December 11, 2006
Iraq Study Group Response
:Washington was ablaze this week with the release of the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings on how to improve the situation in Iraq. Democrats and Moderate Republicans lined up to lavish praise of the ten wise men that have given us a “New Way Forward”. And despite the excitement, there is very little in this report that gives much hope for the future of Iraq. Not only does the report speak to a “grave future,” it provides few substantive realistic proposals. I will address these flaws in the next couple days; I first wanted to address the current critics of the report.
There is plenty to criticize in this report – lack of boldness, lack of a coherent overall strategy, and lack of honesty in the true difficulties in getting things back on track – all of which have been attacked. Ironically, these attacks have come from leading neoconservative thinkers.
Richard Pearle, a Reagan-administration defense official who strongly supported the invasion said, “The report is a monumental disappointment… The recommendations are either wrong or of no consequence. There is no magic bullet, but in their desire to find something, they found the wrong things.”
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon aide and now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, “Sometimes realists have to deal with reality. Iran and Syria will press to exploit every advantage they have.”
And Kenneth R. Weinstein, chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute said that “It’s preposterous, period.”
Of course, the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s findings are not what really got this group of neoconservatives mad. What really angers them is that there were only two neoconservatives among the 40 or so experts that briefed the Commission. Apparently that was not enough. Again, Michael Rubin, “Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush’s war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy… [the Commission] gerrymandered [experts] experts to ratify predetermined recommendations. Rather than prime the debate they sought to stifle it.”
The neoconservatives may be totally right in the specifics – the Commission may be wrong (I’ll argues as much this week) and they may have been left of the Commission – but they are wrong on the overall picture. The Commission really shouldn’t have had a single neoconservative on the briefing board. It really makes no sense to have their input.
For one, the President has endorsed their vision of the world and he met with the Commission. He is in the best position to articulate that vision and his views were well represented. Thanks to the President, the Commission never really considered an immediate withdraw despite large evidence in support of such a move. In addition the Commission was to address alternative paths to victory. It is hard to see how having the architects of the war as chief experts helps to provide a path other than the one we are currently on.
Truthfully, though, what’s concerning to me is that there were even two neoconservatives on the Commission staff. It would be as if a big group got together for a study group in College that was dominated by one person. The group later receives its test grades and found they all failed. Come the next test, I guarantee, that the group will not invite or listen to the person that dominated the last conversation. Unfairly, after all that person may have some good thoughts to add to the discussion for the next test. But that person was responsible for your failure on the last test and you would be a fool to listen again.
Likewise, it would be foolish to give any credence to people like Rubin, Weinstein, or Pearle. They failed this nation. They believed that we would be greeted with flowers and that the oil would pay for the invasion. They still believe that permanent bases are needed to take care of Israel and put pressure on Iran. While full responsibility is on the President, the neoconservatives have a large share of the bloodshed and failure on their ideas. And for that, pardon me, if I do not care if they feel that they are now not being listened to – don’t we all wish that we hadn’t listened to them three years ago.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, America)
December 6, 2006
Gates Confirmation
:We will soon have a new Defense Secretary. Robert Gates was confirmed today with a 95-2 vote (only opposed by Conservative Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim Bunning (R-KY) who seemed to think he was not supportive enough of the President’s policies in Iraq). The Senate seems to have finally come to the view that most of the population already had decided – Rumsfeld has to go and the sooner the better (more on this when Rumsfeld finally leaves the Pentagon, rumors have him staying through the end of December). And while few will argue with this desire, we have no idea if Dr. Gates is the right man for this job. Sure he said the right things for a day and a half and seems to be a bit independent but he is not the first to dazzle Congress nominated by this President. The devil was in the details and could have been had if his hearings were delayed to hear the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. Instead we know very little about Dr. Gates and have no basis to be excited about this nomination.
(Filed under: America at War, Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
Iraq Study Group
:Do you have your copy yet? I hope to finish it by this weekend and will begin posting my thoughts soon after. Get your copy at Amazon by clicking on this link: Iraq Study Group
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
October 24, 2005
Commentary - Counting the Dead
:In the past, this report has strongly advised the Bush Administration to count the number of Iraqis that have died during the War in Iraq and use an independent body to clarify responsibility for their deaths. The Washington Post reports this morning that the military has put more emphasis lately on body counts of dead Iraqi insurgents in an effort to show that the war is working. While this is a good step towards accounting for dead Iraqis, it does not go far enough.
As military officials suggest, it is impossible to determine the number of enemies to show that deaths are making a dent in the insurgency. In addition, it is difficult to determine the difference between insurgents and civilians – which Arab media quickly points out about such numbers. Instead, the military is using dead insurgents as a propaganda tool, similar to its purpose in Vietnam. And, while, it sounds great to have numbers as evidence of success, like in Vietnam, counting the killing fields does not justify the war. It simply accounts for our sins since the count began.
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
October 17, 2005
Commentary – The Iraqi Constitution
:Much could be stated about the past missteps of the American experiment in Iraq or the fears of a constitution that was still being negotiated four days before the charter’s vote or fears of disenchanted Sunnis that voted no and were overruled. But if those fears are realized there will be plenty of time for second-guessing. Today, one marvels at the courage and convictions of Iraqi voters. Whether Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd, millions faced the potential of insurgent violence and voted on the nation’s future. And whether they voted yes or no, they showed up. For critics of the war, including me, it was a sight many of us again did not expect to see go so well. Again it showed that there is still hope. That the hope is still surrounded by so many difficult challenges and potential pitfalls is a cause for concern but a month ago it did not look like we would have that hope as a compromise appeared difficult. And so for now, the hope is significant and should be celebrated.
(Filed under: Iraq, Iraq Constitution, America at War, Bush Administration, Middle East, Commentary, Politics, America)
Commentary – Support the Troops
:Criticize the war in Iraq and you are sure to hear that you are not a patriot and not being supportive of the troops. Meanwhile, those supportive members of the White House and Congress that sent the troops to Iraq are receiving a free pass of their support. But it is disingenuous.
The Army has identified 331 injured soldiers that have returned from the war saddled with military debt after being injured at war. While some Congressman, including Rep. Thomas Davis (R-VA), have criticized the system not fully funding those returning from war and the Army is in the process of forgiving debts of 99 of the 331 injured solders, it is not enough.
There should not be a single returning soldier in this situation. We should be providing for the soldiers that have sacrificed so much for their country. We must support the troops with our financial and moral support as they return from war not just with ribbons on our car and statements meant to demean war opponents.
(Filed under: America at War, War Protests, Bush Administration, Commentary, Politics, America)
October 3, 2005
Commentary - Cindy Sheehan
:They say everyone gets fifteen minutes of fame. There should be an addendum that states that people need to realize when it is over. The anti-war movement in this country received a huge morale boost this summer when the mother from California who lost a son went to Bush’s ranch to protest the war. Huge story and Cindy Sheehan was the darling of the left, which opposed the war. But if she helped galvanize protests this summer, by fall, she can only be described as a hindrance to actual progress in the cause against the war. Sheehan cannot seem to stop saying silly things like “Remove the troop from occupied Iraq and New Orleans.” Two weeks ago she was arrested in front of the White House demanding that the troops be removed immediately. I have opposed the war from the beginning but one should be realistic in their demands. Until then, nothing will change. So would someone please tell Cindy that her time is up?
(Filed under: Iraq, America at War, War Protests, Middle East, Politics)
August 27, 2005
War Protests Continue
:President Bush responding to declining poll numbers (36% approval rating, which is about the rate of LBJ’s rate during the turning point in the Vietnam War) and a large protest led by grieving mother Cindy Sheehan at his vacation ranch, went on the road to boost the war’s popularity. In Idaho and Utah this week, Bush spoke with veteran groups to reiterate his mission to fight terrorists abroad instead of at home and more references to 9/11. “So long as I’m the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.” This weekend pro-war and anti-war protests are expected in Crawford, Texas.