out to the rally now. Then I'm going to call some more local TV stations about airing this ad.
I'll keep you posted.
Dave
Also posted at the Huffington Post
At each stop I make in this campaign, there are a lot of issues that I can talk about. Right now, too many Americans are worried about keeping their jobs, keeping their homes, and making sure their kids have quality education and quality health care.
But there is one issue that I believe is the linchpin to everything we want to do in a post-Bush world:
Ending the war in Iraq.
Some of my fellow candidates have decided to stop talking about Iraq. I'm not sure if they think the surge is working, or just that their polls tell them it is simpler and safer to follow the media's lead and just forget our brave troops and what this war is costing us.
Well, I believe that "easy" isn't necessarily right, so even if I'm the only person speaking the truth on this issue, I'm not going to stop.
I'm going to keep talking about ending this war and getting all of our troops out every chance I get.
The fact is, we cannot move forward on any of the issues that matter until we extract ourselves from this black hole that is robbing us of precious lives, money and time.
And we simply can't wait until 2013 to get this done.
Some of my fellow Democrats are willing to leave troops in Iraq for 5 years or longer -- the Republicans are talking decades -- yet still think we can make the dramatic changes here at home we need. But spending $10 billion a month on a war and working towards universal health care, building a new energy economy, and ending our dependence on foreign oil is an equation that doesn't add up.
It doesn't add up financially.
It doesn't add up morally.
It doesn't add up for America.
A few weeks ago, my campaign launched a very strong website www.2013istoolate.com which details the core problem I have with the Iraq plans of Senator Edwards, Clinton and Obama -- they won't even commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013 -- almost five years from now.
And today, I'm proud that we've released another TV ad to bring attention back to this issue.
I'm going to do everything I can to make sure we don't forget this war, and forget what we need to do to end it.
Ending the war means getting all the troops out -- there is no room for rhetorical hair-splitting. We're either in or we're out. Now, or the war continues.
We hadn't planned on this, but I'm glad today is the day this ad is coming out -- because just yesterday Congress lost another chance to end this war, choosing instead to once again give Bush what he needs to draw out this tragedy even longer.
Where is the leadership? Just this week, with the fight over telecom immunity, we saw what can happen when a single Senator shows up and stands up for what's right, and yet, yesterday four senators in this race who say they oppose the war -- Senators Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Biden -- were all away while the president got what is essentially another blank check.
This Congress was elected to end this war and they have once again failed to stand up to President Bush. Yesterday, they didn't even show up ready to fight.
With a long history of repelling occupying forces, the people of the Middle East are very sensitive to foreign occupation. So long as U.S. troops occupy those lands, millions of Iraqis and those in surrounding nations will see American troops as jihadist propaganda portrays us -- as occupiers there to repress them and plunder their oil. If we want them to believe we won't occupy Iraq indefinitely, then we need to act like we won't -- and get our troops out.
In addition, our presence in Iraq perpetuates Iraq's political stalemate and undermines political reconciliation. As long as U.S. troops are there, the Iraqi factions have every incentive to jockey for power, rather than to reconcile and compromise.
As president, I will get all of our troops out, and I will get them out my first year in office.
A slow redeployment over many years would only prolong the suffering of Iraqis, and delay the process of reconciliation and reconstruction. The longer we take to redeploy, the longer our troops are in harm's way. While redeployment must be done carefully, as determined by our military leaders, to maximize political impact and minimize harm, we can't afford to drag it out over many years.
2013 is over five years from now. If we still have troops in Iraq in 2013, the Iraqis sure won't think the war is over. And neither will the American people.
I have profound differences with my opponents.
Senator Edwards says he will remove combat troops, but not necessarily non-combat troops, and not necessarily by 2013. This contradicts military doctrine that states non-combat troops must be withdrawn first with combat troops providing protection. Leaving non-combat troops behind will either turn them into combat troops or leave them as targets without any support.
Senators Obama and Clinton talk about ending the war, but when given the chance to commit to withdrawing troops by 2013, they both declined. They both say they will end the war, but I also remember hearing that when we elected a Democratic majority to Congress in 2006.
If we have a Democratic President willing to keep us in this war for five more years, what chance do we have of restoring our place in the world? Of creating real peace in the Middle East? Of having the diplomatic strength to broker peace in Darfur or Pakistan or North Korea?
If we have a Democratic President who is willing to keep us in this war for five more years, what hope do we have of funding full care for all of our veterans who have been injured and need our help?
What hope do we have of giving health insurance to children? Of paying teachers a living wage? Of dealing with global warming?
I think the answer speaks for itself.
I won't stop talking about Iraq, because you can't talk about solving any problem we face without talking about Iraq. We can't forget that.
You have served magnificently. Now you are coming home.
Isn't that what we want to hear our next President say? That's what Bill Richardson said yesterday in Iowa.
Have Obama, Clinton or Edwards ever said this? They refuse to pledge to bring home all U.S. troops, even by 2013. 2013 is too late. Why settle for a President that can't figure out today that the war is a disaster and unequivocally calls for the withdrawal of our troops?
Richardson criticized other candidates and the news media for shifting focus away from the war:
Perhaps they think that because fewer of our troops have died lately that Americans don't care anymore. Well, we do and I dare the media to tell the families of the 37 troops who were killed last month that this issue doesn't deserve front-page coverage.Read More »
This was first posted at the Huffington Post on Friday, December 7. It's being cross posted here for the Richardson community.
By Governor Bill RichardsonEarlier this week, I was unable to attend NPR's Democratic forum in Iowa because I was attending a funeral. When I read the transcript, however, I was shocked that there was almost no real discussion of the single most important issue facing our county: Iraq.
No other single problem is as crippling to this country right now as the war in Iraq. Our ongoing troop presence is preventing a real Iraqi reconciliation. Maintaining 170,000 troops in Iraq not only stretches our military to the breaking point, it keeps us from having the troops available to deal with other emerging crises -- whether it is peace keeping or disaster response.
We are spending upwards of $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq.
It is folly to believe we can continue on this path and conduct the necessary overhauls to children's insurance, health care, and our schools. It will be almost impossible to deal with global warming and lead the world in a new energy revolution while weighed down by the financial and diplomatic costs of the on-going war in Iraq.
Unfortunately, my fellow candidates seem content with leaving the issue behind. Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards still mention ending the war - but will not unequivocally commit to getting all troops out quickly (and lets be clear - all troops includes non-combat troops, combat strike teams, or any other spin-variation of "troops" falling under our military command in Iraq).
And they will not commit to getting all of the troops out by 2013. 2013 is six more years of war. Six more years of having our hands tied economically and our foreign policy crippled by a war that should have been ended THIS year.
Six more years is too long to wait. Our new website www.2013istoolate.com lays it out clearly: waiting for 2013 is unacceptable - the cost is just too high.
We cannot let cynicism get the best of us - even though the Congressional leadership have not done what we elected them to do and ended this war. We cannot give up. And we cannot give in to misleading media and White House spin that trumpets "the surge is working."
It isn't. The conventional wisdom, that after just a few months of declining casualty rates, victory is around the corner is rosy-eyed nonsense. If you listen to Washington insiders, we've turned that corner again and again - so many times we may just be walking in circles.
Casualties have fallen three months in a row on nine previous occasions during the 5 years we've been in Iraq - nine times. Each time we've been fed the same lines: "Mission Accomplished," "Dead Ender," "Last Throes." On each of those nine occasions, however, casualties have risen back to newer more tragic levels.
I'm not sure who decided what number of American troop deaths is an "acceptable" cost to buy a declaration of "victory," but last month 37 American troops died. After nearly five years of war, the only "acceptable" number of deaths is zero.
I hope Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama have not forgotten what we all know: there is no military solution in Iraq, and as long as our troops are there we will have no political solution either. If they remembered this, they could not in good conscience duck a commitment to get our troops out by 2013.
2013 is too long to wait to do the ONE thing that will work in Iraq: getting all of our troops out quickly, leaving no residual troops behind.
Only one thing will bring long-term stability in Iraq: political progress. The stated purpose of the surge was to give Iraqi politicians the breathing room to take the necessary steps towards real reconciliation. That has not happened - and those on the ground know it. Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, last month flatly declared "There will be no reconciliation . . .this is a struggle about power," and Iraq's Vice President (and most important Sunni politician) recently echoed that with "there has been no significant progress in months."
Political progress is impossible as long as our troops are on the ground, making the status-quo possible for Iraqi politicians and leading Iraqi citizens to doubt whether we'll ever leave. There is no military solution to this problem, so our military should not be there.
In fact, the only real progress we've seen in Iraq in the recent months happened in Basra, where the removal of the British garrison has brought about a 90% decrease in violence. No occupying forces equaled less violence, and zero coalition casualties. This is the kind of change we need to see across Iraq to create the landscape for real political progress.
There is a clear answer -- to truly reduce violence and to force Iraqis to find their own political solution, we must begin immediately to withdraw all of our forces - all of them, without any residual troops left behind. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there will be no political solution while our military remains there.
Leaving troops in Iraq until 2013 is not an option - not if we want to end this war, not if we want to move forward and begin addressing problems here at home.
Ignoring this issue won't change those facts.
John McCain made a calculated attack on Ron Paul when he tried to paint Ron Paul as an appeaser for calling for the end of American occupation of Iraq. (The Republicans will do the same to the democratic nominee, since Paul's is a position shared by Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and most experienced democrat running for President.) That McCain would try such a thing says a lot about the pool of intellect available in the Republican base.
The right-wing has built up a mythology about Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain has been the epithet of choice for "Chicken Hawks" since 1948.
John McCain is not a chicken hawk, but he should know better, unless he spent too much time in the box while he was a POW. Perhaps he hasn't stopped fighting the Vietnam War.
There is a sad irony here. The intellectual forebearers of the modern conservative movement were with Lindberg in the "America First" isolationist movement which dominated American foreign policy in Congress during the Chamberlain period. They were totally aligned with Chamberlain in opposing war between the free world and Germany.
It is the typical of the reactionary mindset that these people and their intellectual descendants do a mindless 180 and pretend to have known the importance of starting WWII back in 1938. That's why they are best described as reactionaries. They have no positive agenda. They are only against improvements in society. They would most correctly be called "Anti-Liberal" just as the diverse and confused opponents of the U.S. Constitution could only be described as "Anti-Federalists."
The naming convention is to take whatever movement is dedicated to amelioration of the plight of the weak and defenseless and place "Anti-" in front of it.
The "Anti-'s", or dittoheads as they might be called, are opposed to anyone changing the status quo. The status quo seems to them to be magically bringing them a poorly understood but much coveted personal prosperity.
They haven't the wisdom to ever know why they prosper - only that the stars seemed to be aligned in their favor. So they fear any change may "break the spell" and ruin their prosperity.
It's like someone who doesn't budget being afraid to spend any money. Since they don't understand how they got to where the are, only that somehow they have prospered under the status quo, they must passionately resist changes to the status quo. A truly religious person might say they lack faith in God.
For example, the dittoheads fear women might get "uppity." They hear about a Woman's Right to Choose - the woman's right to handle her own reproductive cycle. Instantly, anti-choice movements arise. They use a euphemism to hide their knee-jerk "anti-" instincts and call themselves "Pro-Life." But, they certainly aren't pro-life when it comes to massive "collateral damage" and innocent loss of life in preemptory imperial wars of choice!
So, the "pro-life" euphemism is just a dodge. They are, in fact, simply "anti-choice." Which means they want to criminalize the reproductive choices of young teenage girls, as well as the choices of mature women who already have more children they they can manage. They don't know for sure how nature allocates the procreative prize. So, if they "get lucky" and make a young girl pregnant, they want to be sure they retain nature's highest honor, which is procreation (whether they've earned it or not).
They fear less that their own daughters might be exploited by lecherous older men than they fear the loss of opportunity to score with a young woman themselves. Also, perhaps, they fear that American women might stop producing enough children to turn back the "mongrel hordes" at our borders. Again, a truly religious man might think such people lack faith in God.
Remember the sad story of Andrea Yates in Houston (see e.g. www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates ). She is an example of a woman whose older children might have benefitted from her excercise of reproductive rights. Under the anti-choice scheme, her efforts to save her motherhood by aborting the last child would have been a crime. In the environment in which she lived, it was already a crime. What a difference it would have made to her older children if she had known how to break out of the mental box she had been consigned to by the anti-choice advocates surrounding her!
Another example: In our small family culture, the "anti-'s" fear their few children might be gay. If so, the dittohead fears he will be deprived of a group of grandchildren and descendants.
With this fear in their hearts, they hear about rights of sexual identity.
Immediately, the anti-gay movement appears. Naturally the euphemism is "pro-marriage."
If they were so pro-marriage, where were they when divorce was made "no fault?" Again, the euphemism is just a smoke screen.
In fact, they are anti-gay. Which means that they want to criminalize the sexual identities of some of their beloved sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, and cousins.
They don't know what causes sexual identity, so they want to make sure the odd social contact (or unsupervised magazine contact) outside the home won't be fatal to their hopes for lineal descendants.
Again, a truly religious person would say they lack faith in God. One wonders if Abraham worried about such things in light of the promise he received.
Now, the "Anti-" goofs have set their hopes on controlling middle eastern oil. Without cheap oil, they fear they can't drive those big SUVs.
Coal won't pour into a gas tank. Corn based ethanol gasoline supplements cause unacceptable increases up the food chain in the cost of beef and pork (as the cost of corn feed increases with increased demand).
What other way is there to enjoy the fantasy of running over and crushing someone in a Prius if you can't afford to fuel your SUV?
Since they don't know where the fuel for the SUV is going to come from, they think they must preserve the status quo in the Middle East.
If the Chicken Hawk idea "du jour" is a war in Iraq or Iran, then war it must be. No questions can be asked.
In his opposition to the war, Ron Paul may be the true heir of the "America First" Lindberg isolationists of the 1930's and early 40's. But, if so, the other so-called "conservatives" of the Repubican Party don't know themselves. If Ron Paul has demonstrated consistency in belief, while other reactionaries have responded to changes with random "anti-ism", then he is their superior. At least he is capable of taking an intellectual position and sticking to it. Republicans like to talk about litmus tests, but only Ron Paul is able to consistently apply principle to public affairs.
If Republicans were honest, they would nominate Ron Paul for President. They would share his (and Ike's) aversion for the military industrial complex. And, they would be in favor of keeping the government out of the bedroom. But, they deceive themselves. Out of fear, they seek only to preserve a status quo that temporarily meets their needs.
The status quo is that we own the oil supplies in the middle east by virtue of the special deal we struck with the house of Saud after the last world war.
The dittoheads fear the loss of oil. They don't understand how we ever got control over middle east oil. But, any change is a threat to the status quo. So, if a war paid for by social security and children's health insurance money is the way to preserve the status quo, then war there must be. Just don't ask the dittoheads to pay for it.
Diplomacy is like rights for women and gays. It doesn't fit the "finders keepers, losers weepers" mind set. In other words, if "might makes right," and diplomacy is the tool of the weak, then diplomacy is nothing more than recognition of rights for the weak.
If life is all about "survival of the fittest," then it is wrong for the strong to ever yield to the weak. In fact, perhaps the best paradigm for the dittohead is the world of the warlord. Perhaps the dittohead only wants to join the retinue of a local warlord. He doesn't want government interference, because government protects the rights of the weak. As such, government is always the enemy of the local warlord and his retinue.
Hey, we could live like they do in Somalia, where warlords have their retainers riding around in pickup trucks mounted with 50 caliber machine guns terrorizing the women and children. Maybe that is the only world the ignorant understand. Or, is it just the only world that the Godless understand?
Which brings us to the highjacking of religion to serve the interests of warlords both local and foreign. How is it that a sacred document highlighting the words "the weak shall inherit the earth" becomes the tool of the warlord set? How do they get away with it?
So, diplomacy is the epithet of the "anti-'s". It is supposed to be synonymous with Chamberlain's appeasment policies. Is any of this real? Let's take a closer look.
The anti-diplomacy crowd first surfaced in 1919 with the rise of diplomacy. Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations and his plan for peace in Europe was an anathema to the warlord crowd. They were against diplomacy then, just as their intellectual descendants are now. They believe in war only when they think they can whip up on tiny little countries like Vietnam and Iraq, using money that might otherwise go to ameliorate the plight of the poor and weak in this country and using the blood of young men and women who don't have better ways of paying for college. When it comes to important improvements in American health and infrastructure, we see that their first priority is always to avoid having to pay taxes for anything.
Opposition to the League of Nations was a product of isolationism prior to WWII. America was certainly not interested in getting involved in another European war. Before WWII, Britain's Chamberlain was hoping to "fight fire with fire" -- trying to play Russia off against Germany.
Perhaps, Chamberlain's hope was for the two dictatorships to literally kill each other off without the democracies having to shed too much blood. When you think about it, our coming into Normandy as the Russians poured into Germany from the East was timing that Chamberlain could only have dreamed about (assuming he had planned for Russia and Germany to kill each other off). In that light, the massive sacrifice of American and British lives in Italy and North Africa could have been saved by reserving our efforts for D-day, as General Eisenhower wanted.
If we had waited for D-day, one of two things was going to happen. Either Germany was going to wipe Russia off the map, or Russia was going to overrun Germany. Either way, both Germany and Russia would, at some point, be too weak (or over-extended) to stop British-American forces coming in from Normandy virtually unopposed to salvage Western Europe.
Can you imagine the guerilla war Germany would still be fighting today if the wehrmacht had succeeded in storming Moscow??? On the other hand, look at all the trouble Russia ended up with managing Eastern Europe behind the iron curtain. Victorious Russia eventually had to give control over Eastern Europe up as costs mounted to unsustainable levels. Whoever won in the East was going to inherit huge problems and be badly over extended.
I can't see how our actions in Italy and North Africa during World War II added anything except to assure that Germany didn't gobble up Russia. So, did our men in Italy and North Africa actually die to save Russia??? What an irony that would be.
Chamberlain did the best he could do with his alternatives. So, the Chamberlain mythology is bogus. Chamberlain mythology has been the foundation of American foreign policy since the effective end of the Truman Administration in 1948 (except for brief interludes under Carter and Clinton). It is to this mythology that we owe the disasters of Vietnam and Iraq.
President Johnson's biographers have noted that he feared being labeled an appeaser if he negotiated with the North Vietnamese. In fact, he feared his administration would be "shut down" just as Truman's was shut down after 1948 by right-wing McCarthyism prating on and on about the Chamberlain mythology. The deal Johnson made with the devil was "guns and butter."
While Johnson escalated the Vietnam war, he did not start it. It was set in motion when Eisenhower sabotaged implementation of the Paris Treaty which had ended the Vietnamese anti-colonial war against France. The Paris Treaty called for an election to determine when and how Vietnam would reunite. Eisenhower was afraid the North Vietnamese would win the election. So, he got a stooge government in South Vietnam to scrap plans for the vote. Then, he sent in "advisors". This began the sad 20 years of bloodshed we know as the Vietnam war.
We should learn from the mistakes of Vietnam. All the Chicken Hawk fearmongering about what will happen when we leave Iraq is pure speculation. Besides, there's not a shred of proof that staying in Iraq 20 years is going to make any more difference than it did in Vietnam.
We are not in a position to know what is best for the people of Vietnam or Iraq.
Reference is always made to the boat people "voting with their feet" after Saigon fell. But, these were predominately ethnic Chinese fleeing the same sort of ethnic cleansing in Vietnam that they had previously experienced in Malaysia (an American ally). Did anyone in the media ever ask why they were going to Hong Kong instead of neigboring Malaysia?
The Vietnamese did it their own way. Today, they are "most favored nations" trading partners with America.
We should allow Iraq to experience the "self-determination" we recommended so long ago during the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson. They determined themselves after Britian ended it's last imperial adventure in Iraq in the 1950's. Sadaam rose to power. Unless we conceed that we are the ones that put him in power in hopes of his being our stooge, his rise seems to have happened in accordance with the centuries old traditions of Iraq. In any event, it appears that Saddam was the only one who knew how to rule in Iraq. He was in the tradition of oriental despots for thousands of years before him.
Now Sadaam is gone. Maybe we have given the Shia the power to align their country with Iran, and for the Kurds to carve a big piece out of the underbelly of Turkey. So be it.
Like the children's story, "Petunia The Goose," we've been making a pretence of wisdom just by carrying an unread book around under our arms. Misplaced trust in our advice has caused chaos in the barnyard.
Having created this havoc, all we can do is let it receded under its own terms. The whole world knows the value of our advice now. We can no longer pretend to have wisdom. It is time the Bush version of "Petunia the Goose" returns to its pond and stops playing "stud duck" where it doesn't belong.
Like it or not, the future of Iraq really is none of our business. We can have good trade relations with Vietnam, Iraq, and Iran, no matter who rises to the top.
Our way is not the only way. The Bible is an ancient historical document recording how power was exercised in the Middle East. For example, in 587 BC, all the middle and upper class Judeans were forced to leave Jerusalem and move to Babylon (where the Judean men were most probably neutered). About 150 years later (444 BC), Cyrus, after holding them in slavery for decades after his conquest of Babylon, sent the mixed blooded ancestors of Babylonians and Judeans back to take the land away from the remaining twelve tribes. As Nehemiah makes clear, this was done with Persian imperial backing.
Divide and conquer implemented by forced migrations -- that is the way it's been done there.
We have inherited the divide and conquer strategy of British imperialism. (It was the British who drew the map in the Middle East.) We might as well get used to it. Two more years, or 2,000 more years, probably won't make a difference.
Here's a crazy idea! Maybe we can move the victims of genocide from Ruwanda (or Sudan) to Iraq, and have them trade places with the Sunnis. It might calm them all down. They'd all be so eager to get home, they'd do what ever we want. Do you think that idea might be granted the "unpatriotic to question" status of the latest Chicken Hawk war idea?
Better yet ... How about if we MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS!!! -- take George Washington's excellent advice.
That might seem like an isolationist idea. But, it isn't appeasement. Let's debate isolationism. Let's stop using mythology about Chamberlain to defeat rational thinking. Our first choice should be to be involved in the business of the world without controlling it. Our next choice should be a diplomatic surge to resolve disagreements over trade law and human rights. Our last choice should be war - and then never as a preemptive war.
We should support the concept of the United Nations. The hatred for the idea of the United Nations, carried over from the hatred for the idea of Wilsonian League of Nations in 1919, arises from an instinctive preference for warlordism - "might makes right."
Warlordism facilitates war crimes on a massive scale. Ron Paul is right to point out that the charges asserted at Nuremburg were first and foremost: "Aggressive War." It should also be remembered that Tojo of Japan was executed on conviction of a charge of "Preemptive War." Hey folks, unless we were just playing with "victors justice" when we punished war criminals back in 1948, "preemptive war" is still a war crime.
I anticipate criticism arising from the "Hog Knowledge" about Neville Chamberlain. Here are some points to remember about Neville Chamberlain (credit to Wikipedia):
The infamous "appeasement" of Chamberlain involved a dispute over the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia, which was home to a large German minority. The Munich Agreement, engineered by the French and British governments, effectively allowed Adolf Hitler to annex this region. When Hitler invaded and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Chamberlain decided to take a much harder line against the Nazis. He declared war against Germany upon their invasion of Poland. He used the months of inactivity during this so-called "Phoney War" to complete development of the Spitfire and Hurricane, and to strengthen the Radar defence grid in Britain. Both of these priorities would pay crucial dividends in the Battle of Britain. (Quotes from Wikipedia)
Since Chamberlain was the one who declared war on Germany in response to the invasion of Poland and since he used the time before conflict began to develop the badly neglected defenses of Britian, he would seem to be something other than the effete wimp imagined by the uninformed.
If you follow the dittohead mythology about Chamberlain, you would never ever attempt any kind of diplomacy. What? Should Chamberlain have demanded that Germany "come clean" on their policy of "lebensraum" expansion to the east or else risk World War II (to take a page from the Bush playbook)?
The problem was bigger than Chamberlain. There was a general failure of political will and vision which had begun with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. (See, Wikipedia) Recall that Americans refused to endorse Woodrow Wilson's vision of the League of Nations back in 1919. So, there's plenty of blame to go around for the causes of World War II. To focus on Chamberlain is simplistic, and, I'm sorry to say, stupid. The French General Staff was determined not to attack Germany but instead remain on the strategic defensive. Just what was Chamberlain supposed to do? Play gung ho, mad dog, war nut?
No course open to Chamberlain could have averted war. The outcome would not have been any better had armed hostilities begun earlier, given that France, as well, was unwilling to commit its forces, and there were no other effective allies - certainly not isolationist America of the time.
Again, rightwing mythology associated with the name Chamberlain is bogus. It's time we stopped letting mythology derail rational analysis. If the Republican strategy for November is to prate about Chamberlain, then we must prepare to be myth busters on a large scale. It is work that has been neglected too long.
At a minimum Nancy Pelosi should invite herself to the White House and slap that moron across the face and just say "Wake up jackass!"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1204/p02s02-usgn.html?page=1
Lu Gronseth listens regularly to WWTC, a conservative talk-radio station in Minneapolis, and even advertises his mortgage-loan business on the station. But when he learned that a nationally syndicated radio show host had told WWTC listeners that Muslims should be deported and made rude comments about what they could do with their religion, Mr. Gronseth pulled his ads from the station.
So have at least two other Minnesota businesses, at the urging of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C., as have a handful of national companies, including OfficeMax, JCPenney, Wal-Mart, and AT&T. But the comments by host Michael Savage in October - and previous anti-Muslim speech - have not created the furor that knocked radio icon Don Imus off of MSNBC and CBS Radio after he denigrated a black women's basketball team. That leaves many Muslims-Americans - and non-Muslims like Mr. Gronseth - suspicious that Americans have a double standard when it comes to Islam Read More »
Congress can stop him from setting up permanent bases in Iraq and block an indefinite occupation--but they need to hear a groundswell of pressure from us immediately and loudly so they act on this quickly.
I just signed a petition demanding that Congress stop the president from committing to a massive military presence in Iraq for decades. Can you join me?
http://pol.moveon.org/endless/?r_by=11723-5077189-Cf.Eao&rc=comment_paste
Thanks!
At first blush this may sound like great news, however, this president is also negotiating a treaty with the Maliki government to be completed by next summer which will govern the continued US troop presence. This is an enormously important development.
The structure of that treaty could control any future US presidents freedom to make independent decisions in Iraq. It could delay the ability to make independent decisions through timelines for withdrawl from the treaty or it could effectively commit the United States to a permanent presence in Iraq through unmet benchmarks. This president if we are not careful could write into treaty law the continuation of his disastrous policies in Iraq. Read More »
Promoted by Joaquin
I am disappointed that the media has only focused its attention on the "front runner" candidate of both parties. The general public is missing an opportunity to learn more about other candidates' views, particularly those that are closely aligned with the majority of Americans. What the media continues to dish out is the same old evasive answers that are being promoted by the front-runners in their attempts to avoid controversy and "play the middle." Granted there are some "fringe" ideas being forwarded, but the media should provide near equal opportunity for Americans to learn about the views and plans of Presidential candidates. This is more important in the 2008 election cycle given the extremely expanded campaign season. The longer campaign should screams for the media to provide more information about many of the candidates instead of the same sound-bites from a few.Case in point...Iraq and Governor Richardson. Read More »
http://www.orientalharbor.net/hotoffthepress.html
Oriental's Episcopal Church has 'un-invited' a Muslim group that was to speak at the church to quell a parishoner revolt against '"non-Christians" and keep peace in the parish.
"Concern was expressed that non-Christians should not be given a voice in our church," Senior Warden George Robinson wrote in the church's October newsletter, The Moorings. "Others felt that to gain understanding, particularly about 'the enemy' was important."
The Muslim group was invited after a local Methodist congregation had them speak and thought it added to understanding between faiths, according to the newsletter. The Muslim group was invited to St. Thomas Episcopal Church as part of its "One God" series of seminars.
But some members objected, and at a September meeting at the church where both sides presented their cases, the church's Rev. Jeremiah C. Day apparently stepped in to quell controversy, saying the group would be un-invited, based on the newsletter.
The Muslim group was the idea of the church's Christian Education Committee.
"So what was the result of all the discussion? Father Day suggested that ministers in the community might have a forum for the whole community. Pat Webster, of the Christian Education Committee - the group suggesting a Muslim speaker - suggested we could spend some time together trying to develop a tolerance for diversity," Webster wrote on Page 5 of the October newsletter.
"Consequently, the Muslim speaker is not coming to St. Thomas, as Father Day noted, to keep peace in the parish.
The Iraq Strategy of Governor Bill Richardson (Democratic Candidate for US President) in one page:
http://www.bill-richardson-iraq-plan.com
Disclaimer: this website has been created with no financial or other support or opinion or guidance from the Richardson for President campaign
The American people want an end to the War in Iraq, how’s that going to be attended to, also coming up quickly and perhaps more importantly is Iran, which will really present a strain on our governing bodies, perhaps the military and our economy. Pakistan will also present an additional drain on the president’s time to insure its nuclear resources are not taken over by undesirable elements within the country.
Read More »It’s been five years, to me that’s a long time, and I’m fifty-nine years old, don’t you think senators it’s about time you develop a plan, and announce to the public so the voters can see what you’re made of.
Read More »Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded Read More »
We just received a memo from Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Lon Cross, detailing the specifics of how we can successfully and safely withdraw all of our troops from Iraq within 6-8 months. Colonel Cross is not affiliated with the campaign, but as a citizen and a retired Army officer who has worked heavily in logistics, he wanted to share this with Governor Richardson.
Read More »From: US Army (Ret.) LTC Lon Cross
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 7:49 AM
To: Richardson Senior Staff
Subject: Re: Redeploying troops in IraqThe conventional wisdom on Iraq is wrong. In recent months, politicians from both sides of the aisle have scoffed at the notion that US Forces could conduct a complete and safe withdrawal from Iraq in a matter of months. Most of these critiques have been "myth based," short on facts and long on conjecture driven by the critic's personal political agenda.
It is not my intention to weigh the merits of the competing redeployment proposals with respect to which is most strategically and politically sound. In the succeeding paragraphs, I will draw upon my knowledge as a retired field-grade infantry and logistics officer, and will present the facts that are relevant to an evaluation of what is logistically feasible regarding the redeployment of US Forces from Iraq.
For the sake of brevity, when making the case as to what is logistically supportable, I will only address the proposal with the most aggressive timeline, which is Governor Bill Richardson's call for a complete redeployment within six to eight months. As the evidence below will show, this scenario is very much achievable.
Here's how: despite the myth being propagated that there is only one route into and out of Iraq, there are actually seven land routes.
These routes include: four that lead to the Kuwaiti ports, including the main expressway from Baghdad to Umm Qasr as well as a highway that rolls along the Tigris to Umm Qasr, and two highways that cut through Saudi Arabia into Kuwait. In addition, there is a viable rail option in the north into Turkey (the Army Corps of Engineers has upgraded the line), as well as the expressway north into Turkey and one that leads into Jordan.
Therefore, depending on what we can expect in the way of political support from neighboring countries, we can reasonably assume between four and seven land routes out of Iraq.
Next comes the question of what has to traverse those routes, and there are three primary logistics problems to solve. First, there are some 50,000 pieces of rolling stock -- vehicles, both combat and non-combat, such as tanks and Humvees, that can propel themselves out of Iraq. A simple division of 50,000 by six or eight months shows that we would need to withdraw an average of, respectively, 274 or 205 vehicles per day.
Second, there are some 200,000 Short Tons (2000 pounds per Short Ton) of unit equipment and supplies that will require being carted into containers and shipped out. This number is actually a conservative estimate, but it also gives lie to the second myth about a future redeployment: we do not need to bring back everything we brought to Iraq.
To be sure, these 200,000 Short Tons include all weapons, ammunition, and sensitive items. But it leaves behind fixed-assets such as barracks and gymnasiums. Risking even a single troop's life through delay in order to break these assets down brick-by-brick would be a travesty.
The 200,000 Short Tons would then be broken down and placed on 40-foot containers that will transport 15 Short Tons each. Thus, it would take some 13,333 containers to remove all of our necessary stationary equipment from Iraq. Again, this is quite doable, with a six-month redeployment requiring 73 containers per day, and eight months requiring 55.
Finally, we must of course account for the brave men and women who are serving in Iraq right now. These troops represent both the most important and the easiest of the logistics equation, as many would be integrated as security into the convoys that will bring the equipment home. Additionally, a fleet of C-130s, C-17s, and civilian jet liners could assist by air, as is currently done to transport most troops.
Combined, then, US Forces would need to redeploy a sum total of 347 and 260 moveable units daily (for the six and eight month scenarios, respectively). Moreover, in reality, these two flows need not be mutually exclusive. Some portion of the 200,000 Short Tons may be moved by the rolling stock fleet. For here, however, I am going to treat these two numbers as discrete so as to provide the analysis for a more conservative time-line.
Assuming that we employed as few as three of the seven available roads every day in order to maintain tactical surprise, the redeployment would require moving 116 or 87 vehicles per path, per day. This task is quite achievable by a military that moved half a million troops and accompanying equipment out of Iraq in four months following the first Gulf War.
I am not qualified to speak as to what the best course of action in Iraq would be, though, like all Americans, I have my opinions. I do know, however, what is possible, and a safe and complete redeployment of all American forces within six to eight months is, without question, achievable.
Below I have included more details and specifics about the redeployment for your information.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Lon Cross is a Research Fellow at LMI (formerly known as
the Logistics Management Institute) where he specializes in Logistics and
Supply Chain Risk Management and Process Improvement. Currently, all of his
clients reside within the Department of Defense. Lon is a retired Army Lieutenant
Colonel. He took part in drafting the 82nd Airborne Division's Operations
Orders for Operation Urgent Fury, the 1983 invasion of Grenada, as well as
the re-equipping of a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division following the
first Persian Gulf War. He holds an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College
and a MBA from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Posts
