The continued ignorance of those who would lead America

Today’s report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund reminds us – again – of how poorly informed those who run this country are about a world into which they have confidently taken this country into war. Senator McCain has been stating in various contexts that Iran has been supporting al Qaeda in Iraq, that Iranian operatives have been "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back." [Click on the title above to link to the site.]

The report correctly refutes his claims: “Though Iran is 90 percent Shi’ite and al Qaeda is a Sunni group, it is not inconceivable that some aspects of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are supporting some aspects of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), or that AQI members have ever crossed the border into Iran. However, there is simply no evidence to support McCain's claim that Iran is ‘training’ AQI in Iran.”

What McCain and this administration seem unable to internalize is that Shi’ite Iran has little interest in supporting Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni movement that considers it a religious duty to kill Shi’a as well as other “infidels” (like Americans). So they repeatedly conflate radical Sunnism with radical Shi’ism. It cannot be; these two religious factions have such a long history of contention that a close league with each other is scarcely possible. McCain’s remarks reveal how poorly informed he is, someone who has prided himself on his grasp of foreign policy. As the Washington Post notes, "The last five years have produced ample evidence that American leaders were woefully ill-informed about the country they came to rescue."

Lord, help us! We are living in a world our leaders scarcely understand.

استمرار جهل أولئك الذين سيؤدي الامريكية

تقرير اليوم من مركز التقدم الامريكى صندوق العمل يذكرنا -- مرة اخرى -- من رديئا ابلغ القائمين على هذا البلد عن العالم الى التي لها بثقه اتخذت هذا البلد في أتون الحرب. السناتور ماكين قد ذكرت في سياقات مختلفة ان ايران قد دعم تنظيم القاعده في العراق ، ان المتعامل الايرانيه قد "اخذ القاعده في ايران ، وتدريبهم وارسالهم الى الوراء". [اضغط على العنوان اعلاه الى وصلة الى موقع.]

التقرير صحيح يدحض مزاعمه : "رغم ان ايران هي 90 في المئة الشيعي وتنظيم القاعده هو سني المجموعة ، ليس من المستبعد أن بعض الجوانب من الحرس الثوري الايراني بدعم بعض جوانب القاعده في العراق (aqi) ، أو Aqi ان اعضاء من اى وقت مضى وقد عبروا الحدود الى ايران. ومع ذلك ، وببساطة لا توجد أدلة تدعم مطالبة ماكين ان ايران 'التدريب' aqi في ايران. "

ماكين ، وهذا ما يبدو ان الادارة غير قادرة على الاستيعاب الداخلي هو ان ايران الشيعيه لا يملك الا القليل من الاهتمام في دعم القاعده لأن القاعده هي الحركة السنيه الراديكاليه التي ترى ان من واجب ديني على قتل الشيعه ، فضلا عن غيرها من "الكفار" (مثل الأميركيون). حتى انهم مرارا conflate جذريه sunnism مع shi'ism جذريه. انه لا يمكن ان يكون ؛ هذين الفصائل الدينية لها مثل هذا التاريخ الطويل من الزعم ان وثيقة مع جامعة الدول بعضها بعضا نادرة ممكن. ماكين ملاحظات تكشف مدى سوء علم فهو ، وهو الشخص الذي مفتخر بنفسه قبضته على السياسة الخارجية. كما تلاحظ صحيفة واشنطن بوست ، "خلال السنوات الخمس الماضية أسفرت عن ادلة وافره على ان القادة الامريكيين كانوا للاسف سوء علم البلد جاؤوا لانقاذ".

اللورد ، يساعدنا! اننا نعيش في عالم لا يكاد يفهم قادتنا

继续无知者会导致美国

今天的报告是由美国进步中心行动基金提醒我们-再次-如何不太了解的人来说，这个国家是一个世界带入，而他们满怀 信心地采取了这个国家陷入战争。联邦参议员马侃已经说明，在各种情境，伊朗一直支持伊拉克盖达组织，即伊朗操作工已"采取盖达进入伊朗，培训他们，并送他 们回" 。 [点击标题以上，连接到现场。 ]

报告正确地驳斥他的说法： "虽然伊朗是百分之九十以上的什叶派和基地组织是一个逊尼派组，这是不是不可想象的，有些方面的伊朗革命卫队的支持，都是某些方面的盖达组织在伊拉克（农 业检疫及检验） ，或说，农业检疫及检验大家都越过边界进入伊朗。不过，是根本不存在的证据，以支持麦凯恩称伊朗是'培训'农业检疫及检验，在和伊朗" 。

什么麦凯恩和这个政府似乎无法内化是什叶派为主的伊朗有兴趣不大，配套基地，因为基地组织是一个激进的逊尼派运动，认为这是宗教 的责任，以杀死什叶派以及其他"异教徒" （如美国人） 。所以，他们多次conflate激进sunnism与激进的什叶派教义。它不能，这两个宗教派系有这么长的历史争议的一个紧密联盟，互相是几乎没有可能 的。麦凯恩的言论揭示了如何不太了解，他是一位十分自豪，他掌握的外交政策。正如华盛顿邮报指出， "过去五年来，产生了充分的证据表明，美国领导人被严重不足了解国家，他们来拯救" 。

主啊，帮助我们！我们生活在一个世界，我们的领导人几乎没有了解

В продолжение невежества тех, кто хотел бы привести Америки

Сегодняшний доклад Центра американского прогресса действий Фонда напоминает нам, - снова - о том, как плохо информирован о тех, которые управляют этой стране, о мире, в который они уверенно принять эту страну в пучину войны. Сенатор Маккейн был заявив, в различных контекстах, что Иран оказывает поддержку "Аль-Каиды" в Ираке, о том, что иранские боевики были "принимает" аль-Каиды "в Иране, их подготовку и отправку их обратно". [Нажмите на заголовок выше ссылке на сайт.]

В докладе правильно опровергает его претензии: "Хотя Иран составляет 90 проц шиитской и" Аль-Каиды "является суннитской группы, то не себе, что некоторые аспекты иранской революционной гвардии поддерживают некоторые аспекты организации" Аль-Каиды "в Ираке (AQI), или AQI том, что члены никогда не пересекли границу в Иран. Однако, просто не существует доказательств, подтверждающих Маккейн претензии, что Иран является "профессиональной подготовки" AQI в Иране ".

Что Маккейн и нынешней администрации, как не в интернализации шиитской заключается в том, что Иран имеет мало заинтересована в поддержке "Аль-Каиды", поскольку "Аль-Каида" является радикальной суннитской движение, которое считает, что религиозная обязанность убивать шиитов, а также других "неверных" (например, Американцы). Поэтому они неоднократно conflate радикальных Sunnism с радикальными Shi'ism. Он не может быть; эти две религиозные группировки такая долгая история о том, что тесные лиги друг с другом практически не возможно. Маккейн замечания свидетельствуют о том, как плохо информирован он есть, кто-то, кто гордится его пониманию внешней политики. В газете "Вашингтон пост" отмечает, что, "Последние пять лет дали достаточные доказательства того, что американские лидеры были крайне плохо информирован о стране они пришли, чтобы спасти".

Господа, помогите нам! Мы живем в мире, наши лидеры едва понимаем.

La continuación de la ignorancia de los que llevaría América

El informe de hoy por el Center for American Progress Action Fund nos recuerda - de nuevo - de la forma poco informados a los que se ejecute este país acerca de un mundo en la que han tomado con confianza este país a la guerra. Senador McCain ha estado declarando en diversos contextos que Irán ha estado apoyando al Qaeda en Irak, que los operarios se han iraní "teniendo al-Qaeda en Irán, la formación de los mismos y enviarlos de vuelta". [Haz clic en el título anterior para enlazar con el sitio.]

En el informe se refuta sus afirmaciones: "Aunque Irán es chiíta y el 90 por ciento de Al-Qaida es un grupo sunni, no es inconcebible que algunos de los aspectos de la Guardia Revolucionaria iraní están apoyando algunos aspectos de la organización Al Qaeda en Irak (AQI), o AQI miembros que alguna vez cruzaron la frontera con Irán. Sin embargo, sencillamente no hay pruebas para apoyar la reclamación de McCain que Irán está «formación» AQI en Irán. "

¿Qué McCain y esta administración parecen incapaces de internalizar es que el Irán chiíta tiene poco interés en el apoyo a Al Qaeda porque Al Qaeda es un movimiento sunita radical que considera que es un deber religioso matar a los chiítas, así como otros "infieles" (como Americanos). Así que en repetidas ocasiones confunden con Sunnism radical radical chi'ismo. No puede ser; estas dos facciones religiosas tienen una larga historia de la afirmación de que una estrecha liga con los demás es apenas posible. McCain las observaciones revelan la forma en que está mal informado, alguien que tiene orgullo de su alcance de la política exterior. Como señala el Washington Post, "Los últimos cinco años han producido una amplia evidencia de que los líderes americanos son deplorablemente mal informada sobre el país vinieron a rescatar".

Señor, ayúdanos! Estamos viviendo en un mundo apenas entender a nuestros dirigentes.

Thanks to those who reveal the truth, even when it is embarrassing and offensive

I have assigned a number of troubling works as a professor of anthropology – troubling in that they describe abuses of human beings that no one I know would countenance. For instance, last semester I assigned, among other things, the following works in one class:

· Khalid Husseini’s A Thousand Splendid Suns, about the abuse of women – two wives – in Afghanistan;

· Khassan Baiev, Grief of My Heart [or elsewhere published as The Oath], about the commitment of a Muslim doctor in Chechnya to serve whoever was brought to him, even some who had tried to kill him, in the midst of a devastating war;

· Philip Gourevitch, We Regret to Inform You that Tomorrow we are to be Killed with our Families, about the atrocities of the Rwandan genocide;

· And Bishop Tutu’s No Future Without Forgiveness, which also has some disturbing descriptions of torture.

Moreover, in another class last year, one of my students chose from a list Anna Politkovskaia’s “A Small Corner of Hell”, about the atrocities of the Chechnyan War; my student became so shaken by Politkovskaia's report that she could not sleep, did not want to turn out the light at night. Such are the descriptions of what is actually going on in this world. This is the human condition that I and my students have sought to understand. It is brutal.

But the book I have just finished discussing with my students, Fear Up Harsh, by Tony Lagouranis and Allen Mikaelian, about the way our military interrogators treat Iraqis under their power, has been as troubling to me as any I have read, for it is about things that have gone on, and still appear to be going on, in the name of the American people. I don’t believe many Americans would be comfortable with this report. Lagouranis claims he has wrecked a number of lives as a torturer. But he also deeply wounded his own life; I was touched by his description of the phantoms that disturbed him after he returned to the States. And when he received psychiatric treatment, which was aimed at enabling him to deal with coming back to the United States, he considered his sense of guilt as something more than a sense of guilt: “it was not in the realm of psychology, but morality.” He said to his psychiatrist, “If you don’t include torturing helpless prisoners in your definition of evil, your definition of evil is meaningless” [p 232]. What is most nauseating about the book is the obvious evidence that the brutal treatment of prisoners by our military could not take place on such a scale without the knowledge or complicity of higher-ups. Indeed, the attempts of known individuals such as John Yoo in the Bush administration to justify torture represents an attitude and perspective that worked downward through the military from the highest levels of government.

This is why it is so crucial that the misrepresentations of truth by an administration that led the world into war be called “lies”; and that “renditions” of prisoners to countries that torture be called “un-American” and “immoral behavior”; and that Justice-Department legitimations of prisoner abuse through carefully phrased euphemisms be called “criminal behavior,” for it radically departs from the moral assumptions upon which the Bill of Rights was constructed. So far, the only people who have been punished for the abuse of prisoners have been a few enlisted men and women. What about those who gave the orders? What about those who made it seem OK? Lagouranis and Mikaelian have performed a service by making public what is being done in our name, sullying the reputation of this country.

شكرا لمن كشف الحقيقة ، حتى عندما وهو معيب
عندي عدد من المحال المقلقه يعمل استاذا للأنثروبولوجيا -- مقلق في ان تصف هذه التجاوزات من البشر ان احدا لا اعرف من شأنه ان الطلعه. على سبيل المثال ، الفصل الدراسي الاول الماضي المحال ، في جملة أمور ، ما يلي يعمل في احد الصفوف :

خالد الحسيني 'sرائع الف الشموس ، ازاء الاساءات المراه -- اثنين الزوجات -- في افغانستان ؛

حسن baiev ، احزان قلبي [أو في أي مكان آخر كما نشرت القسم] ، حول التزام الطبيب المسلم في الشيشان لخدمة لمن كان يوجه اليه ، حتى بعض الذين حاولوا قتله ؛

فيليب gourevitch ، ونحن نأسف لابلاغكم بان غدا نحن سيقتلون مع اسرنا ، عن الفظائع التي ارتكبت في الحرب الروانديه ؛

والاسقف توتو لا مستقبل بدون الغفران ، والتي ايضا قد وصف بعض الانزعاج من التعذيب.

وعلاوة على ذلك ، في آخر طبقة من العام الماضي ، احد زملائي الطلاب واختار من قائمة انا politkovskaia 's" ركن صغير من الجحيم "، وازاء الفظائع من حرب الشيشان ؛ بلادي الطلاب حتى اصبح هزته politkovskaia تقرير انها لا تستطيع النوم ، لا تريد ان تتحول الى ضوء في الليل. هذه هي الاوصاف على حقيقة ما يجري في هذا العالم. هذه هي حالة الانسان ان الطلاب بلدي وانا اسعى الى فهم. ومن وحشية.

ولكن الكتاب لتوي أنهى مناقشة مع زملائي الطلبة ، والخوف حتى قاسيه ، من طوني lagouranis والن mikaelian ، حول الطريقة التي تعامل قواتنا العسكرية المستجوبين العراقيين تحت سلطتهم ، كما تم مقلق لي أي لقد قرأت ، لانه هو عن الاشياء التي لم تكتشف المعنى ، ويبدو انها لا تزال مستمرة ، وباسم الشعب الامريكى. لا ، لا اعتقد ان الكثير من الاميركيين سيكون مريحا مع هذا التقرير. Lagouranis المطالبات محطم لديه عدد من الارواح كما تعذيب. لكنه أيضا بالغ الجرحى على حياته ، لقد كنت تأثرت فوصفه للالخيالات منزعجه منه بعد ان عاد الى الولايات. وعندما تلقى العلاج النفسي ، والتي تهدف الى تمكينه من التعامل مع عودته الى الولايات المتحدة ، واعتبر احساسه بالذنب بوصفها شيئا أكثر من شعور بالذنب : "انها ليست في مجال علم النفس ، ولكن الأخلاق وقال "لصاحب طبيب نفساني ،" اذا كنت لا تشمل عاجز تعذيب السجناء في التعريف الخاص بك من الشر ، والتعريف الخاص بك من الشر لا معنى له "[ف 232].
وهذا هو السبب فى ان من الاهميه بمكان ان ذلك من الافتراءات الحقيقة من جانب الادارة التي قادت العالم الى حرب تسمى "اكاذيب" ؛ وان "الترحيل" السجناء الى البلدان التي تسمى التعذيب "ضد امريكا" و "سلوك غير اخلاقي" ؛ ان وزارة العدل - legitimations السجين من خلال اساءة استعمال صيغ بعناية التلطيفيه ان يسمى "السلوك الاجرامي." حتى الان ، فقط الناس الذين عوقبوا لتعاطي سجناء تعرضوا لعدد قليل من الرجال والمجندين للحرس الوطني امرأة واحدة العام. وماذا عن اولئك الذين امروا؟ اولئك الذين جعلوا يبدو انه موافق؟ Lagouranis وmikaelian يؤدون الخدمة العامة عن طريق جعل ما يجري عمله في اسمنا.

感谢那些揭露事实真相，甚至当它是可耻的
我已指派了一些令人不安的工程作为一个人类学教授-令人不安，因为它们说明虐待的人表示，没有人，我知道会的国家进行。举例来说，上学期i指派，除其他事项外，下列工程，在一个班级：

哈利德侯赛尼的1000灿烂的太阳，对侵犯妇女-两个妻子-在阿富汗;

哈桑baiev ，悲痛的我的心[或其他地方刊登誓言] ，对承诺的一个穆斯林医生在车臣的服务，谁被带到他的，甚至有人曾试图将他杀死;

弘夫，我们很遗憾地通知你，明天我们要杀害我们的家人，对暴行的卢旺达战争;

和图图大主教的，没有前途，没有宽恕的，其中也有一些令人不安的描述酷刑。

此 外，在另一个阶级去年，我的一个学生选择了从名单安娜politkovskaia的"一小角落地狱" ，对暴行的车臣战争，我的学生变得如此震撼politkovskaia的报告说，她不能入睡，不想转出光在夜间进行。这些都是说明的是什么，实际上在进 行，在这个世界上。这是人的条件，我和我的学生们已设法了解。这是残酷的。

不过这本书我刚刚结束与我的学生，害怕了苛刻的，由托尼 lagouranis和Allen mikaelian ，该如何进行我军审问对待伊拉克人根据自己的权力，一直作为更让我为任何我看过，因为这是关于这件事已经对，而现在仍似乎是在进行中，在姓名的美国人民。 我不相信许多美国人会感到舒服这个报告。 lagouranis声称他已断送了多少人的生命作为施刑。但他也深深伤害其自己的生命;令我十分感动，他描述的阴影困扰着他后，他返回美国护照。而当他 收到接受精神科治疗，其目的是使他能够应付未来运回美国，他认为他的感觉内疚，看成是一个多感内疚： "这不是在境界的心理，但道德"他说，他的心理医生， "如果你不包括拷打囚犯无奈，在你的定义，无恶不作，你的定义，邪恶是没有什么意义的"模式[ P 232 。
这就是为什么它是如此关键的是，歪曲真相，由政府主导的世界陷入战争，被称为"谎言" ，并认为"演绎"的囚犯，以国家酷刑被称为"联合国-美国的"和"不道德的行为" 。并认为正义署legitimations的虐俘经过精心包装的委婉语被称为"犯罪行为" ，所以截至目前为止，只有人被查处，虐待犯人已被数名士兵和一名国民警卫队的女将军。那么这些是谁给了订单吗？那些使这似乎好吧？ lagouranis和mikaelian已经进行了服务，使市民正在做些什么，在我们的名字。


Я выделил ряд тревожных работает в качестве профессора антропологии - беспокойство в том, что они описывают нарушения прав людей, что никто я знаю, будет поддерживать. Например, в прошлом семестре я назначена, среди прочего, следующие работает в одном классе:

Халид Хусейни в A Thousand Сплендид солнца, по поводу нарушения прав женщин - две жены - в Афганистане;

Хасан Baiev, горе мое сердце [или в других местах, как опубликованные Клятва], о приверженности мусульманской врачом в Чечне служить тот, кто был с ним, даже кое-кто пытался убить его;

Филип Гуревич, мы сожаление по Информ Вы, что завтра мы должны быть с нашими Убит семей, о зверствах в Руанде войны;

И епископ Туту в Нет будущего без прощения, который также имеет некоторые тревожные описаний пыток.

Кроме того, в другой класс в прошлом году, один из моих учеников выбрали из списка, Анна Политковская в "Маленький уголок ада", по поводу злодеяний, из Chechnyan войны; мой студент стал настолько потрясен Политковская в докладе, что она не может спать, не хотят оказаться в свет в ночи. Таковы описания того, что на самом деле происходит в этом мире. Это состояние человека, что я и мои студенты пытались понять. Это жестокая.

Но книгу я уже закончил обсуждение с моим студентам, Страх Вверх жестковатое, Тони Аллен Lagouranis и Микаэлян, о том, как наши военные допросы лечения иракцев, находящихся под их властью, была тревожной, как ко мне, как любой Я прочитал, за это о вещах, которые прошли, и еще, как представляется, происходит во имя американского народа. Я не думаю, что многие американцы будут комфортно с этим докладом. Lagouranis претензий он разгромлены ряд жизней в качестве палача. Но он также глубоко ранили его собственной жизни, и я была тронута его описание на фантомов, что беспокоит его, после того как он вернулся в Штаты. И когда он получил психиатрическое лечение, которое было направлено на то, чтобы позволить ему заниматься возвращается в Соединенные Штаты, по его мнению, его чувство вины, как нечто большее, чем чувство вины: "она не в области психологии, но и морали ". Он говорит, чтобы его психиатру:" Если вы не включают пытки заключенных в беспомощном Ваше определение зла, Ваше определение зла не имеет смысла "[р 232].
Вот почему так важно, чтобы искажения истины в администрации, что привело мир к войне будет называться "ложь", и что "исполнение" заключенных в страны, что пытки будет называться "снимите американской" и "аморальное поведение" , и о том, что Департамент юстиции-legitimations нарушения прав осужденных путем тщательно сформулированы эвфемизмы, называется "преступное поведение." Пока единственный человек, которые были наказаны за злоупотребление заключенных было несколько военнослужащих и один Национальной гвардии женщина целом. Что можно сказать о тех, кто отдавал приказы? Те, кто сделал это, похоже OK? Lagouranis и Микаэлян играют службы путем обнародования том, что делается в нашем имени.

Gracias a las personas que revelen la verdad, incluso cuando es vergonzoso
Me han asignado una serie de inquietantes obras como profesor de antropología - preocupante en la medida en que describen abusos de los seres humanos que nadie sé que presencia. Por ejemplo, el semestre pasado me asigna, entre otras cosas, las siguientes obras en una clase:

Khalid Husseini del Mil Splendid Suns, acerca de los abusos de las mujeres - dos esposas - en el Afganistán;

Hassan Baiev, Duelo de Mi Corazón [o publicados en otros lugares como El Juramento], sobre el compromiso de un médico musulmán de Chechenia para servir a todo aquel que fue llevado a él, incluso algunos que han tratado de matarlo;

Philip Gourevitch, nos Informar a Usted a pesar de que mañana vamos a ser Matado con nuestros familiares, acerca de las atrocidades de la guerra de Rwanda;

Y el Obispo Tutu n del futuro sin perdón, que tiene también algunas inquietantes descripciones de la tortura.

Además, en otra clase el año pasado, uno de mis estudiantes eligió de una lista de Anna Politkovskaia "Un Rincón de los Pequeños Hell", acerca de las atrocidades de la guerra de Chechenia; mi estudiante llegó a ser tan sacudido por Politkovskaia en su informe de que no podía dormir, No quería convertirse en la luz por la noche. Estas son las descripciones de lo que realmente pasa en este mundo. Esta es la condición humana y que mis alumnos me han tratado de comprender. Es brutal.

Pero los libros que acaban de terminar discutiendo con mis estudiantes, el miedo Hasta Harsh, de Tony Lagouranis y Allen Mikaelian, acerca de la forma en el tratamiento de nuestros interrogadores militares iraquíes bajo su poder, ha sido tan preocupante como que me he leído todo, porque es Acerca de las cosas que se han ido, y todavía parece estar pasando, en el nombre del pueblo estadounidense. No creo que muchos norteamericanos se sienten cómodos con este informe. Lagouranis reclamaciones que ha destruido un número de vidas como un torturador. Pero también herido profundamente su propia vida; Me conmovió su descripción de los fantasmas que le inquieta después regresó a los Estados. Y cuando él recibió tratamiento psiquiátrico, que fue destinada a permitir a él para tratar de regresar a los Estados Unidos, consideró su sentido de culpabilidad como algo más que un sentimiento de culpabilidad: "no es en el ámbito de la psicología, pero la moral ". Él dijo a su psiquiatra," Si no se incluye la tortura de prisioneros indefensos en su definición del mal, su definición de la maldad no tiene sentido "[p. 232].
Por eso es tan importante que el tergiversaciones de la verdad por parte de una administración que llevó al mundo a la guerra es la de "mentiras", y que "entregas" de prisioneros a países en que la tortura es la de "un-American" y "conducta inmoral" , Y que el Departamento de Justicia de legitimaciones de los abusos de prisioneros a través de eufemismos cuidadosamente su enunciado es la de "conducta criminal." Hasta el momento, las únicas personas que han sido sancionados por uso indebido de los presos se han alistado unos pocos hombres y una mujer de la Guardia Nacional general. ¿Qué pasa con los que dieron las órdenes? Los que hicieron parece bien? Lagouranis y Mikaelian han realizado un servicio público haciendo lo que se está haciendo en nuestro nombre.

The new isolationism: the imminent blunder of a new Democratic president.

Michael Gordon in today's New York Times notes how different the situation on the ground in Iraq is from the way the Democratic candidates for President are construing it. Eventually, the implicit isolationism of the current Democratic leaders could cause more havoc. [Click on the title of this note for a link to that site.]

The current administration – George W. Bush and the neocons he brought to power with him -- blundered by going into Iraq. But the next administration, almost surely to be Democratic, are trumpeting another blunder, just as foolish and tragic: many of them (for example, Nancy Pelosi) are saying they have a mandate to get American troops out of Iraq immediately.

The Bush administration’s headlong rush to overturn Saddam Hussein was a blunder whose implications the world will now have to live with for generations. But the solution is not to rush out. Wouldn’t we all like to turn back the clock on many things we have done? It’s not so easy. We live in a different world now. To suppose that the best solution to the current situation in Iraq is to get out and let the Iraqis settle matters themselves is merely to say that the rest of the world will be at peace as soon as the meanest dude in Iraq rises to the top of a bloody civil war. Is that the kind of administration in Iraq that any of us could wish for? Is that the kind of administration the rest of the world wants to live with?

Bush’s claims to be establishing a democracy in Iraq was of course a fantasy, like so many others he has been living with for seven years, but for the next administration to walk away from Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Pakistan) after dismantling or disabling many of the institutional mechanisms of social order, after leaving so much unsettled in an already profoundly fractured Middle East, is insanity.

In fact, it will not happen, no matter what the Democrats claim.

We all would so much wish our troops were not there – indeed, if our country had not already learned what a charade “impeachment” can be I would have long ago been for impeaching Bush and Cheney for the damage they have done to the world, and to their country. And we could wish that the most powerful military force and economy in the world had no further obligation to join the clean up of the damage now done, but reality demands otherwise.

This is one more reason to believe that the politicians are again misleading the American people by their claims, in this case the Democrats’ promise that as soon as they are elected they will take our troops out of Iraq. It will never happen. Leaving aside the obvious moral entailments of recent policies, the practical realities demand otherwise. Too much is at stake in oil-rich Iraq. To much is at stake in the oil-rich Gulf region. So, whoever takes office in 2009 will have to face reality.

Lets hope that the Democrats know they are misleading the American people; lets hope they are lying. They can’t be such ideologues that they really believe their own rhetoric -- well, can they? Not an ideologically blinded administration again? Not again.

Lord, save us from our politicians.

الانعزاليه الجديدة : الوشيك خطا جديدا للرئيس ديمقراطي. مايكل غوردون في اليوم صحيفة نيويورك تايمز يلاحظ مدى اختلاف الوضع على ارض الواقع في العراق هو من الطريق الديمقراطي المرشحين لرئاسة الجمهورية هي تفسير لها. في نهاية المطاف ، الضمني الانعزاليه الحالية من الزعماء الديمقراطيين يمكن ان تتسبب في مزيد من الفوضى. [اضغط على عنوان هذه المذكره لرابط لذلك الموقع.] الإدارة الحالية -- جورج دبليو بوش وneocons اضفاه على السلطة معه -- blundered بالذهاب الى العراق. ولكن الادارة القادمة ، ومن المؤكد تقريبا أن تكون ديمقراطيه ، هي الصراخ خطأ آخر ، تماما مثلما الغباء والماساويه : وكثير منهم (على سبيل المثال ، نانسي بيلوسي) يقولون انهم لديها للحصول على ولاية القوات الاميركية من العراق على الفور. ادارة بوش الاندفاع المتهور الى اسقاط صدام حسين كان خطأ في آثارها على العالم الان ان نتعايش مع لاجيال. ولكن الحل ليس التسرع. لن اننا جميعا نود لاعادة عقارب الساعة الى الوراء على اشياء كثيرة فعلنا؟ انها ليست بهذه السهوله. اننا نعيش في عالم مختلف الآن. لنفترض ان افضل حل للوضع الراهن في العراق هو الخروج واسمحوا العراقيين انفسهم تسوية المسائل هو مجرد القول ان بقية العالم سيكون السلام فى اقرب وقت فان الرجل اكثر بخلا في العراق ترتفع الى أعلى حرب أهلية دامية. هو أن هذا النوع من الإدارة في العراق ان اي واحد منا يمكن ان اتمنى ل؟ هو أن هذا النوع من الإدارة بقية دول العالم تريد العيش معه؟ بوش يدعي ان إقامة الديمقراطيه في العراق هو بالطبع خيال ، كغيرنا انه كان يعيش مع لمدة سبع سنوات ، ولكن للادارة القادمة أن يتركوا العراق) ، أو افغانستان ، أو باكستان) بعد تفكيك أو تعطيل العديد من الاليات المءسسيه للنظام الاجتماعي ، وبعد ان ترك الكثير من غير المستقره اصلا في الشرق الاوسط الممزق عميقا ، هو جنون. في الواقع ، وذلك لن يحصل ، مهما كانت مطالبة الديموقراطيين. اننا جميعا الكثير يرغب قواتنا لم تكن هناك -- والواقع انه اذا كانت بلادنا لم تكن قد علمت ما تمثيليه "اقالة" يمكن لكنت قد تم منذ فترة طويلة لاقالة بوش وتشيني عن الضرر الذي قاموا به على العالم ، والى بلدهم. ونحن يمكن ان ترغب في ان اقوى قوة عسكرية واقتصاد في العالم قد لا تنضم الى مزيد من الالتزام في تنظيف الأضرار الآن القيام به ، ولكن الواقع خلاف ذلك مطالب. وهذا هو أحد أكثر ما يدعو الى الاعتقاد بأن الساسه مرة آخرى تضليل الشعب الامريكى عن طريق ادعاءاتهم ، في هذه الحاله الديموقراطيين 'الوعد انه حالما يتم انتخابهم انها ستتخذ قواتنا خارج العراق. فإنه لن يحدث. واذا نحينا جانبا واضحا المعنوية entailments الاخيرة من سياسات ، والحقائق العملية الطلب خلاف ذلك. الكثير على المحك في العراق الغنيه بالنفط. الى الكثير على المحك في الخليج الغنيه بالنفط في المنطقة. ذلك ، من منصبه فى عام 2009 سوف يكون لمواجهة الحقيقة. لنعترف امل ان الديموقراطيين يعرفون انهم تضليل الشعب الامريكى ؛ الامل لنعترف انهم يكذبون. انهم لا يستطيعون ان هذه العقائديين انها حقا نعتقد الخاصة بهم البلاغه -- جيدا ، وانها يمكن؟ ليست ايديولوجيا أعمى الادارة مرة اخرى؟ ليس مرة أخرى. اللورد ، تنقذنا من سياسيينا.

新孤立主义：即将失误的一个新的民主党总统。 迈克尔戈登在今天的纽约时报注意到，如何把不同的情况下对伊拉克实地是从方式民主党总统候选人都是要考虑的。最终，其中隐含的孤立主义现行民主党领导人能造成更多的冲击。 [点击的标题，这说明一个链接到该网站上。 ] 本届政府-布什和新保守主义者，他所带来的权力与他-失误所进入伊拉克。但是，下一届政府，几乎肯定会被称为民主，鼓吹另一个失误，正如愚蠢的和悲剧性的：他们中的许多人（例如，佩洛西）说，他们有一项任务，得到美国军队赶出伊拉克立即。 布什政府的大呼急于推翻萨达姆侯赛因是个失误，其影响在世界的人，现在已经住在一起，为后代。不过，解决的办法是不要急于出。不会，我们都愿意在历史问题上开倒车对很多事情我们已经做？它的不那么容易了。我们生活在一个不同的世界。假定最好的解决办法，以伊拉克目前的局势，是要跳出，让伊拉克人解决自己的事情，只是说，世界其余地区将设在和平尽快为meanest dude在伊拉克上升到顶部一场血腥的内战。是什么样的政府，在伊拉克，我们认为可想吗？是什么样的政府，其余的世界要住在一起？ 布什声称要建立一个民主的伊拉克是当然是一个幻想，和许多其他人一样，他一直生活在一起，为7年来，但为下一届政府可以离开伊拉克（或阿富汗或巴基斯坦）后，拆除或者禁用很多的体制机制，社会治安形势后，留下了这么多不稳定，在一个已经深刻地裂缝中东，是精神错乱。 事实上，它会不会发生，不管遇到什么样的民主派索赔。 我们都将这么多希望我们的军队不存在-事实上，如果我们的国家不是已经学会做一场文字游戏"弹劾" ，可我想，早就被弹劾布什和切尼所造成的损害，他们已在世界上的所作所为，和自己的国家。我们可以希望，最强大的军事力量和经济在世界上就没有进一步的义务，参加清理的破坏，现在所做的，但现实的要求，否则。 这是一个更有理由相信政客，又在误导美国民众，由他们的说法，在这种情况下，民主党人承诺说，一旦他们当选，他们将考虑我们在伊拉克的驻军。它永远不会发生。撇开明显的道德entailments最近所采取的政策，实际的需求，否则。实在太危险了，在盛产石油的伊拉克。很多利益攸关的是，在石油资源丰富的海湾地区。因此，无论谁上台，在2009年将不得不面对的现实。 让希望民主派人士都知道，他们是在误导美国人民，让希望他们是在说谎。他们不能这样的理论家说，他们是否真的相信自己的修辞-好了，才能吗？不是一个思想上利欲熏心的政府吗？没有了。 主啊，请拯救我们，从我们的政治家。

Новый изоляционизм: предстоящее промахом новую Демократической президента. Майкл Гордон в сегодняшнем Нью-Йорк таймс "отмечает, каким образом различные ситуации на местах в Ираке из того, как Демократическая кандидатов на пост президента являются толкования ее. В конце концов, подразумевается изоляционизма в настоящее время руководители Демократической может вызвать более хаос. [Нажмите на название этой записке за ссылку на этот сайт.] Нынешняя администрация - Джорджа Буша и neocons он привел к власти с ним - blundered, перейдя в Ирак. Но следующей администрации, почти наверняка будет Демократической являются trumpeting другую ошибку, точно так же, как глупо и трагической: многие из них (например, Нэнси Пелоси) говорят, у них есть мандат, чтобы получить американские войска из Ирака немедленно. В администрации Буша безудержное пик перевернулась Саддама Хусейна было ошибкой, последствия которых в мире теперь будет жить в течение многих поколений. Но решение не спешить в. Не приведет ли все мы, как повернуть время вспять на многие вещи, то мы сделали? Это не так легко. Мы живем в другом мире в настоящее время. Чтобы предположить, что наилучшим решением с нынешней ситуацией в Ираке, состоит в том, чтобы выйти и пусть иракцы сами урегулировать вопросы, это просто означает, что остальной мир будет в состоянии мира, как только meanest dude в Ираке поднимается на вершину одна кровавая гражданская война. Является ли, что такой администрации в Ираке, что любой из нас мог бы желать? Является ли, что тип управления остальной мир хочет жить с? Буша утверждает, что установление демократии в Ираке, конечно, фантазия, как и многие другие он живет с семи лет, но на следующий администрации уйти из Ирака (или Афганистан или Пакистан) после демонтажа или отключить многие институциональные механизмы общественного порядка, после чего столь нестабильной и в уже глубоко расколот Ближнем Востоке, это безумие. По сути, оно не происходит, независимо от того, что у демократов претензии. Нам всем будет столько хотели наши войска там и не было - и даже, если наша страна уже не узнал, что такое фарс "импичмента" может быть я бы давно отрешения Буша и Чейни за ущерб, который они сделали для мира, , и в свою страну. И мы могли бы пожелать, что наиболее мощные вооруженные силы и экономика в мире не имеет никаких дальнейших обязательство присоединиться к очистке от ущерба сейчас сделать, но реальность требует иного. Это еще одна причина полагать, что политики снова вводит в заблуждение американский народ в своих претензий, в данном случае демократы "обещают, что, как только они были избраны, они будут принимать наши войска из Ирака. Он никогда не случится. Оставляя в стороне очевидные моральные entailments последних политика, практические реалии требуют иного. Слишком многое поставлено на карту в богатом нефтью Ираке. Чтобы многое поставлено на карту в богатом нефтью районе Персидского залива. Итак, тот, кто вступает в должность в 2009 году придется решать реальность. Давайте надеяться, что демократы знают, что они вводят в заблуждение американский народ; позволяет надеемся, что они лежат. Они не могут быть такими, идеологи, что они действительно считают, что их собственной риторики - хорошо, могут ли они? Не является идеологически ослеплены администрации снова? Не снова. Господи, спаси нас от наших политиков.

El nuevo aislacionismo: la metedura de pata inminente de un nuevo presidente demócrata. Michael Gordon hoy en el New York Times observa cómo diferentes de la situación sobre el terreno en Iraq es de la forma en que el Democrática candidatos a Presidente que están interpretando. Finalmente, el aislacionismo implícita de los actuales dirigentes Democrática podría causar más estragos. [Haga clic en el título de esta nota para un enlace a ese sitio.] La actual administración - George W. Bush y los neoconservadores que llegó al poder con él - blundered por entrar en Iraq. Pero la próxima administración, es casi seguro que se Democrática, se anuncia otra metedura de pata, como absurdo y trágico: muchos de ellos (por ejemplo, Nancy Pelosi) está diciendo que tiene el mandato de llegar las tropas estadounidenses de Iraq inmediatamente. La administración Bush para derrocar precipitación Saddam Hussein fue un error cuyas consecuencias el mundo ahora tendrá que vivir con las generaciones. Pero la solución no va a salir. ¿No estamos todos como para volver atrás el reloj en muchas cosas que hemos hecho? No es tan fácil. Vivimos en un mundo diferente ahora. Para suponer que la mejor solución a la situación actual en Iraq es para salir y dejar que los iraquíes resolver asuntos propios no es más que decir que el resto del mundo estará en paz tan pronto como el meanest dude en Irak se eleva a la parte superior de Una sangrienta guerra civil. ¿Es ese el tipo de administración en Irak que cualquiera de nosotros podría desear? ¿Es ese el tipo de administración en el resto del mundo quiere vivir con? Bush dice ser el establecimiento de una democracia en Irak fue, por supuesto, una fantasía, como tantos otros, ha estado viviendo con siete años, pero para la próxima administración a pie de Iraq (o de Afganistán, o de Pakistán) tras el desmantelamiento o Discapacitantes muchos de los mecanismos institucionales de orden social, después de dejar sin resolver tanto en la ya profunda fractura de Oriente Medio, es la locura. De hecho, no va a suceder, no importa lo que los demócratas reclamación. Estamos todos los que desean tanto nuestras tropas no estaban allí - de hecho, si nuestro país no se ha aprendido ya lo que es una farsa "juicio político" puede ser yo habría sido hace mucho tiempo para impugnar Bush y Cheney por el daño que han hecho al mundo, Y a su país. Y podríamos deseo de que la fuerza militar más poderosa y la economía en el mundo no tiene más obligación de unirse a la limpieza de los daños ya hacer, pero la realidad exige otra cosa. Esta es una razón más para creer que los políticos están de nuevo engañar a los pueblos de América por sus reivindicaciones, en este caso los demócratas' promesa de que tan pronto como sean elegidos que se llevará a nuestras tropas fuera de Iraq. Aunque nunca llegue a ocurrir. Dejando de lado la evidente entailments moral de la política reciente, la realidad práctica de otra demanda. Es mucho lo que está en juego en Irak rico en petróleo. Para mucho que está en juego en la rica en petróleo región del Golfo. Así que, quien asuma el cargo en 2009 tendrá que afrontar la realidad. Deja la esperanza de que los demócratas saben que están engañando a la gente de América, permite la esperanza de que están mintiendo. No pueden ser esos ideólogos que ellos realmente creen su propia retórica - así, ¿puede? No es una administración ideológicamente cegados de nuevo? No de nuevo. Señor, salvarnos de nuestros políticos.

New military leaders question Iraq mission

McClatchy papers are reporting that the new military leaders in the Pentagon are questioning the way the extant "mission" in Iraq is conceived. These are the guys who have replaced General Pace and the others who went along with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. (We still wonder if those generals had been intimidated by the way General Shinseki was treated when he challenged Rumsfeld's plans.) Anyway, this is good news, although little remarked so far. RLC

Click on the title to link to the whole article.

By Nancy A. Youssef and Renee Schoof

McClatchy Newspapers

"Four and a half years after the nation's top military leaders saluted and fell in behind President Bush's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, their replacements are beginning to question the mission and sound alarms about the toll the war is taking on the Army and the Marine Corps."

"The change at the Pentagon is striking but little-noticed, in part because Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a longtime veteran of the CIA, is quiet where his predecessor Donald H. Rumsfeld was not."

"top officials ... are concerned that the war may be crippling the military's ability to respond to other crises"

"Although Democrats in Congress have been powerless to halt or even slow the war, six developments have combined to produce growing resistance"

"1. The Democratic takeover of the Senate and the House of Representatives last January.
2. Bush's choice of Gates to replace Rumsfeld, one of the main architects of the war. Gates was a member of the independent bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which called for the United States to reach out to Syria and Iran and 'strongly urged' a drawdown in Iraq.
3. A shift, completed this week, in the military's top uniformed leadership from administration loyalists to officers who are more concerned about the growing strains on the military.
4. Mounting evidence, in a variety of official reports in recent weeks, that Iraqi forces won't be prepared to take over from American troops in significant numbers until late next year at the earliest, and that Iraqis have made little progress toward political reconciliation.
5. Mounting evidence, most recently in a United Nations report, that the war against al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan is faltering, in part because Iraq is tying down so many U.S. troops.
6. Bush's low approval ratings and popular discontent with the Iraq war, which have prompted some legislators to reconsider their support for the president's policy as next year's elections approach."

"the change in outlook among many senior officials is unmistakable."

Shifting Targets: The Administration's Plan for Iran

Seymour M. Hersh’s article in the latest New Yorker [Oct 8, 2007],“Shifting Targets, The Administration’s Plan for Iran,” adds to our confusion, puzzlement, and anxiety about this administration. When friends have expressed worry that the administration will concoct a war with Iran, as they did with Iraq, I have confidently assured them that the government could not be that stupid. Anyone would know, on many grounds, that that makes no sense. But if Hersh is right, we do in fact have reason to wonder if, to the multiple blunders for which this administration will be infamous, they might just add another, or rather, some more. God save us.


Shifting Targets: The Administration's Plan for Iran
by Seymour M. Hersh

"In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran."
"the White House ... requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran ... The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack ... Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps"
"The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq." "The difficulty of determining who is responsible for the chaos in Iraq can be seen in Basra ... Over the course of this year ... the region became increasingly ungovernable, and by fall the British had retreated to fixed bases. A European official who has access to current intelligence told me that 'there is a firm belief inside the ... intelligence community that Iran is supporting many of the groups in southern Iraq that are responsible for the deaths of British and American soldiers.' "
"A June, 2007, report by the International Crisis Group found, however, that Basra’s renewed instability was mainly the result of 'the systematic abuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism...' ”
[regarding the possibility of an attack on Iran, a former intelligence official said] “Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, ‘Uncle Sam is here! We’d better stand down’? ... The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer.”

The U.S. Counter-propaganda Failure in Iraq

Andrew Garfield of the Middle East Quarterly provides us with a helpful analysis of the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, like virtually every other report about the site, other than that of the administration -- which has a clear interest in how the picture is presented -- the picture is grim. Still, better to know the truth than to live with an invented fantasy. The public has been given idealistic assessments for too long.

"Defeat of the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq requires not only a military approach but also a political component ... To defeat the insurgency, coalition forces must persuade the Iraqi population to reject extremism and deny safe haven to those fighting the new Iraqi political order. This will require dialogue, inducements, and the proportionate use of force to win the battle for 'hearts and minds' ... the insurgents and militia groups are adept at releasing timely messages to undermine support for the Iraqi government ... They are quick to exploit coalition failures and excesses ... To show their prowess, the insurgents often distribute sophisticated videos of an attack on coalition troops within hours of the operation ...
... Coalition information operations are a shadow of their opponents. While the coalition has spent a hundred million dollars on advertising in Iraq, the strategy of re-awarding huge contracts to advertising firms ... who cannot demonstrate effective audience penetration is questionable.
...Too often, the coalition has used democracy promotion, citizenship, legitimacy of the Iraqi security forces, or demonization of the insurgents as their major themes. None of these, however, have direct relevance for most Iraqis.
... a counter-propaganda campaign ... should extol the virtues of the Iraqi government and the coalition and bolster morale shaken by three years of violence while also highlighting the insurgency's vices.

Twice or thrice displaced Palestinians, still without a home.

Robert S. Eshelman has pointed out that as many as several hundred Palestinians have been forced to flee Iraq because of the war there, forcing them to arrive back home with no place to stay. Currently they are in a refugee camp. Whereas they have lived for many years in Iraq, apparently rather comfortably, now they are living in tents. Those in one camp survive only because aid organizations are providing them with water, pre-cooked meals, and other supplies. But a larger camp seems to be getting no support whatever. The Palestinian refugees from Iraq “have no nation to return to,” he says. There was a period when Iraq was a place for displaced Palestinians to flee to, but now that the Shia of Iraq have become militant they have been threatening the Palestinians, accusing them of being Wahhabis, even takfiris [refers to an extremist Islam embraced by Al Qaeda, not as Eshelman says, unbelievers], and forcing them out.
Click on the title for the whole article.

One more discouraging sign in Iraq

How serious the situation has become on the ground in Iraq is indicated by a recent request by the US ambassador in Baghdad that visas be granted to all Iraqis employed by the US Government in Iraq. He is concerned that his best help will flee the country if they have no hope of escaping to the US. Already there has been a hemorrhage of the middle class from Iraq. The worry about the loyal Iraqis working for the US government in the embassy and elsewhere for the US reveals how serious the situation is. Much as we could wish otherwise the decay of optimism among the Iraqis seems reveal a worsening situation despite the claim that the surge is working.

Click the title above for the Washington Post article.

Chaotic war in Iraq; menacing choices. Where will it go from here?

I recently received a letter from one of our troops in Iraq. He described the mess there as a kind of chaos in which it is often hard to know who is on what side. Not a two sided war or even three or four sided war, but war of many sides against each other, when identities and agendas are quite unclear. Ideology in this setting is irrelevant. Here is a digest of what he said:

General Petraeus’s Field Manual on Counterinsurgency calls the war a mosaic of sides, with a constantly shifting mix of different parties, where the conflict is different from
province to province and town to town. But from what my friend has seen "mosaic war" sounds organized. What he sees is “total chaos.”

The Al Qaeda that they are supposed to be fighting against seems invisible, a ghost. Violence is everywhere but it is almost impossible to figure out who has done it. They can’t figure out who the insurgents are. Besides the so-called “foreign fighters” attacking our troops there are disenchanted Sunni Iraqis as well as even Iraqi security forces. Shiite militias are fighting Sunnis; and they are fighting each other. When the Iraqi Army and Police are involved, they can be fighting other Iraqis, our troops, or even each other. But then the Americans can’t tell if it's corrupt soldiers or police officers (corrupt meaning, I think, fighting for money) or if they are militias in stolen uniforms, or a mix of both.

He described a gunfight – or rather, a series of gunfights – in which several kinds of people were involved: invisible shooters [they never knew who they were]; an Iraqi Army platoon [whose behavior in battle was exemplary, even in one case heroic]; an Iraqi Military Integrated Training Team working with the Americans, whose behavior also seemed highly professional; his American platoon; an Apache gunship that was called in [which told them it was all friendly fire]; Iraqi Police who had entered the fray because they lived in the neighborhood but because they were at home they were dressed in street clothes. A civilian and an Iraq soldier were shot deliberately in front of them – that could not have been a mistake because he was in uniform, but who would it have been? That was not friendly fire.

What could we expect our troops to accomplish in such a situation, given that they know no Arabic, are unfamiliar with the customs, have no idea how various families and tribes are aligned? As my friend says, it is “a mess.” It is always a tragedy of proportions that exceed out imagination. This is why I wonder about our new “Democratic Congress”. They are now so diligent to get our troops out – and yes, the sooner the better – but what will be the consequence? The heartbreak of this war is that it was never even remotely necessary – and the more we know about what was going on inside the administration we know that it was the creation of a small cabal who had no interest in getting correct intelligence: they were sure they would be heroes and would fix the mess in the Middle East.

But getting out? Rodman and Shawcross in today’s NYTimes remind us of much that we have been careful to forget: that the loss in Vietnam had huge consequences for millions of Southeast Asians – untold numbers killed and mamed, and (a matter of no small consequence) the credibility of the Americans was forever tarnished. Saddam referred to the Ameriocan flight when he invaded Kuwait,. Osama has referred to the American flight many times, and not only the flight from Vietnam but the others: from Lebanon, from Somalia, and the unwillingness of the Americans to support the Afghans after the Soviet withdrawal, and unwillingness to respond to the bombings in Mogadishu and Dar es-Salam, and the bombing of the Cole. So what would be the consequence of abandoning Iarq? Can we abandon the Iraqis who voted for democracy?

IN fact, of course, our country will not abandon its oil interests – witness the huge embassy complex being built outside Baghdad. But it is going to be more than an embassy: it will be a refuge, a hide-out for an army that may be forced to abandon its friends but not abandon its energy supply station. What would that mean? How could that work?

Sanchez's prognosis: What none of us wants to hear

I find it strange that the major media have said nothing about the statement by retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez in San Antonio interview published on 6/4/07.
He says the United States has lost the war in Iraq: As he put it, with good leadership “we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will — not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat,” But he says, we have few signs of the kind of leadership he thinks we need. There is a “crisis of leadership” in America. This is important news because Sanchez is the highest-ranking former military leader to serve in Iraq to say that our country has lost the war. Certainly the news there is not really more heartening than the news in previous years. But still we have a body of people who want to believe that we can win. In fact, the gossip now seems to have shifted from when the war will be won in Iraq to whether we have a chance of winning at all. And now, Gen Sanchez says that we have lost if we can’t get better leadership, and that leadership of the sort needed is scarce. Bad news.

Click on the title to see the whole article.
To see the commentary on it on the Information Clearing House web site see the following: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17834.htm

More evidence that the Iraq problems were well known in advance

The new report, just released, on the CIA warnings about the problems of going into Iraq, provides one more piece of evidence of what we already knew, that the Bush administration was warned that the plans to invade Iraq would be costly and draw insurgent groups such as Al Qaeda into the area, compounding the problems in the Middle East. Some Republican Senators have tried to downplay the report, forgetting that even "W"'s father, George H. W. Bush, had already predicted serious complications if in his time American forces had gone after Saddam Hussein. Even so, this will surprise some people.

The Iraq Problems were Anticipated. [Friday May 25, 2007 10:16 PM]

By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape a post-Saddam Iraq.

The CIA report said
- Establishing a stable democracy in Iraq would be a long, steep and probably turbulent challenge.

- Al-Qaida would see the invasion as a chance to accelerate its attacks, and the lines between al-Qaida and other terrorist groups ``could become blurred.''

For more, click on the title above.

Why there was no exit plan

Seiler and Hamburg are stating what many of us have surmised but have had no certainty of. That the United States is committed to establishing a major position in Iraq -- for many reasons, at least some of them being its strategic location with respect to oil and gas resources -- has been evident from the beginning (and there is that huge new embassy, over a 100 acres in size, in construction). But these guys now have formulated more explicitly why our troops are there. What it means is that despite the quarreling over withdrawing troops out of there our troops will not leave; they will instead disappear into huge bases, from which they will reappear only when our government feels it is necessary.
RLC

By Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
San Franscisco Chronical

"There are people in Washington ... who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq"
-- former President Jimmy Carter, Feb. 3, 2006

"There is to be no withdrawal from Iraq, just as there has been no withdrawal from hundreds of places around the world that are outposts of the American empire."
"The United States maintains 737 military bases in 130 countries across the globe. They exist for the purpose of defending the economic interests of the United States, what is euphemistically called 'national security.' In order to secure favorable access to Iraq's vast reserves of light crude, the United States is spending billions on the construction of at least five large permanent military bases throughout that country."
"A new Iraq oil law, largely written by the Coalition Provisional Authority,is planned for ratification by June. This law cedes control of Iraq's oil to western powers for 30 years"
"The question we must ask as citizens is this: Is the United States a democratic republic or an empire? History demonstrates that it's not possible to be both."

An expert's predictions

In early 2003 Fred Donner predicted correctly the consequences of Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Virtually everything he predicted is coming true. Virtually everything the Bush administration predicted did not. Have a look:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/nelc/facultypages/donner/topten.html

The Iraq Effect

In the article The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide of MotherJones, Peter Berger and Paul Cruickshank answer the highly controversial question of how has the Iraq War affected international terrorism.


"Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks ... even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third ... our study shows that the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of the Al Qaeda ideological virus...
Also undermining the argument that Al Qaeda ... [is] being distracted from plotting against Western targets are the dangerous, anti-American plots that have arisen since the start of the Iraq War. There have been six jihadist attacks on the home soil of the United States’ NATO allies ... in the period after the invasion of Iraq, whereas there were none in the 18 months following 9/11...
...the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began...
The rate of attacks in Arab countries jumped by 445 percent since the Iraq invasion, while the rate of killings rose by 783 percent....
While Iraqis make up the great bulk of the insurgents, several studies have shown that the suicide attackers in Iraq are generally foreigners...
Our study shows just how counterproductive the Iraq War has been to the war on terrorism."

Faulty Reporting of the "Najaf Massacre" Continues to Come to Light

It is becoming increasingly apparant that the "Najaf Massacre" was falsely reported by the media, Conn Hallinan of Foreign Policy In Focus, comments in his article The Najaf Massacre: Annotated, that The New York Times "highlighted a story about a Jan. 28 'battle' near the holy city of Najaf that is filled with the same sloppy reporting, inadequate research, and just plain disinformation that characterized the Times's pre-war coverage of Iraq."

Preparing For the Wrong Kind of War

For a several years now the U.S. military has been fighting a conflict in Iraq that it is ill-suited for. This is not a conflict where a standing army masses on an open battlefield and strives for a technological edge, yet that is exactly the kind of conflict that the U.S. military is developing and buying weapons systems for. Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.) of Foreign Policy in Focus comments on this situation in The Self-Destructive Logic of War.

The Firefight in Najaf, a Massacre?

The article below, from the Independent makes the most sense of the firefight in Najaf when so many people lost their lives the other day.


US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
Published: 31 January 2007

"There are growing suspicions that the official story of the battle outside Najaf is a fabrication."
"A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect."
"The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf."
"Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi..."
"When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi ..."
"The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief."
"Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da..."
"Reinforcements poured in..."
"This account cannot be substantiated ... [But] it would explain the disparity between the government casualties ... and the great number of their opponents killed and wounded."
"The Iraqi authorities have sealed the site and are not letting reporters talk to the wounded."

The risks of trying to "spin" the properties of the world

Human beings have come to dominate the earth through their distinctive gift, articulate speech. It is through articulate speech that we engage with the world and each other. But when we use speech in order to conceal the properties of the world we live in, we court disaster because the world is less tractable than the conceptions we have of it. Ships can run aground. Empires can fail.

Here is how people have used articulate speech to describe Iraq in the last few days:
Dick Chaney: We have had "enormous successes" in Iraq.
Gen. William Casey: We are making "slow progress". . . . "Today Iraqis are poised to assume responsiblity for their own security by the end of 2007, still with some level of support from us." [Wasn't it only a few days ago that he said it would be this summer?]
Robert Gates: There are essentially four wars going on in Iraq. One is Shia on Shia, principally in the south. The second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad but not solely. Third is the insurgency, and fourth is Al Qaeda."
2007 National Intelligence Estimate: "the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensvie Shia-on-Sunni violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forcdes, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

Of these, which is engaging with the world?

Ominous Predictions for the future of Iraq: Burns and Baker

John Burn’s prediction, in an interview with Charlie Rose, for what to expect if/when the Americans leave Iraq, is frightening. Compare it with James A. Baker III’s explanation for why the first Bush administration did not try to capture Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1991. Here is John Burns to Charlie Rose: “… a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we’re seeing with all kinds of implications for the world’s flow of oil, for the state Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there’s complete chaos in the region?” Here is James A. Baker III, on the reasons the first Bush administration did not try to find Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War: “… If Saddam were captured and his regime toppled, American forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify a country and sustain a government in power. The ensuring urban warfare would surely have resulted in more casualties to American GIs than the war itself, thus creating a political firestorm at home. And as much as Saddam’s neighbors wanted to see him gone, they feared Iraq would fragment in unpredictable ways that would play into the hands of the mullahs in Iran, who could export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism with the help of Iraq’s Shiites and quickly transform themselves into a dominant regional power. Finally the Security Council resolution under which we were operating authorized us to use force only to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, nothing more. As events have amply demonstrated, these concerns were valid. I am no longer asked why we did not remove Saddam in 1991!”

Professors in Iraq Have Been Killed

I have just heard about a number of professors in Iraq who have been assassinated or otherwise intimidated. This is what was sent to me:

Among the more than 250 college professors who have been killed since 30 April 2003 in Iraq are the following historians:

**Khalid M. al-Janabi, PhD. in Islamic history, faculty member at the College of Art, Babylon University. Date of assassination unknown.

**Essam Sharif Mohammed (also spelled Hissam Sharif), Ph.D in History, assistant professor at the College of Art, Baghdad University. Date of assassination: 25 October 2003.

**Mahfoudh al-Qazzaz, PhD. in Islamic history; faculty member at the College of Art, Mosul University. Killed by a death squad in front of his family at his home in Mosul on 20 December 2004.

**Jamhour Karim Kammas Al Zargani, PhD. in History; department head at the College of Education at Al- Basrah University. Abducted for two days, tortured, and killed. His family found the dead body with broken arms and legs in a nearby street in Basra on 19 August 2005.

**Kemal Nassir, professor of history, lecturer in Mustansiriya and Kufa. Date of assassination: 1 October 2006.

**In addition, Abd-Asalam Ali Hussein, PhD. in Islamic History, was arrested on 22 May 2005.

RLC