Obama's Strategy on Afghanistan

It is difficult, even impossible, to accept President Obama's "New strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" as described by him in a formal speech on March 27. It fails by imperial and non-imperial standards.

First the imperial: Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA agent, reports in his book Nemesis: "The Carter administration deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan... In his 1996 memoir, former CIA Director Robert Gates acknowledges that the American intelligence services began to aid the anti-Soviet mujahideen guerillas not after the Russian invasion but six months before it.... President Carter's purpose was to provoke a full-scale Soviet military intervention... to tie...down the USSR." Will an expanded military effort in Afghanistan tie down the U.S. as it did the USSR?

Obama plans a U.S. military effort in Afghanistan lasting at least five years in a country 50% larger than Iraq in area and population. The NATO allied forces are token in size and commitment and rarely leave their base camps. A serious U.S. military effort will require at least 250,000 troops tied down in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Will America be unable to react to other challenges as they arise especially its obligations, to protect Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, to deter Iran from a nuclear program, to support Pakistan from collapse; etc..

The invasion of Iraq could be justified on imperial grounds because it is strategically situated in the heart of the largest concentration of oil in the world. Afghanistan has no comparable resource, one of the poorest countries, no industry, little farming, rugged terrain, a land of banditry and bribery.

The adventure fails from a non- imperial perspective. Obama says "That country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." None of the 19 people who perpetrated the September 11 criminal tragedy were Afghan or Taliban. Fifteen of them were Saudi. There are no Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan any longer. Osama bin Laden and what is left of his crew is in hiding somewhere in the wilderness of Pakistan. The Al Qaeda operation is scattered and disorganized. Yes, another 19 thugs could infiltrate the U.S. and kill Americans, but sending an army into Afghanistan is not going to prevent another such criminal act. In fact, the hyped war in Afghanistan is more likely to divert us from protecting ourselves against another September 11.

http://relentlessliberal.blogspot.com/
Jerome Grossman's Website
Jerome Grossman is a former Member of the Democratic National Committee, Retired President of Massachusetts Envelope Company, Chairman Emeritus of Council for a Livable World, Author of Relentless Liberal
His opinions can be seen at relentlessliberal.com

Simple Ways To Support Our Troops

Are you looking for simple yet meaningful ways to support our troops? Below are 4 low cost ways to do just that.

Sending Gift Cards
Sending Care Packages
Sending Calling Cards
Being A Pen Pal

Sending Gift Cards - You could also show your support by sending gift cards.

Sending Care Packages - If you choose to support our troops by sending care packages, be sure you know what to put in them. Iraq is an extremely hot country so don't send anything that will melt (i.e. chocolate). Soldiers have access to just about all the cheap snacks they could ever want at the Post Exchange.

So what could you put in the care packages? Think entertainment. Soldiers love watching movies and playing video games in their off time. In most circumstances a Soldier would be delighted to receive a new release movie as opposed to melted candy, foot powder, etc. Movies are also supplied at the Post Exchange but the selection is often limited.

Sending Calling Cards - You could also show your support by sending quality phone cards. The calling cards offered to our troops often times have hidden fees. This means Soldiers may pay for a four hundred minute phone card but their minutes get cut in half by hidden charges. Find a quality phone card to send to a Soldier and he or she would be extremely grateful.

Being A Pen Pal - Another great way to support our troops is to become a pen pal. As much as care packages are appreciated, it is only logical to conclude that a personal note that you took the time to write from your heart would be equally (if not more) treasured.

A quick internet search led to to penpalsforsoldiers.org. Check them out or conduct your own search to find Soldiers wanting pen pals.

Drunk Driving Vs. The War In Iraq

There’s a really popular trend right now of bombarding Pres. Bush with criticisms for a lot of reasons, but particularly for the current conflict in Iraq. I can’t attest that his reasons for entry were flawless or that we “should” or “should not” be there (that’s so grey, in spite of what a lot of hard-headed and self-important protestors think). Basically, I feel that I, along with most Americans (both for and against the war) are not perfectly informed and therefore, I have a hard time picking sides, though I do dislike the whiney liberal media. Anyway, on to my point.

In listening to the news, we are quick to hear about the rising death toll in Iraq. Interestingly enough, though, it still loses out to the number of fatalities caused by drunk driving in the United States by a ratio of about 17 to 1 (according to MADD and DoD Reports, comparing fatalities of 2005 to both causes). 17 to 1. 17 to 1. That’s in favor of drunk driving. There aren’t 17 reports against drunk driving for every report of some legislator fighting Bush’s Iraq policy. In fact, I’d wager that the number is quite inverse.

There are some big differences, too. Those who serve in our military do so with a commitment to laying their life on the line in the defense of our nation. Those killed by drunk driving accidents are often on their way home from the store, taking kids to a school play, going to see a movie, etc. They never chose to have their life unnecessarily endangered. How is that fair?

So what I don’t get is why we can spend so much energy slamming Bush for his foreign policy while we let 15 more people die here for every one that loses a life in Iraq and we do relatively nothing about it. Why? I guess it’s a weak and easy strategy to heave blame on someone else so we don’t have to feel guilt for our own misdeeds. Plus, if we really cracked down on alcohol misuse, we wouldn’t have those hilarious commercials. I mean, talking frogs. That’s good stuff. That’s worth 16,000 citizens a year.

Lewis originally posted this article on his blog at TheGoont.com, where he posts fairly regularly.

Progress in Iraq

At the beginning of this year, the Multi-National Force-Iraq military command released its annual report on the state of affairs in the war-torn country once dominated by Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial regime. Called “Iraq: 2006 Year in Review,” the 25-page report offers some valuable insight into the progress being made, even as anti-war activists and members of Congress call for the withdrawal of American troops.

The report reveals early on the complexity that is post-Saddam Hussein Iraq: “It is important to note that violence and progress coexist in Iraq.” With each year that passes since the American-led invasion in 2003, the violence seems to get worse. To be sure, as the report says, “In 2006, Iraq saw its most complex security and political environment ever.”

But amid the steady stream of violence and chaos that fills the television airwaves, remarkable strides are in fact being made. According to the report, “…in 2006 Iraq reached its goal of 325,000 trained and equipped police and military security forces while taking control of its navy, air forces, multiple Iraqi Army divisions, and security responsibility for three entire provinces.”

The report goes on to note that “Baghdad...remains the main stage,” giving implicit support to the President’s plan to boost troop levels in order to quell the violence in the capital city.

Providing statistics to demonstrate the progress made thus far, the report says Iraqi military forces have grown from 102,199 personnel to 135,783. Similarly, the police forces have grown from 110,816 to 167,210 and nearly 100 logistical support units have been formed. From January to November, the report says, the Iraqi Army went from one to six division headquarters in the lead, from eight to 30 brigade headquarters in the lead and from 37 to 91 battalions in the lead for security operations.

Those in Washington who say the Iraqis aren’t moving fast enough to stand up their own security forces fail to appreciate the difficulties involved. The United States and her allies in Iraq are creating military and police forces essentially from scratch. Under Saddam Hussein, positions of leadership were based on loyalty to the state (which was Saddam) and political standing within the Ba’ath Party, and not on competence or ability.

Such a system is no longer valid for Iraq. Not only do we have to create Iraqi units, which involves both equipping and training the personnel for these units, we have to develop leaders and we have to train and equip the specialty positions required for units to sustain themselves. Such specialized positions include logistics personnel, medics, radio operators, engineers, bomb disposal technicians, etc. It is a vast undertaking made even more difficult by the fact that these fledgling forces are incessantly targeted for attack by insurgent groups.

As the report goes on, it says the coalition’s plan is to move away from active combat and toward a support and training role as Iraqi units grow in confidence and ability. Embedded trainers are expected to increase from 4,000 to 40,000 this year, a move that sounds almost identical to plans put forth by many Democratic critics of the President’s efforts. Maybe that’s where those calling for a change in course got the idea. The coalition plan also calls for active combat to target al-Qaeda in Iraq terrorists, an idea recently touted by Senator Reid and other prominent Democrats and one that has been included as a provision in at least one non-binding resolution proposal.

There is progress in other respects as well. According to the report, more Iraqis own cars, air conditioners, cell phones and satellite dishes than ever before. Per capita Gross Domestic Product, according to the International Monetary Fund, has grown from $949 in 2004, to an estimated $1,237 in 2005, to a projected $1,635 in 2006.

The point of all of this is to say that progress is indeed being made in Iraq. The going has been slow, to be sure, but we are still moving ahead. The sectarian divide that is bleeding Baghdad may not be overcome short of a full-scale genocide campaign. But the Iraqi government needs more time to work toward a national reconciliation that will bridge a divide developed over decades by Saddam Hussein’s Sunni minority government. Before the diplomatic process can move forward, the violence has to be reduced. That is where the President’s new security plan comes in. If American and Iraqi troops can bring the violence in Baghdad under control, then Iraq has a chance for a peaceful outcome. The initial results are encouraging, but the road ahead will be a long one, and a bloody one.

Virtually no one anticipated the post-invasion chaos that has enveloped Iraq. But that doesn’t mean we should just leave it for the Iraqis and hope for the best. As the report concludes, “Iraq is in a new stage of its evolution, and the impatient should consider all that liberation unleashed.” Now is the time to recognize that not all in Iraq is bad. Now is the time to support our commander in chief and allow his plan the time it needs to take hold. Anything less undermines our mission, our troops, and our coalition and Iraqi allies.

Why George Bush Was Right To Invade Iraq

George Bush was right ton invade Iraq for many reasons. Saddam Hussein had cancelled numerous planned weapons inspections by the United Nations installing fear in the USA that he had them. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who massacred nearly a million of his own citizens. He told his country he was a direct descendant of Mohammed. Saddam Hussein was a crazy and brutal dictator.

He gassed and bombed his own people in the Kurds. Killing hundreds of thousands of them. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980-88 Saddam used brutal measures which were against the Geneva convention. He tortured opposing soldiers and he even tortured the Iraqi national soccer team when they were not achieving desired results.

George Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 to topple the regime was the correct one even though they did not have any weapons of mass destruction. George Bush ousted a brutal dictator who was massacring his people and he was crazy.

To all the peace activists out there who were against the war i am not sure where you are coming from. You stand for peace yet you wanted no war and a brutal dictator to stay in power. Killing hundreds and thousand of his own civillians in the process. Although there were no weapons of mass destruction the war was a success as it got rid of Hitler's cousin in Saddam Hussein. Saving thousand of Iraqi's. Yes there plan for post war and to evacuate the reason has been very bad. That can be demonstrated against and seen as not successful as the US has had no clear exit strategy. Although one must commend the spirit of George Bush to get rid of the appalling human in Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq. The next step is implementing a successful evacuation plan immediately. Although the initial war was fought on the right grounds. George Bush was looking after his fellow humans experiencing the rein of tyranny under Saddam.

Bush: Victory in Iraq Will be Blow to Terrorist Ideology

By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 24, 2006 – A successful democracy in Iraq will be a major tactical and ideological blow to the totalitarian vision of Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, President Bush said in California today.

"One, it will be a tactical blow. We'll deny them that which they want," Bush said in a speech in Irvine. "But secondly, it will be a major blow because, in the long term, the best way to defeat an ideology of hatred is with an ideology of hope."

Bush said the United States learned a lot of important lessons on Sept. 11, 2001.

The first is that the U.S. faces an enemy with no regard for innocent life, and the only way to deal with this is to stay on the offensive, "which is precisely what the United States is doing and will continue to do for the safety of the American people," he said.

Another important lesson is that terrorists cannot be allowed to find safe haven in any country, which they would do in Iraq if the United States were to pull out of the country. "We denied safe haven in Afghanistan, and we're denying them safe haven in Iraq," Bush said.

Terrorists' most powerful weapon is their "willingness and capacity to kill innocent people," Bush said.

"They understand the United States of America is a compassionate nation," Bush said. "I'm sure they view it as a weakness of our country; I happen to view it as a strength that we value every life, that every person is precious. But they know, and it doesn't take much to realize that when you put carnage on our TV screens, it causes us to weep."

He said it's a "legitimate question" for the American people to wonder if the cause is worth fighting for in Iraq, but that Americans must remain steadfast in their resolve.

"It's very important for the American people to understand that they're trying to run us out of Iraq for a purpose, and the purpose is to be able to have safe haven from which to launch further attacks," Bush said. "And I understand it, and we've got a strategy in place to achieve victory."

The president also spoke about a visit a day earlier to U.S. Marines in Twentynine Palms, Calif. "These young men and women are incredibly dedicated. They are motivated. They understand that we must defeat the enemy over there so we do not have to face them here at home," he said.

"Most of them raised their hand to volunteer after September the 11th. Many of them have said, 'I want to continue to serve our country.' We're lucky to have people like them willing to serve," he continued. "And the United States government, whether you agree with my policy or not, must stand by our troops. When they're in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best equipment, and the best possible support."