Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts

Saturday, February 07, 2009

The Sweet Smell of Success...and Burning Flesh

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Kadima have led the Israeli government into Lebanon and Gaza and it is looking much like an electoral defeat as a result. In the face of the spectacular destruction in Lebanon Hamas is a power, even more so and after the wreckage of Gaza rockets continue to fly into Ashkelon.
McClatchy's Cliff Churgin quotes 37 year old teacher Rosie:
"Last time I voted for Kadima, but now I'm thinking of voting for Likud," she said. "They promised us security, but the conditions my children live in are unacceptable."
****
"I want someone who will give us security. I don't care what the world thinks," she said. "My son is 2 years old, and to see him during the sirens is not a reality I'm willing to live with."

It looks as though the big winner in the coming elections will be the far right Yisrael Beiteinu party, headed by hard-liner Avigdor Lieberman, which will head into 3rd largest. This party will remind Americans of a few things, maybe best distant memories, such as calls for a citizenship law that would call on all citizens to sign loyalty oaths to the Jewish state. Failure to sign would result in losing the right to vote or to be elected. I happen to find the party slogan, "Without loyalty there is no citizenship," a bit Stalinist or Hitlerian for my taste but perhaps Jews have a different perspective? That stuff in itself would be discouraging but then there is the issue of the right's stance on Jerusalem, the West Bank, etc and no compromise whatever with Arabs.
Dr. Etta Bick of the Ariel University Center in the West Bank said that voters were moving right because of a change in priorities,

"The issue, if not the peace process . . . is security, and on security the public is on the right," Bick said. "There is disillusion about the peace process."

This is said as though there was a peace process, on much of anybody's part. Such doubt as I'm raising might be considered to tossing un-aimed rockets and roadside bombs and a few other Palestinian techniques.

In something like this conflict where there are racial, religious, historical, and even regional incitements to continue the slaughter a bit more incitement for political ends is to be expected. In order to get around to doing something a tad different it would seem that the pain of staying in the same mess needs to exceed all the excuses and that's probably a lot of pain. These people are full of excuses (and some other brown stuff), everybody has done something to everybody and that doing is inexcusable and must be met with force. It is a flatly ridiculous idea that they quit inciting each other.

So we have success coming our way, the asshats from Hamas and Hezbollah will get the asshats from the Israeli right to play with. This ought to mean the measure of goodness is the volume of opposition blood running on the ground. Evidently rearranging the debris that is Gaza and adding a bit more was a good idea, damn near as good an idea as tossing undirected high explosives at the most dangerous dog on the block.

It is probably time to offer sanctuary to the few on each side who disapprove of such behavior in some American enclaves and let them have at each other. Let their bloodthirsty gods sort them out, thought the Palestinians probably need a few more guns and bullets to make it really interesting.

BTW, I highly recommend McClatchy if for no more reason than that they still employ some of Knight Ridder's truth telling squad.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Cycle Of Stupidity Continues

News from the Middle East has a distressing propensity to be bad, sometimes predictably bad. As rockets have flown out of Gaza into Israel the only question was the math, how many rockets before Israel struck back and again math, how hard. No nation or its citizens will tolerate rockets raining down on them, they just will not.

Right along side the fact of retaliation is the fact of an oppressed distinct group, that group is distinct in race, religion, and history. Toss into that already volatile mix a territorial dispute and powerlessness and an explosion is in the offing - continually. Matches abound.

There is no argument that Israel does not possess the necessary armament to pound Gaza flat nor is there any argument that Palestinians do not have the necessary equipment to wage war by alternate means. One can get into an uproar about the military means utilized by either party in this conflict, and do so to absolutely no point. Israel is not going to risk its soldiers in a door to door urban conflict trying to root out rocketeers and bombers. Hamas or whatever arm of the Palestinians are not going to obtain tanks, artillery, and aircraft needed for conventional warfare, but they are going to wage war. Talking about this conflict in terms of war making methodology is pointless, it is exactly what it is and it will be that way.

The cycle of stupidity is the expectation that the utilization of force will accomplish an end. The only military solution is the near extermination of one group or the other, or raising the terror level to the point where any action is too terrible to contemplate. Neither group can afford to go in that direction so what they do is play at violence, each side stoking the cycle.

The other day I posted about understanding your neighbor, it is the one route the parties have out of their circle of violence. The problem is that a half century of conflict and the hate and distrust engendered by it prohibit that approach. Neither party will listen to someone who says, "OK, stop pissing them off." Two racist theocracies stare with hatred at each other and each tries to gain an edge. Both factions have polluted the general populace with their mindlessness, to the point that governmental initiatives are quickly undermined by non-governmental authorities and actors. Neither government has control of their populace and Israel has the least excuse for their own situation in that regard. The Palestinians can at least claim a stew of political chaos, economic desperation, and oppression - Israel on the other hand can only stand on a lack of will to control its factions.

A cease fire that stops the violence on each side, a dream in itself, is not even a beginning. That has been the failure over time, it is seen as something in itself that the killing stops for awhile. The killing impulse doesn't stop, it is only frustrated for a time and breaks out once again. Short of the option of the removal of either party, every option has to be on the table and negotiated with an understanding of the driving forces of each population. While there are differences of a cultural nature that may defy empathetic understanding, all are within the realm of reason. While the international community continues to allow either party to behave in unreasonable fashions nothing will happen, their is no sufficient force within either party to institute a policy of reason.

The international factions not only allow the continuation of this stupid cycle, they encourage it. The United States maintains a near knee jerk approval of Israeli behavior and opponents to the US positions anywhere stoke and supply the Palestinians. There is no responsible player in the game, everyone has a gun on the table and cards up their sleeves. The international community claims outrage over each flare of violence and promptly does what it can to encourage their surrogate. Israel and the Palestinians are the proxies and surrogates of players with no real stake in peace in the area, despite all the claims to the contrary. There is not a single government that could not cut off all aid and support to all parties while they engage in stupidity, but not one of them shows any willingness to do so. The factions on both sides that stand to profit from violent activity are rewarded by someone internationally. That has to cease if anything reasonable is to happen.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

How Many Wars, John?

John McCain promotes the "surge" in Iraq, more troops in Afghanistan, doing something concrete about Georgia and Russia, and making Iran sorry. He'll also follow Bin Laden "to the Gates of Hell," a project that will take some doing since George II hasn't done anthing about it.

John McCain is real fond of using the military. The military is already streached thin, so thin that additional deployments aren't possible. John wants to use them some more, and more. There really isn't any way but one. A draft. And Wednesday in Las Cruces, New Mexico at a townhall meeting John let it slip.
"Disabled veterans, especially in this state, have horrible conditions," the woman said. "Their medical is substandard. They drive four hours one way to Albuquerque for a simple doctor's appointment, which is often cancelled. Our VA hospital is dirty, it's understaffed, it's running on maximum overload. The prescription medicines are ten years behind standard medical care. We have 700 claims stacked up at the VA office in Albuquerque. Some of them are ten--seven years old, waiting to be processed. In the meantime, people are homeless. My son is an officer in the Air Force, I'm a vet, and I was raised in a military family. And I think it's a sorry state of affairs when we have illegal aliens, having a Medicaid card, that can access specialist top physicians--the best of medical--and our vets can't even get to a doctor.

"And these are the people we tied yellow ribbons for, and Bush patted on the back. If we don't reenact the draft, I don't think we'll have anyone to chase bin Laden to the gates of Hell."

"Ma'am," the Senator responded, "let me say that I don't disagree with anything you said. Thank you, and I am grateful for your support of all of our veterans."

For Pete's sake, how else could he do it? Oh, surely after the reactions start, he'll claim to not have heard the "draft" part of the statement. Maybe he'll just deny he said any such thing.

The point in having a military is not to use it. Yes, I mean that, its point is its non-use. It is the iron fist inside the velvet glove. That presence is known and understood while the soft glove gets its work-out. Warfare works on two levels, killing or maiming the opposition and making resistance fearfully inappropriate. Intimidation is not persuasion, it is not even close.

John McCain's idea is to shoot and pick up the pieces later, the immediate problem with that is the loss of life and general mayhem and the future problem is the level of enmity engendered by that mayhem. Unless you obliterate entire nations and groups they live on and their families and friends live on, with a bullseye on the offender's forehead. Does anyone have positive ideas for the viewpoints of today's children of Iraq? Has their childhood given them some reason to like and respect the US? Whatever risks adult life posed in Saddam's Iraq these children's post-Saddam life has not been a positive experience. What booby traps have we set in motion for our own today's children? Exactly how much more of this is John McCain proposing?

Thursday, August 14, 2008

In The 21st Century Nations Don't Invade Other Nations

John McCain said this to reporters about Russia and Georgia. Apparently a couple instances have slipped his mind, there was a bit of something regarding Iraq and no justification whatever and perhaps Israel didn't do anything whatever to Lebanon. Now S Ossetia is a part of Georgia, nominally anyhow, but the Russian peace keepers there are actually Russian and shooting at them isn't exactly an invitation to dinner. Unless the dinner is in Tbilisi.

Randy Scheunemann may lobby for Georgia while acting as John McCain's foreign policy advisor and maybe John McCain gets along with it, but making things up is pretty stupid. It may not be as stupid as trying to include me as a Georgian because GWB thought poking the bear was good fun and McCain is still fighting the Cold War against the USSR. Since Georgia seems to have thrown the deciding punch in starting this and John McCain seems to have led them to believe something, see President Mikhail Saakashvili's jab at McCain regarding deeds outweighing words.

The Obama campaign said something about McCain having lost his bearings - ethical compass - and got whacked for ageism, I'm pretty sure he has has spun a bearing in his mental motor. That ain't ageism, it's about whether a brain works or not. McCain is like a body of water one inch deep and miles wide, depth being thought and POW being miles. There isn't anything to the guy, he's run and won on being shot down for decades and having the media as his lap dogs hasn't hurt.

I'm not in the least in favor of Russia over running Georgia and people getting killed. Neither am I in favor of Georgia doing that to S Ossetia. What irks me no end is amateur politicization of a serious problem by the security candidate, McCain. Whatever his Georgian shill is telling McCain, the US cannot afford to start an economic pissing match with Russia. What is it about oil that makes Republicans completely stupid?

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Condi Gets It Wrong, Again

At one time Russia was an Empire, then it was a Hegemony, then it was broken, and then came oil. Big oil prices, Russia with lots of oil, lots of money for military. Now Russia has a long history of xenophobia and paranoia regarding the West. Not all of that is the result of propaganda, Napoleon and Hitler came from the West and there have been plenty of historical examples of the other making real problems for Russia. Nationalism has been a reality of Russia for a very long time and the time since the fall of the USSR has been ... humiliating. It doesn't take expertise in Russian history and sociology to know this, just paying a bit of attention will do.

Not too long after Putin demonstrated that Bush couldn't really see his soul in his eyes and also refused to intervene in Iran BushCo started poking the Russian bear. Now poking sticks at bears is a bad idea if the bear is loose and you don't have a big gun to back up your puny stick. The purpose of NATO was to have that big gun regarding that bear; the Russians and everybody else knew it. There is a difference between an economic union like the EU and military alliances like NATO and there should be no confusion. The EU enhances the economic and political health of its member nations. NATO is about military protection from ... Russia. NATO has cooperated in military actions outside Europe, for instance Afghanistan, but it is not a world military alliance. The US has been pushing NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders and they don't like it.

The US has a demonstrably unsuccessful ABM program that it is trying to put on Russia's borders, supposedly in regard to Middle Eastern terror states. It doesn't work reliably and the Russians don't like it, big surprise. BushCo has kept pushing it in the face of Russia's objections, which aren't really unrealistic in regard to Russian history. The real trump card in this mess is that there are no credible threats in the Middle East making such a deployment necessary. It looks a lot more like pointless poking at the bear.

Georgia, S Ossetia, and Russia all have a difficult relationship and it dates back quite awhile. S Ossetia, a pretty small place, has made itself pretty clear that it doesn't care to be Georgian and Georgia has made itself pretty clear that it doesn't care to let loose of S Ossetia. Most S Ossetians have Russian passports indicating a preference for Russia and Russia for many reasons, including nationalism and border cushion likes that fine. Enter BushCo and NATO being proffered to Georgia along with military training and equipment aimed at the propaganda aspect of 2000 Georgian troops in Iraq. BushCo led Georgia to think it was important to the US.

Now exactly who is it that is supposed to be an expert in things Russian? Condi Rice. Condi was lately in Georgia and shortly there after they started shooting at S Ossetia and apparently Russian peacekeeping troop. I don't propose that she was stupid enough to tell them to do it, but I don't think it is in the least unreasonable to think she told them how important they were. This woman was the NSA head when September 11, 2001 happened ("no credible threat") and she was the NSA head when George II half-assed Afghanistan, and she was NSA head when smoking guns were mushrooms and Saddam had WMDs and had a hand in Sept 11 attacks. She was Secretary of State when Israel made a spectacular mess in Lebanon and drumbeats of Iranian War began. It doesn't hurt to remember that Iran made itself useful in our aborted Afghani campaign. Now she seems to have had a hand in the Georgian mess.

Now in regard to Russia I'm sure they take a certain amount of glee from our Afghanistan/Iraq quagmire. I'm very sure they don't like our approach to Iran. I'm real sure they haven't liked being jabbed at on their own borders. Nobody would like that, not the US, not Russia, not anybody. Russia is historically very antsy about its borders and that is not exactly specialized knowledge. Either Condi has had a hand in this stupidity or BushCo is ignoring her - and there is no sign of that. I've heard she's a pretty good piano player...

I'm pretty tired of the US being made an international pariah with domestic and international actions that only a few would have dreamed possible a dozen years ago. I am considerably less happy to be a part of those actions. I am extremely tired of militaristic misadventures being the hallmark of this administration, their idiocy is getting a lot of people killed and maimed around the world.

(oh for god's sake, I just heard a clip of Condi asserting the sovereignty of Georgia) [has she heard of Iraq?] Oh crap, the US media is banging the Russia is evil drum. This is a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Now that BushCo has managed to stir up trouble with Russia we need to... Do exactly what? We don't have any big guns. The military is bogged down and nearly broken. Our economy is in tatters. Cheney and McHero are ranting away, economic sanctions, ditching Russia with G8, oh we'll punish them... I guess neither of them think gasoline prices are high enough. Did somebody forget about oil and the rather large amount of oil and natural gas Russia exports? Who loses in an economic set to? I have to wonder just how stupid Republicans propose to be and just how badly we get to suffer for it? It's enough to make you wish Babs had told GHWB, "NO!" one night...

Monday, June 30, 2008

War And John McCain * repost

Though I only kind of like Gen Wes Clark, here you are again...

I won't denigrate John McCain's service or his suffering in Vietnam but I will take a look at what this has to do with his viewpoint regarding warfare. John McCain flew jets for the Navy, fighter bombers. John McCain was shot down over North Vietnam and captured. He suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. John McCain is a brave man. His experience of warfare is also one of the extreme minority of those in combat.

John McCain's experience of combat involved flying high over it and dropping bombs, a quiet removed experience with moments of extreme danger. This wasn't a safe job, in fact, the percentages of airmen injured, killed, or captured in combat was quite high. This isn't about bravery, it's about the experience.

Between hours long missions the jets were parked on an aircraft carrier in virtual safety and their pilots had safe beds and good food. Pilots are officers, support are enlisted personnel. In John McCain's world of war, gentlemen engaged in combat and were cared for by enlisted men. Their world was safe pampered and had very limited contact with native civilians, it was a closed society of volunteers.

Contrast this with the life of ground troops. These men endured the climate exactly as it was, heat, mud, rain, filth and fought in it. Their beds were cots or the ground and at no time safe and you have to experience food under these conditions to appreciate that C-rats and MRE are fuel not food. No matter where the troops went in country an enemy could be found at hand. If they were lucky enough to have barracks, there was no assurance that a grenade wouldn't roll through the door or that the base wouldn't come under mortar attack. Ground engagements took place at close range, the blood stink, and cries of wounded all right at hand to be experienced. The vast majority experiencing this were enlisted men and of them a good percentage were conscripts. The numbers involved meant that injury and death were a regular experience, and that experience was personal, it happened to people at arm's reach.

These men came from a wide spectrum of the United States and their experiences involved large numbers of families and friends. These men came home to a country torn by the war. They had experienced it on television before going, in country, and after their return. Their families and friends had the war on television before, during, and after their return. The nation as a whole dealt with the second hand reality of war.

John McCain went to war as the child of he military world, the top of its hierarchy. He grew up in that world and served as one of that group. Once a prisoner he had no experience of the conflict at home and the slow grinding of opposition and loss. John McCain started the war, served in the war, and came home from the war divorced from its social and political costs. John McCain suffered as a consequence of being shot down, but he never experienced the war in the context of more than a handful of people compared to the rest of the nation. What John McCain actually knows of warfare comes from a unique perspective and serves us poorly. A few visits to Iraq in the hands of the propaganda machine have nothing to do with the suffering of the civilians and the grinding danger filled life of a trooper. A faux fighter jock got us into this mess and the idea that another fighter jock has a clue about it is ludicrous.

I make no argument regarding military service as a benefit in a candidate for any political office. It has nothing to do with judgement, what it has to do with is personal experience. You can find any number of Vietnam War ground combat vets who state that the war was sold out and could have been won. It is not a basis for political judgement to have been shot at in war. A combat soldier's life is measured by minutes, decisions and actions have immediate consequences, thinking is drawn down to the very narrowest of considerations. This is the very antithesis of political thinking, where decisions may not have measurable effects for years. The measure of John McCain as candidate has nothing to do with military service, it has everything to do with his record as a politician. He has demonstrated with votes who it is he serves, the elite of money and power - not Americans.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

In Memoriam

A post tonight as Memorial Day passes about what it means. Today has been about those who have fallen in service to this nation, all that they had, they gave. There really is no more to be said for words are insufficient.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Warfare Is What It Is (Redux)

****I posted this over the weekend and it laid there essentially unread. A couple bloggers picked it up and graciously linked, they think it is important. I also happen to think so, so it is repeated here.****

Recent news reports, McClatchy, about a Sadr City strike damaging a hospital and ambulances have created a stir. As many as 5 rockets were fired into a house apparently used by militants for attacks on US troops "yards" from the hospital. Civilian casualties are up for the month, as are US troop casualties. This fighting is occurring in a crowded slum of 2.5 million people.

When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.

Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...

We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.

There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.

Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.

Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.

Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.

If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.

I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Warfare Is What It Is

Recent news reports, McClatchy, about a Sadr City strike damaging a hospital and ambulances have created a stir. As many as 5 rockets were fired into a house apparently used by militants for attacks on US troops "yards" from the hospital. Civilian casualties are up for the month, as are US troop casualties. This fighting is occurring in a crowded slum of 2.5 million people.

When civilians or clearly civilian installations are damaged in attacks people begin to complain. There is a natural disinclination amongst Americans to participate in indiscriminate slaughter. Here is where reality and wishful thinking collide, bullets and explosives do not discriminate, once loosed they hit where they were pointed. That baby has no target discriminator on him; age, sex, and participation are not disqualifiers from death and injury. It is the nature of things that go bang to knock the snot out of anything nearby, it is inevitable, and it is a characteristic which is both feared and utilized by the targets of those things.

Back in 2003 there was a huge ground swell of approval as "Shock and Awe" proceeded and we were informed that only militarily significant targets were exploding on our TV screens. Some of us bought into that idea, smart bombs was the mantra. The idea was clearly as stupid as the bombs were smart. The explosives, for the most part, reached their intended targets and those targets were in a populated area, civilians got blown up or devastated by flying debris. Everyone with half a brain knew that, but the pictures were ever so 'cool' and covered by a willing media analysis. C'mon, you saw the size of the fireballs and you knew it was in Bhagdad...

We live in an age of video and video games and our perceptions are skewed by this. We can see things with our own eyes and discount them because an 'expert' says something. We see the video image the bomb sees as it goes into its target and accept that as the reality. Reality happens after the video transmitter is exploded by the payload, that is what you do not see. Video games and TV sanitize the war experience while letting us think we are a part of the experience. The sounds, smells, and actual results are hidden away. The contents of a human body are spread everywhere, all the contents, and they are cooked. That body may have been a Saddam General or a kid walking home from a visit, you have no idea - you neither saw him nor the results. Our news organizations were roundly criticized at the time by other media, particularly Al Jazeera, for not showing civilian casualties. Whether that outlet's numbers were accurate or not is beside the question, they existed and you didn't see them.

There are issues of decency that our media adheres to, it is hypocritical in the extreme, but flatly Americans will not look at the results of a large explosion on a human body and not complain. The children, after all, might be watching and besides, we have some standards... We have illusion and garbage - not standards. That impressive fireball sent out from it a concussion wave of air and flying objects, the objects buildings are constructed of, moving at thousands of feet per second followed by heat. Anything in the path of that suffered damage, damage you do not want to think about. That shock wave compresses the human body, forcing what is inside, out. Buildings are constructed of very unfriendly to human beings objects when they are moving at hundreds of miles per hour- try to imagine a sheet of glass, masonry, steel, and wooden splinters impacting humans. Right behind it was heat, more than you use to sear that steak you were eating. You cheered, "Wow, look at that!" and saw none of it.

Warfare is a bloody inhumane exercise and you've been insulated from that fact. There are veterans who know, they say little. If you fault them, you are a fool. To speak to the horrid realities of warfare is to relive them and they have already served you. It is not their job to educate you about the obvious that you ignore. Guns are not magical, they put a small projectile in the air at thousands of feet per second, far beyond the speed of sound, and the target is hit well before the sound of firing reaches it. The effect of that bullet depends on its caliber, speed, and what it strikes, it may inflict a fraction of an inch hole through a body or it may strike bone, shattering it and virtually exploding the surrounding flesh. Military rounds are considered humane, use of destructive bullets is banned. Humane.

Dying or severely shocked humans lose control of their bodily functions, urine and feces are released and possible uncontrolled vomiting. Mix all this together with blood and seared flesh and you have truly unattractive visual and olfactory experience, auditory stimulus may not be particularly nice - either. Warfare is the business of blowing things up and grievously harming human beings, it ain't pretty and it ain't a game. We are doing it to "them" and they are doing it to "us" and the mechanisms of the doing are immaterial. A car bomb and a smart bomb in a populated are have exactly the same outcomes and ends. The end is to make it fearfully inappropriate to continue a course of action. Terrorism. The presence of or lack of a uniform does not make this less true.

Civilians are particularly vulnerable in this kind of urban warfare, shelter involves the very sorts of places where people live and work and go to hospital. People at risk of being shot or blown up seek shelter. If there is an expectation that one side or the other will try to avoid civilian casualties the civilians become objects of shelter and because neither side wishes to lose, the civilians become disposable pawns in the effort to achieve checkmate. In today's world, uniforms are camouflage, it is important to have them different enough to avoid fratricide, but the end object is be a poor target. Civilian clothing for fighters works in the same way, though with unfortunate results for civilians, regardless bullets will fly in high numbers. Military weapons deliberately allow for high rates of fire, a lot of lead in the air makes those difficult targets more likely to be hit and less likely to hit back. Anything in the way is going to suffer.

If you are going to start a military conflict it is wise to know what it is that you propose to do. You are going to engage in one of the least humane and civilized of all behaviors and do it on a grand scale. You are going to destroy a lot of things you would ordinarily find commendable and harm lots of people you would ordinarily find laudable. Warfare is neither glorious nor is it, as our President seems to think, an adventure; it is flatly destruction and slaughter. If you do not approach it with, at the very least, sadness and regret you forfeit the title of reasoning being.

I refuse to play. I opposed this war from before the first bomb and I oppose it now. I oppose war on general terms and I fiercely oppose its glorification. I regret and resent the use of our power to harm others. What I will not do is condemn the soldiers on the ground for the inevitable results of our leadership's decision to engage in this behavior. Our troops are engaged in a street brawl and everybody knew or certainly should have known that this was going to be the outcome. The fact that we have criminally irresponsible people leading this nation is the fault of the voters not the soldiers, we both have jobs to do and it is about time we voters do ours.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Why Are Children Driving The Car?

I'm sorry, I thought the adults were supposed to be in charge. First it's no backing down on Iraq funding, then it's tie it to domestic spending. And so, here's the real surprise, per NYT :


WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion spending package being assembled in Congress if Democrats pushed for too much additional money for domestic programs.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, accused Democrats of trying to tie money for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to what the president considers excessive spending for federal agencies and home-state projects.

“Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield success,” Mr. Nussle said.

And yes, the Democrats have something to say about it:

“America expects this president to lead — that means working in a bipartisan way with Congress to responsibly address our country’s priorities rather than issuing veto threats without even knowing what he is threatening to veto,” said a joint statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

No, actually we kind of expected this President to act just exactly like he did to begin with and our mistake was thinking that somebody with two live brain cells that spoke to each other was in charge in Congress. You see, Nancy and Harry, we didn't look at how he has acted over the last 7 years and start thinking he'd do something different with either one of your ideas. In fact, any other 4 year old could have told you children that stamping his feet and throwing himself on the floor was exactly what he'd do, and that there also wouldn't be any adults around to spank him for it.

If you propose to play power politics you'd best make up your minds to do so. You'd best make up your minds to make BushCo pay for its ways by taking the risk of saying no and then building a frame that fits the actions of the Child in Chief. But the problem is that the 65% of America doesn't count, you're afraid to the dead-end kids that comprise his 28% or maybe offending the little 7% that can't make up it's mind whether he's just incompetent or stupid or both but just mislead by the criminally negligent.

What expert in political maneuvering told you that things would work out differently? Or, told you that this mess would be easier to frame to a public that is beginning to see you as toothless lying hypocrites? You've got people out knocking themselves out to build you a useful Party and this is what you've got to offer? How do you propose to do anything about anything after you offend the entire activist side of the Party and disappoint most of the rest of the people who gave you your narrow majority? Why exactly should we give you one minute of our time and effort, what is it that you expect us to offer to voters?

You didn't need to pick either one of these fights if you didn't mean to go ahead and fight. There's an old saying, "Don't take a knife to a gunfight," and you didn't even show up with a limp rag. When it comes to taking principles to the Floor, you guys are packing water in a sieve.

I've about reached the point where if one of your PACs backs a candidate it's an automatic disqualification, the only ones that seem to have any sense are the one's whose votes you discount in search of Republicans'. Your empty threats and empty promises have become simple noise, I'd rather listen to static on a mis-tuned radio.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

War Funds, Why Bother

George II's response to the House refusal to pass Iraq war funds without strings was predictable, to anyone bothering to pay any attention at all. He would dig his heels in, call it refusal to support the troops, and make somebody or more accurately, everyone else pay. So bases would close, civilian contractors would be laid off, and nothing would pass his desk without a veto. BushCo had no intention of doing anything other than what they wanted to do, and a willingness to hurt whomever was available. Not one bit of that should be a surprise.



The question then becomes, why would the Democrats bother to stamp their feet and talk about no free passes? If you know a temper tantrum is coming you need to decide how to deal with it before you take any action - or even talk publicly about it. Evidently nobody bothered to mention that or if they did they were ignored. How ignored?



The House is working on a deal to pass a massive spending bill that gives BushCo its war funds with no strings but adds $11 Billion additional domestic spending. That sure seems to have a lot of effect on the war in Iraq. That will certainly instigate progress from the Iraqi government.



I guess disappointment is over-rated as an emotion in politics, not improving with practice.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Corruption Destroying What's Left Of Iraq

You probably are thinking that a little corruption is to be expected in an Arab nation, you also may be a little jaded by Halliburton, KBR, Parsons, Blackwater, and other assorted US corruption, but Iraq has passed what levels may be sustainable. If you think maybe BushCo has really lowered the bar for Iraq's government by putting it at passing a budget, you don't understand the depths of their tolerance. If you'd like a taste for just how tolerant of corruption this Administration is you could re-visit this October post and see that they not only don't want to hear about it, they want to bury it. And from the looks of it, bury anybody who talks.

Nonstop Theft and Bribery Stagger Iraq is how a NYT report describes the situation. Now bearing in mind that Radhi al-Radhi the ex-head of governmental corruption investigation lost 31 staff members to killings, you can understand that folks aren't real hot on talking and being identified but what NYT reports is horrific. Some will talk:

“Everyone is stealing from the state,” said Adel Adel al-Subihawi, a prominent Shiite tribal leader in Sadr City, throwing up his hands in disgust. “It’s a very large meal, and everyone wants to eat.”
He's not kidding around, police applicants pay from $400 to $800 to have their applications taken and approved, one stated that not one of his class of 850 did not pay a bribe and that his commanders collect the salaries of recruits who quit. So you commit a crime to become a policeman. Everyone is stealing? Estimates run to $18 billion in Iraqi government money that has been lost to corruption since 2004, some American officials estimate that a third of what they spend on Iraqi contracts or grants winds up stolen or unaccounted for.

Cash is also often what leads to promotions — with the help of a fake college degree, purchased for about $40 — and theft is no less common. One government worker, who goes by the name Abu Muhammad, said a senior administrator at the ministry where he worked recently sold off computers, laser printers, office furniture and other supplies that appeared to have been paid for with American aid. The official was never caught or prosecuted, he said.
It is not just a matter of getting rich, it involves schemes as simple as hand washing cars for survival money. Abbas Wadi Kadhim, 42, takes water from a broken water pipe to earn $4 per car - the water is "stolen" and he pays no rent on the abandoned government building he uses to house his operation. He is ashamed to violate the Koran's prohibition on corruption but avoids more forbidden acts which rescues some of his pride.

Maybe the mess would be tolerable in a war torn chaotic nation, Iraq rates as the 3rd most corrupt in the world, if there seemed to be some form of pushback by anyone, there isn't. Consider the government's stance on corruption investigations:

Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who runs the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, said Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki actually undercut anticorruption efforts this year by requiring that investigators get permission from his office before pursuing ministers or former ministers on corruption charges.

Mr. Maliki has also not rescinded a law, opposed by the Americans, that lets ministers exempt their employees from investigation. “Those two legal positions within the fledgling Iraqi government are incompatible with democracy,” Mr. Bowen said in an interview. “My concerns about the corruption problem have risen.”
Does anyone think that maybe this might rank right up there with passing a budget with BushCo? Well, in a reasonable world maybe, but it sounds an awful lot like the Administration's policy with our own Inspector Generals. In fact, in the US it is starting to look as though if it isn't nailed down it's for sale or stolen. You could almost make a case that we blew up a country so favored contractors could make a buck - well, billions or so. Stop and consider that Halliburton was seriously looking at bankruptcy before Cheney et al got the reins of power and others were just ordinarily profitable operations, now it sure is a different picture.

The Surge that was supposed to give Iraqis a breathing space to get their act together seems to have done that,
The collective filching undermines Iraq’s ability to provide essential services, a key to sustaining recent security gains, according to American military commanders. It also sows a corrosive distrust of democracy and hinders reconciliation as entrenched groups in the Shiite-led government resist reforms that would cut into reliable cash flows.
So who is it that is supposed to have an incentive to get this war over with? The war profiteers in Washington or maybe the Iraqis who gain to the tune of billions would want to cut the spigot off? Maybe the right who insist that it's all about terrorism could take a look at who benefits and wonder if the blood and treasure really needs to be spent for this cause - theft.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Still No Way Out

The title is the NYT Editorial from November 30, 2007 which addresses the quandary we find ourselves in regarding Iraq. The surge has resulted, finally, in lower levels of violence. That is about it, 30,000 additional troops and months of horrid violence in order to get back to 2005 levels of death and destruction. There was supposed to be a bit more involved.



Instead, Iraq’s politicians — and their American backers — have squandered the time and the best efforts of American troops. Mr. Bush’s generals are so frustrated that they’ve begun to complain publicly about the fecklessness of Iraq’s leaders. The ever-feckless White House, rather than looking for ways to compel Iraq’s leaders to perform, is lessening the pressure.
I noted here my reactions and the consequences are accelerating, not so much on the ground in Iraq, but politically here.

The news has cheered Americans and dampened Democrats’ enthusiasm for keeping up the pressure on Iraq policy.
This isn't about some political gamesmanship for Democrats, it is about what it is that we're trying to do. BushCo has kept the goalposts in nearly constant motion from the run-up to the war. The war right is jumping up and down, 'told ya defeatocrats, it works,' and the Democrats are getting ready to flinch. Try to get this, we are where we were in '05 only ethnic cleansing has progressed. The Sunnis in al-Anbar are not our allies, they have found a piece of common ground in the fabric of the total. Do folks remember "enemy of my enemy"? As long as al-Qaeda is the enemy of the moment things are fine, what happens when their enemy is the Maliki government? They are now better armed than ever before.

Perhaps 160,000 American troops could hold down the overall casualty numbers indefinitely, but they cannot wipe away that sort of hatred. That’s the job of Iraq’s leaders. Either way, the American military doesn’t have enough troops for such an occupation without end, and the American Treasury can’t keep spending $10 billion a month to maintain it.

There was supposed to be some endpoint purpose to 30,000 troops and the death and suffering, in fact

Americans need to ask themselves the questions Mr. Bush is refusing to answer: Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how many American and Iraqi deaths a month are an acceptable price? If not, what’s the plan for getting out?
The NYT take on this is a bit more generous than mine, I don't believe BushCo's agenda actually has anything to do with the moving stated goals. If any of what has been said had anything to do with their intentions, they would have pursued those actual goals. Iraqis passing a budget is not about fixing what ails Iraq, it may have to do with accounting and spending, but in that morass of corruption and waste it is nearly no more than PR. What ails Iraq is that the only solution seen by all parties is force.

Guns and bombs and murders are not politics, they are the failure of politics and in the absence of any politics in Iraq they are the available tools. They are the available tools to the US and and the Iraqis and they are the status quo from late 2003. It really isn't too difficult to look at conditions which 'require' the presence of US troops continually to wonder about the actual goals of BushCo. The Democrats in Congress, and the few 'responsible Republicans,' need to stop and think about what all this means to our soldiers and Treasury. None of that begins to look at the consequences to the Middle East of an enduring US occupation of one of their nations.

Finally, those 30,000 troops have to start coming home or the military will be irretrievably broken and once that influence is removed the other tools of the Iraqis will come back into play. That may presage another surge, one of violence.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

How We're "Winning" In Iraq, Now

The right, or the BushCo Gang, is now asking when the media and defeatocrats are going to admit that we're winning in Iraq. Troop losses the last two months have been the lowest since early 2006, including all US casualties and Iraqi force and civilian casualties. Any drop in casualties makes me very happy - not as happy as a cessation of casualties - happy for the troops and their families and Iraqis in general. That, of course, isn't what the question was. It might pay to remember that 2006 was what made the "surge" the thing to do, it might pay to remember that four years of war have succeeded in getting us back to year 3. It might pay to notice that the political progress in the past year has been exactly no better than it was in year 3, which isn't even as good as a status quo might be under ordinary circumstances.

I and others have pointed out that Iraqis are fiercely tribal as well as religious sectarians and the al Anbar successes were primarily homegrown and the virtually inevitable consequences of foreign Arabs trying to impose their foreign agenda on Sunni Iraqis. Bhagdad is now sectarian divided, essentially segregated neighborhoods where once mixed existed and a whole lot of potential victims have gotten out. The Iraqis returning after being forced out of Syria may be one of the coming test cases. While Iranian sanctuaried and trained Shiites in the south may have an upper hand in the formerly British controlled areas; they also may find the same results the foreign Sunnis have had in al Anbar. It took awhile for Sunni resentment to boil over in al Anbar so it may take that with the Shiites in the south, Basra in particular.

In the absence of so much violence some of the essential services are beginning to improve, that alone may make a large difference in how tolerant Iraqis are about their neighbors creating heat with the Americans. While it may seem a materialistic sort of reasoning, it is a bit more difficult to support or tolerate people whose actions take you from having some garbage removal back to none, as well as other services. They also will not tolerate for long having just some services, analyzing on that basis is pretty problematic.

This is where the lack of political solutions or any real political activity and high levels of corruption are going to cause havoc. Life problems have got to be addressed in a real manner, these people have had four years of absolute hell and they're not going to be very patient (not that they are anyhow). If there is no evidence of power sharing and problems continue in just trying to live there is going to be backlash. Cleaning up corruption will cause backlash from the supporter of those gaining from the corruption (Mahdi Army in particular) and yet leaving it go will cause backlash; when things are this messy the chances of any course working well diminish.

Every day that Americans are viewed as occupiers increases the potential for explosive violence. While a recent firefight resulting in an intelligence coup regarding importation of foreign fighters has had an effect on "random" violence; that information has a shelf-life, as it becomes more dated and new circles are built that importation will recover. It will recover faster and more virulently with active dislike for American presence, through no more than simple tolerance for its existence. Current troop levels are not sustainable; there simply are not enough troops to keep it up, this means that whatever damping effect is happening through troop presence will not continue on that basis. If no other basis is found the results could easily be reversed. Those who find expanded violence in their interest now have concrete examples of how to provoke it and then stoke it. Neither the willingness nor the materials have evaporated for those people.

What the Iraqi forces can accomplish is an open question, some few units have proven to be capable, others are so infiltrated with sectarians and partisans as to be a danger to both the civilians and Americans, and finally a large number are simple incompetent for the job, for many reasons. Iraqis finding themselves under the discipline of the latter two categories might reasonably opt for an entirely different solution - and a violent one.

I would actually like to go the BushCo dead-enders one better, no we're not just winning; we've now won, bring them all home and we'll have that parade you were planning for 3 years ago. I don't even care if George II hangs a Mission Accomplished banner from the White House portico, as long as there are no flight suits and ships involved.

Combat correspondent Michael Yon is an independent reporter, seems important to one of my readers that he is linked.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

How To Profit From War, Parsons Corp

Maybe you remember a slight difficulty in Iraq with a Police Academy, one that had crumbling walls and sewage running from the ceilings and walls? The name of the US contractor who had charge of that $72 million project was Parsons Corporation. The NYT reported 11/06/07 that the 'problems' had yet to be rectified. Parsons seems entirely overwrought with remorse:
A company spokeswoman, Erin Kuhlman, said that Parsons, which is based in Pasadena, Calif., had strictly abided by the terms of the contract it had received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to do the work at the academy.

“Parsons completed its work at the Baghdad Police College in the spring of 2006,” Ms. Kuhlman said, adding that the Army Corps accepted the work as completed at about the same time.
It seems that in July of '06 the Army wasn't happy with sewage running out the ceilings. Parsons put them in contact with the Iraqi subcontractor. In July and August of '06 the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent agency led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr. took a look and was distinctly unhappy, finding “indications of potential fraud” and oversight by the Army Corp and Parsons to have virtually nonexistent.

Folks, I'm a contractor, nowhere in Parson's universe, and I know that you almost have to try to make this big a mess. This is a training academy not a 5 star hotel or mansion, it is not that difficult. There are ways screw it up this bad and they generally involve cheating.


On Sept. 28, 2006, as the inspector general’s report was released, Earnest O. Robbins II, a senior vice president at Parsons, testified before the House Government Reform Committee that the company would fix the problems at no extra charge. “We are repairing it at no cost to the government,” Mr. Robbins said in response to questions by Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.
On the Sunday previous to this 11/6/07 news report :


the American officer affiliated with the new project to repair the problems described an elaborate and costly effort to tear out and replace the plumbing on entire floors. The problems were so severe, the officer said, that the military had also been obliged to build new latrines outside and demolish some structures entirely and start over.

“These buildings are all Parsons-built,” said the officer. “The piping is bad. It really is. To be honest with you, it’s raw sewage, raw fecal matter coming out of the walls.”
Now if you've started to wonder if war is good for business and if they think it is there are some clues available as to their thinking, little deals like FEC filings, say Parsons starting in 2000 when there was no war to profit from

All Federal Candidates:
2000 $75,250 (38% to Democrats, 60% to Republicans)
2002 $130,500 (43% to Democrats, 57% to Republicans)
2004 $270,500 (50% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2006 $417,050 (49% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2008 $209,000 (61% to Democrats, 39% to Republicans) to date
Numbers courtesy Open Secrets

Now it seems that not too long after the BushCo started to make it clear that they'd like to outsource government it became important to influence thinking as much as possible. Now '04 was a Presidential cycle, but it sure seemed awfully important, not to mention that the war started in '03. The '06 cycle didn't involve any Presidential campaigns ( in '04 $0 went to Democratic Presidential) but there sure was profit to be made from death and destruction and governmental largess with the kind of oversight that Stuart Bowen found so "useful."

There's a $45 billion reconstruction project turkey to cut up in Iraq, in '04 Parsons had contracts worth up to $800 million. By 6/06 the Army Corp had cancelled a $99.1 million contract for a prison that was 1 year behind schedule, weeks after a $300 million contract to build clinics and hospitals was canceled for non-performance.

So, it's worth pretty big bucks to candidates to get work worth a lot of money but the doing of it seems not quite as worthwhile. We need some more of this, let's be sure to elect the same mindset to Congress and President, Parsons would be appreciative...

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Party Here, Sacrifice Over There

is the title of a NYT Op-Ed by Will Bardenwerper who got to Iraq January '06, I'll quote one short passage, you go there to read it, it deserves reading:

Serious problems with the war in Iraq are well chronicled, but I am struck by one that does not seem to trouble the country’s leadership, even though it is profoundly corrosive to our common good: the disparity between the lives of the few who are fighting and being killed, and the many who have been asked for nothing more than to continue shopping.
He asks some questions that need answering, I don't think they'll get answered until more of us ask them, whether vets or otherwise.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Iraq US Embassy, Junk?

I'll preface this with a disclosure, I am a construction contractor, I do not do large commercial projects, nor do I install plumbing or electrical. I understand bid processes and I understand end products and I understand sub-contractors. They turned on the fire sprinkler system in the new Bhagdad Embassy and...it's junk. Joints burst, McClatchy's story takes us downhill from there. This $592 million dollar project is a disaster, it's on time (or was) and on budget (or was) and nobody is investigating.

State Dept Inspector General Howard Krongard refused to aggressively investigate according to former top investigators including former Asst Inspector General for Investigations John DeDona. Problems with this mess include having the wiring melt down, failure to install a blast proof wall, and allegations of near slavery hiring practices. You might be wondering what US company could possibly make such a mess, well, the builder is First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co. There is a bit of a story there as well; ah geeze, there's a bit of a story with everything involving Iraq it seems. I'm sure you remember something about emergency no bid contracts, here's another one.

Quite a few US contractors were interested in building this embassy, in fact it was put up for bid three times, with specifications changes each time, and finally issued to First Kuwaiti making a number of contractors unhappy, David Phinney in a Special to CorpWatch, got comments from contractors like:
“It's stunning what First Kuwaiti has been able to get from the State Department..."
“It was political..."


Several other contractors that competed for the embassy contracts shared similar reactions and believe that a high-level decision at the State Department was made to favor a Kuwait-based firm in appreciation for Kuwait's support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.



Everybody needs to make money, right? Well, somebody sure is, Mohammad I. H. Marafie, chairman and co-owner of FKTC, is a member of one of the most powerful mercantile families in Kuwait.




The company boasted of having $35 million in assets less than three years ago. Today, the firm has racked up hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. contracts in Iraq, pushing the company well past the $1 billion mark. With 7,000 employees in Iraq, the company claims to be holding $800 million in construction and supply contracts directly with the Army for military camps, plus more than $300 million under Halliburton 's multibillion dollar contract to perform military logistics for the occupation forces in Iraq.

Here's the real rub, some of the US firms had lower bids, $60-70 million lower and experience in such construction projects. I suppose you'd think there would be a limit to the cronyism in BushCo, though apparently Condi's patience with the schedule is wearing thin, not thin enough to actually do something, see Krongard...

It's not like this monster isn't the largest and most secure Embassy the US has or proposes, it's not like Iraq hasn't swallowed money like quicksand, it's not like everything BushCo does in that country with money doesn't have a political connection, damn, it's not even as though their favorite crony, Halliburton , Cheney's employer, hasn't shown the corruption of no-bid........

And the Republicans have the nerve to talk about and campaign on taxes and spending responsibility? In Japan they'd shut up and commit Hari Kari, here they run for President.

General Musharraf Wins

Well, since he was the only candidate it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that he would win the "election." The Supreme Court is considering whether he can be President and Chief of Military at the same time, he has promised the Supreme Court he would resign the military position after the election.

Musharraf seized power in October 1999 and has struggled with accusations that his leadership is illegitimate, in 2002 he won a referendum which was widely regarded as rigged and a 2004 electoral college vote which expired this month. Recently he extended amnesty to politicians who served between 1988 and 1999 allowing Benazir Bhutto to participate in government. This followed a threat by Bhutto to pull her representatives in Parliament.

It is of considerable importance to remember that Pakistan has nuclear capability and is home to a large group of radical Muslims. The developments in that area over the past five years do not promise to enhance stability in Pakistan. The Afghan war put considerable strain on Musharraf's leadership, launching into Iraq may have created an extremely risky situation for administrations to come. There is not one hope in the world that the BushCo can or will do anything to improve Pakistan's stability. The Catch 22 in the mess is that Afghanistan is being undermined by the same Pakistani groups that threaten Musharraf and that were further activated by the Iraq adventure.

While George II concentrates on demonizing Iran and Ahmadenijad who have stakes in what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, the latter two continue on a downward spiral that is not in Iran's interest, as previously demonstrated by them. The US and Iran have congruent interests in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iraq continues to drive a wedge. Much of the fear of Iran's nuclear ambitions is driven by Iraq and in all probability much of Iran's wish to have some form of deterrent is driven by Iraq and the presence of US troops as an occupying force. Whatever the US has to say about Iraq, it is entirely reasonable for the Iranians to perceive the US troops as an invading force on Islamic ground on their border and as a threat.

I hold no brief for Ahmanejihad, nor for Maliki, and not for Musharraf other than as the alternative to Islamic nut cases with nuclear weapons. Once India acquired nuclear weapons capability, it was inevitable that Pakistan, an ardent foe, would seek it - and achieve it. That capability in the region drives fears of Iran and at the same time creates a nightmare scenario in Pakistan. The US is forced into the cold war position of supporting dictatorships out of fear of the alternative and at the same time opposing one over ideology in the same neighborhood. BushCo seems unable to see the consequences of creating fear in the region and stoking opposition forces with their actions. This from an administration "dedicated" to the proposition of democracy building.

It is much too late to defuse the situation created by invading Iraq, that is done, now the problem is how to deal with the fallout. Ratcheting up the rhetoric and increasing fear in the region is more of the same and the outcome will be more of the same. Playing the game of "how Iraq should have been handled" is now pointless, how to achieve some sort of order out of the chaos created is the order of the day. It is impossible to deal with the players without first reducing the fear factor, you will not get reasonable decisions from fear and anger based thinking. Afghanistan and Iraq sit between two hammers, Iran and Pakistan and possibly Syria, if reasoned thinking is not pursued in the region a disaster is in the making.

Musharraf has the military power to keep a lid on in Pakistan, up to a point, without broader Pakistani support for keeping that lid on, it will fail. Iran has the capacity to be an actor in the entire area, there is no sign that the mullahs are going to go away anytime soon, courting their positive involvement could create some form of order. The emotional loading of politics in the region is ridiculous, Musharraf is no more reflective of US philosophy than the mullahs are, and the pragmatism BushCo has exercised in making Musarraf an ally should be balanced with its approach to Iran. But pragmatism is not really the BushCo mindset, acquisition of power through fear is their paradigm. We've got a real serious problem and it ain't them Iraqis following us home.

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Dick Durbin Says No Money

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL) voted against the 2002 authorization for war but he has since voted for the emergency funding bills. Congress is gearing up for the Petraeus/Crocker testimony and the White House signaled request for an additional $40 billion. Durbin yesterday stated that he would not vote for further funding of the war unless it is tied to a withdrawal plan.

He has said that he will not use his position to lobby for his stance, “Each person has to come to grips with this individually,” but he has met with several members who hold the same view. After his recent return from his third trip to Iraq Durbin told the audience at The Center for National Policy that Congress faces a "moral obligation" to end the war.

"More than on either of my earlier visits, I feel overwhelmed by the tragedy we have created—for Iraq, for its neighbors, for America’s image around the world, and for our troops,” Durbin said.
“I used to think this war was our worst foreign policy mistake in a generation. Now I think it is our worst foreign policy mistake ever,” he added.

He indicated that he would consider voting for the Defense appropriations bills but will not support the annual supplementals that are the major funding device for the Iraq war. Republican filibusters and vetoes will not change his position. (Chicago Trib)

This seems to be about the most we're going to get, there are obvious alternatives, like passing the Defense appropriations bill with strings and letting Bush veto it until he runs out of money. In point of fact they could easily do the same with the entire Executive branch starting with White House funding, yes, his "home." If the Congress proposes to push against power, they had best bring their own and be ready to exercise it. They already made the mistake of "bringing a knife to a gun fight" last time around and looked like, well, pretty much what they were. Unprepared and Unwilling.

The Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress must decide exactly what it is they wish to accomplish. Once they've decided that they need to buck up and get to it. This business of taking partial measures with little resolve will not accomplish anything in the face of the Executive branch power and Bush stubbornness. Bush is perfectly aware of how the situation stands, it does not take a real sharp fellow to see it, the question is why Congress didn't.

Monday, September 03, 2007

Bush and You Traitors

George W Bush, PotUS, "The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform.” You idjits had better get this, what ever else, GWB is the Decider, he's decided, so shut the .... up and get along with it. Once he's decided, the issue is no longer debatable and not subject to revision, by anybody - including the Congress.

A lot of things are coming unglued, the NIE, which certainly was messed with, and the GAO draft report, leaked before it could be mucked up, do not show what BushCo would like to have shown. “Our force is stretched and out of balance,” General Casey said Thursday at a ceremony. “The tempo of our deployments are not sustainable, our equipment usage is five times the normal rate and continuously operating in harsh environments.”

With certain disjoints the BushCo apparatus is pushing ahead with its Iraq war sales pitch, despite telling Congress it should wait for the Sept 15 Petraeus/Crocker briefing. Certainly nobody should notice the Ari Fleisher propaganda outfit's recent creation. You really might have to stretch pretty hard to find comparisons to BushCo in modern history.