Iraq War

Subject: Revisiting the Issues of Torture and Terrorism In Iraq
Time: 11:47:28 PM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Sad

The Prisoner Abuse Scandal that started when the photographs of the abuse of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were released to the public continues to make the news. On September 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a statement before the National Press Club that upset me greatly and prompted me to write this entry to share my thoughts with you about this important matter.

"Has it been harmful to our country? Yes. Is it something that has to be corrected? Yes," he said. "Does it rank up there with chopping off someone's head off on television? It doesn't. It doesn't. Was it done as a matter of policy? No." (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2004, National Press Club) (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040910195809990002)

What is it about “torture” that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t understand? Does it really matter whether you have your head cut off on television or whether you are raped; sexually abused; sodomized with ‘glow wands;’ beaten, kicked or stomped to death; forced to pose in sexually explicit positions that are so shameful you can never again face your family or neighbors; terrorized by police dogs on leashes until you urinate or defecate without control; bitten by police dogs as you crouch in terror; forced to masturbate in front of other inmates and female guards; or injured by guards who stomp on your fingers, toes and body with combat boots? How about being strapped to a board and then having your head held under water until your lungs feel like they are bursting and you are sure you are going to drown or being forced to kneel on concrete floors on your bare knees for four or more hours?

What makes Rumsfeld think that any of these things are any more humane than having your head cut off on television? Sure it is gruesome! No doubt it is painful and it is final! But it is also quick and can only happen once. Surely, there are worse things than dying! Being tortured over and over for days, weeks, months on end is certainly one of them. Unending depression, terrifying nightmares and the total humiliation that will follow you the rest of your life from being tortured can also be worse than death for some.

Why do our leaders attempt to minimize what was done at Abu Ghraib. Perhaps it is because they see it as no more harmful than a college fraternity prank. Why, even our president  participated in “torture” while in college by using red-hot wire clothes hangers to brand a “D” into the backs of fraternity pledges while he served as president of his fraternity. His justification: “It’s no worse than a cigarette burn. It doesn’t result in permanent scarring either physical or mental.” Well, I was accidentally burned by a cigarette once as a very young child and I very clearly remember that pain even to today. I cannot imagine having it done to me purposely and not suffering mental scarring and hatred for the one who did it, even a fraternity brother or the President of the United States.

How does that Iraqi Muslim, who has never been naked in front of anyone before now, deal with the fact that he was not only naked in front of other Muslim men but also had his nakedness shown around the world on television? How does he deal with the mental and emotional pain, the isolation that comes from being ostracized by his family and neighbors? How does he make amends to his God? Maybe his only recourse is to become a suicide bomber against the infidels who did this to him. Multiply this by the hundreds who were tortured at Abu Ghraib and other US military prisons, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in Afghanistan and you start to see the future problem America has on its hands as a result. Then, multiply that by the millions of Arab and Muslim men through out the Middle East, Asia, and the rest of the world, including the US, who witnessed these atrocities on television or in the news media and you might see where a future team of suicide bombers and jihadists will come from to attack the American homeland, US Embassies, military bases American businesses, corporate offices, banks, hotels, government officials and tourists around the world.

Some Americans believe that worrying about these “Iraqi terrorists” and “murders” really doesn’t make sense when American soldiers are dying at nearly two or three a day and about seven times that number are being wounded daily. The problem with that thinking is that a large percentage of the prisoners in the military prisons in Iraq were not terrorists, insurgents or criminals. They were innocent Iraqi men and women picked up during neighborhood sweeps by US forces in an attempt to develop information about the insurgents and terrorists. A lot ofthem were simply people caught up between two warring factions who did not want to take sides in the conflict. Once they spent a few weeks or months in Abu Ghraib or one of the other many prisons, however, it was no longer hard for them to identify their enemy. Outgoing Senator “Zig-Zag” Zell Miller (D-GA) recently said during his keynote address at the Republican Convention in New York City that nothing makes his “Marine Corps blood boil” faster than to hear someone call American soldiers in Iraq “occupiers” instead of “liberators.” Well, Senator Miller, I wonder how many of these former prisoners and their families would agree with you. Some like the Kurds in the north might view American and “Coalition” troops to be “liberators” but I suspect most of the people in the rest of the country see them as “occupiers.” I guess Senator Miller forgets that America occupied Japan and Germany for many years before they were “liberated.” I agree that it is hard to swallow the truth when our president now claims, after no WMD were found, that he invaded Iraq to “liberate the Iraqi people.” Perhaps if that were truly the case, he should have had a plan to win the peace and to convince the Iraqis that we were their friends. He did not! But since he also didn’t have a plan for dealing with urban guerrilla warfare, insurgency and terrorism and since our “smart” bombs and “dumb” bullets killed so many innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, it is becoming harder every day to convince the average Iraqis that we are their friends. Now with the prison abuse scandal, our days of convincing Iraqis, or for that matter the citizens of any Middle Eastern nation that we are really their friends grow fewer everyday.

I suppose, too, that it is easier to sleep at night if you can convince yourself that the guidelines for interrogation that you rammed through the military justice system really did not cause the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. After all, those kind of techniques were only approved for Guantanamo Bay and for captured al-Qaeda terrorists. Besides, the President had already declared that the Geneva Convention rules did not apply to terrorists and Taliban and apparently, neither did the 1987 Convention Against Torture, “which for the first time defined torture and required states to take measures to prevent it.” (See: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/printedition/bal-te.journal05may05,0,7431204.column)

While the Department of Defense and the US Army have appointed separate groups to investigate the Abu Ghraib abuses, NONE, including the Taguba Investigation, the Jones/Fay Investigation, and the Schlesinger Commissions have assigned real punishable blame above the level of a reserve brigadier general (BG Janis Karpinski, the Commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade). The Schlesinger Commission appointed by Rumsfeld did say the Pentagon could not escape some blame but specifically recommended against either Rumsfeld or General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stepping down. Even though the President and Secretary Rumsfeld clearly issued policy that contributed to the confusion and Rumsfeld specifically authorized harsh interrogation techniques, as did Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, who was commander of forces in Iraq at the time, none of them have been found culpable of criminal behavior. This has led many people to suspect there might be a cover-up underway. (See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092776/site/newsweek/)

Perhaps that is why Rumsfeld continues to downplay what happened at Abu Ghraib. Surely a man as intelligent as he is knows that torture is wrong regardless of the degree. His claim that it is not nearly as bad as terrorists cutting off heads for television camera is comparable to a teenager who has just been arrested for felony hit and run while intoxicated telling his father, “Well, look at the good side of it, Dad, I’m not on drugs.” This whole matter stinks and deserves a commission of the kind that we had as the 9/11 Commission with bipartisan leadership of the quality shown by former Governor Thomas H. Kean (R-NJ) and former Congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN). Until this happens, Americans should not stand for their leaders making light of the seriousness of the prisoner abuse scandal and the damage that this scandal has done to the security and reputation of the United States.

 

.

 

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 44 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Why I Support the Troops but Not the Commander-in-Chief
Time: 9:00:45 PM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Sad

Shortly after September 11, 2001, I sat down and wrote a commentary for my family and friends about the events of that awful day and the need to stand behind the president and our military in the War on Terrorism. I recalled from my experiences during the Vietnam War in 1968, and the years from then until the end of US involvement in the war, how protest marches, anti-war demonstrations, protesters carrying the flags of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, speeches made on the floors of Congress, and the actions of Jane Fonda had only given aid and comfort to the enemy and had harmed the morale of American troops trying to do their duty. I said at the time that if we were going to win the long war on terrorism, we had to be united in our support of the troops and the Commander-in-Chief and not give in to the demands of those who certainly would oppose the war. I knew from experience that there would be such protests and that the protesters would come from various special interest groups.

I knew there would be the pacifists, who always oppose the use of military force regardless of the reason for its use. Pacifists usually base their objections to war upon religious or moral arguments against killing other human beings and believe the moral thing to do is to “turn the other cheek” when confronted with a conflict or threats to national security. Such views are well-meaning but sorely misguided in my view. I see military action and threats thereof as tools of the government for use in international relations but a tool that must be reserved for use as a last resort in the realms of foreign policy, national security and conflict resolution with other countries. History tells me that pacifism is an unrealistic ideal in a world where aggression, violence and greed are the natural order of behavior among people and nations. Consequently, pacifism will not deter aggression and may actually encourage it by giving an appearance of weakness and timidity. Certainly, where territory, natural resources or material wealth are the objectives of greedy world actors, widespread national pacifism can only lead to capture, imprisonment and death at the hands of a greedy aggressor.

Some would protest the war strictly because of partisan political views. They would protest simply to gain a political advantage over the party in power and would claim to have other means besides war to take care of the situation, especially if they thought popular opinion would support their point of view. If not, they would not likely commit political suicide by protesting a war based upon a situation such as 9/11, which so patently called for a prompt military response in the strongest terms possible.

Another source of protesters would be from those who believed that peaceful means had still not been completely exhausted and that those means must be explored before waging war. Realistically, this group did not have much of a leg to stand-on after the attacks of 9/11, and the declaration of war against the US that bin Laden made on behalf of al-Qaeda and Muslim jihadists a few years before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Sadly, America’s national leaders had not taken this declaration of war seriously and the nation paid the horrible price.

Other protesters would, of course, come from the ranks of those who were afraid of participating as combatants in a war for fear of dying or getting wounded themselves and, of course, there would be those who would protest and demonstrate out of sympathy for the ideological, political or religious beliefs of the enemy. Following 9/11, there were not many protesters who fit any of these latter descriptions who were willing to step forward and be identified. Doing so would likely have put them at risk of being attacked as cowards or investigated by the Department of Justice as enemy agents. During the Vietnam War, though, there were plenty of protesters who demonstrated for all of these reasons, including radical leftists, communist sympathizers, religious leaders and many patriotic veterans, who believed the war was wrong, including John Kerry, himself a Vietnam War hero.

Finally, there would be protesters who have no patriotic, political, moral, religious or ideological reasons for demonstrating, but who, instead, enjoy the opportunity to obtain media attention, be seen on television or to engage in disruptive or violent activity for the sheer enjoyment of doing so.

I was solidly behind the president after 9/11/01, and was even frustrated because it was taking him so long to retaliate. I was hoping for a quick response in order to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda on notice that America was resolute in its determination to punish, destroy or bring to justice all of those responsible for the attack on American soil. I was concerned for our military as they prepared to engage the enemy where both British and Soviet soldiers had failed so spectacularly in the past. I knew there was the possibility we too could fail if the plan was not executed properly and if sufficient troops were not employed. I realized there would be casualties and was prepared for that eventuality, sad though it would be.

Still, I felt it was all worth it to capture or kill bin Laden, his top deputies, and Mullah Mohammed Omar the leader of the Taliban, who had given bin Laden sanctuary and had refused to turn him over for trial in America. I cheered our troops on and followed the actions closely in the newspaper and on cable news. Then, almost as suddenly as the war began, it seemed to be over and bin Laden, many of his deputies and Omar were still alive and at large. They had escaped into Pakistan. No one knew where they were and worse yet our Commander-in-Chief did not seem to care. After all, he is known for his short attention span.

More important to him was waging war on the man who had attempted to assassinate his father, the first President Bush. Americans were told time and again that our country was seriously threatened by weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the hands of Iraq and its dictator, Saddam Hussein. We were told by the Bush Administration that Hussein and bin Laden were allies who might have cooperated in the 9/11 attack. Many of us suspected based upon our studied knowledge about bin Laden and Hussein that this was far from the truth. Yet, the military buildup continued in the Persian Gulf and it was evident that our Commander-in-Chief was not going to allow UN weapons inspectors to determine if Saddam Hussein had lied when he said all of WMD had been destroyed. Our president wasn’t going to put together a comprehensive coalition of world allies to prosecute the war. Instead, the US and England would provide the bulk of the troops, along with Australia and Poland. The president wasn’t going to listen to our long-time and some new allies on the UN Security Council, who pressed for more time for inspections before rushing to war. He was going to PREEMPTIVELY INVADE Iraq against world opinion and against the advice of many of his military advisors, including the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Army, who was retired when he disagreed with the president and the secretary of defense.

It soon became clear that we were being rushed into a war in Iraq that was neither necessary nor in the best interest of our nation. Instead of strengthening our hand against terrorism, this war was exactly what bin Laden told the Islamic world would happen. America would invade and occupy a Muslim nation. We were playing directly into bin Laden hands!  This war would not make America safer or prevent us from being attacked again. In fact, it created more recruits for al-Qaeda and practically guaranteed we would be attacked again. This was when I stopped supporting our Commander-in-Chief. I began to see and hear Americans protesting this war called “traitors,” “idiots,” “leftist,” “left-wing liberals,” “immoral,” “disloyal,” and “untrustworthy” by members of the administration and the Republican Party.

It was then that I realized I had to exercise my First Amendment rights and speak out against the invasion of Iraq and against the efforts of the government to mislead the American people. That is when I started writing commentaries and emailing them to my friends and family. After, our president and the Commander-in-Chief of our military mislead the American people about the end of the war on-board the USS Abraham Lincoln, while soldiers were being killed every day in Iraq, I knew we could no longer trust this president to speak the truth about this war and what was happening. We were fooled about the reason for the war. There was no WMD. It was gone just as Saddam Hussein said it was and as UN weapons inspectors would have confirmed given sufficient opportunity before the war. No longer were we there to find and destroy WMD. Now we were told we were there to liberate the Iraqi people. Yet, these people did not want American troops occupying their country. Our troops were not greeted as liberators and flowers were not strewn in their path, as we were led to believe by the Bush administration. This further confirmed my distrust of our president’s ability to lead and caused me to seriously doubt his integrity and the integrity of numerous members of his administration. I began to suspect the war was important to his reelection in 2004.  Why was it necessary to exaggerate, distort and manipulate intelligence to get the Congress to authorize the president to use military force against Iraq? Why did our president risk our nation’s credibility and honor in the world by not making sure that our intelligence was accurate before we PREEMPTIVELY INVADED another sovereign nation? Why weren’t we trying to capture bin Laden, his deputies and Mullah Omar and to destroy the al-Qaeda organization that presented a REAL danger to America and the non-Islamic world? Why do Americans see Bush as a strong, decisive leader when so many of his decisions have been wrong? Why did he claim that God told him to invade Iraq? Was this his way of avoiding personal responsibility for the war...why did he blame God?

I found out that protesting and speaking out is sometimes necessary in a democratic society! I could no longer remain silent and must be willing to defend my position on these issues. I gave my president the benefit of the doubt until I found that I no longer could afford to do that. Now, I am angry about the men and women who have died and who have been seriously wounded in this misguided and unnecessary war. We need a new Commander-in-Chief!

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 114 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Are We Still a Nation of Laws and Justice or Terrorists?
Time: 6:05:06 PM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Angry

There is a crude, obscene E-mail circulating on the Internet which purports to be the way General George Patton would have approached the issue of the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison by American soldiers. The E-mail contains several pictures from Abu Ghraib and compares them to the graphic beheading pictures of Nicolas Berg (reproduced in the E-mail) along with pictures of the Twin Towers and people leaping to their deaths as a way of condoning the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. One of my friends sent me the E-mail saying he thought it contained a lot of truth. Here is my reply to him:

"Yes, General Patton was a pretty tough and rough talking general. We can hardly forget the fact that he slapped a soldier who was suffering from battle fatigue and stress with his gloves in the face, for which he was disciplined by General Eisenhower. Eisenhower was also tough, determined to win the war and a disciplinarian when necessary (he had at least one soldier shot for cowardice and desertion in the face of the enemy) but he also hated war, whereas Patton by his own admission loved war. Even so, I don't think Patton would have agreed with the author of this obscene E-mail (not because it contains salty language but because it unnecessarily shows pictures of a beheaded Nickolas Berg and people leaping to their deaths from the World Trade Center's Twin Towers).  We all know what happened in both cases and there was no need for the author to include those horrible photographs in this email. This was done for sensationalism and sadistic reasons by someone who obviously got some stimulation by seeing such horrible pictures. I believe General Patton, like most military men and women would have understood the difference between the way prisoners were treated in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Afghanistan by US interrogators and the way they are treated by terrorists of any stripe. Anyone who understands terrorism understands why terrorists do these sorts of things but no one in their right mind can understand why Americans would do the sort of things that were done in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo or Afghanistan! Americans are not terrorists. We are better than Al-Qaeda! We are better than Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay! No American wants to see OUR soldiers treated in the manner that Iraqi and Afghanistan prisoners have been treated as evidenced by these pictures. These are NOT fraternity pranks! They are deadly serious efforts to strip (no pun intended) away the honor, dignity, personal self-worth of prisoners and to trample on their religious beliefs. It is an effort to humiliate, intimidate and terrify (use of dogs without muzzles that have been allowed to attack prisoners) defenseless people who are under the control and protection of the greatest nation in the world (or at least it used to be)!  Additionally, such acts are ILLEGAL, not just IMMORAL. The United States has ratified treaties including the Geneva Convention of 1947 and the International Treaty Against Torture both of which prohibit such activity and treatment! Are we not a NATION of LAWS?? Or have we degenerated into a barbaric nation of liars, lawlessness and hate in just the three years that George W. Bush has been president. It is becoming more clear every day that the Pentagon and the White House went to great extremes to REDEFINE TORTURE so that they could justify "waterboarding" terrorists (strapping a person to a board and holding him or her underwater until he or she thinks he or she will drown). They have reportedly already used this technique on at least one terrorist. Is this how we want American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen treated when they are captured by the enemy? I don't think so and I don't think General Patton would have either!! If so, he should have been court-martialed, stripped of his rank and imprisoned just as I hope those up the chain of command who approved or overlooked these techniques will be when the full truth comes out! As a patriotic American I am appalled that our government could resort to any such techniques such as the ones the author of this E-mail has depicted and those not depicted in pictures but which reportedly happened such as rape, sodomy using "glow sticks" issued to soldiers for use in marking their positions at night, sexual assault of men and women, forcible masturbation (which was photographed) and unbearable pain from beatings, and being forced to hold painful positioning for long hours. I don't call people who support these kinds of actions by Americans either "patriotic" or "law abiding." Personally, I am ashamed that people who want to claim that America is a "Christian Nation" could do such things...think of what that does to our Christian testimony throughout the world!  Seems I recall that Jesus taught turning the other cheek when we are abused. I am not sure that I agree with that either but then that is the subject for an entirely different E-mail. I am not upset with you, my friend, but I am upset with the author of that horrible email and the message that it intends to convey that such aberrant activity is patriotic and should be condoned. Let's fight the terrorists but resist all efforts to become terrorists ourselves!"

I hope if you receive this E-mail, you will respond in kind to this kind of false patriotism! It is not patriotic to be inhumane, cruel or violate the law!  WAKE UP AMERICA!!! WE ARE BECOMING MORE FASCISTIC EVERYDAY BY LISTENING TO AND AGREEING WITH THESE FALSE SUPER PATRIOTS!  This is  NOT the America I grew up loving and pledging my allegiance to all of my life!

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 32 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Misguided Senators Inhofe and Miller are an Embarrassment and Worse!
Time: 12:20:15 AM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Embarrassed

What do Senators James M. Inhofe, (R-OK) and Zell Miller (D-GA) have in common, besides the obvious…that they are both US senators? Some might say that they are both Republicans because Miller is really more Republican than he is Democrat but that is not it either. Maybe it is that they are both supporting George W. Bush for reelection in 2004. Well, that is certainly one thing they have in common but it is not the one that troubles me the most, although I do think Zell Miller should have switched parties and become a bona fide Republican since he is Democrat in name only. Certainly, the Democrats of Georgia should be glad to see him retire or not run again for the Senate as a disloyal Democrat. Still, as I said, it is not his disloyalty to the Democratic Party that bothers me the most. I can respect a man, even a politician like Miller, who puts his principles over partisanship, if that is what he is truly doing. What I cannot abide is someone who claims to be a patriot, a former military man, a devout Christian, and a legislator who has sworn to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States and to uphold the laws of this this nation, who becomes an apologists for the actions of those who violated both US and international law by abusing or authorizing the abuse of Iraqi enemy prisoners of war (EPW). This is what Inhofe and Miller have in common. The following article was found on Miller’s official Website on www.Senate.gov/.

“5/13

Miller: Finger-pointing, Apologies
Over Prisoner Treatment
Only Boost Enemy

'I Refuse to Join In National Act of Contrition'

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing the situation at the Abu Ghraib prison.

“Mr. President, here we go again, here we go again. Rushing to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Pushing and pulling and shoving and leaping over one another to assign blame and point the finger at America the Terrible. Lining up in long lines at the microphones to offer apologies to those poor, pitiful Iraqi prisoners.

“Of course, I do not condone all the things that went on in that prison, but I for one, Mr. President, refuse to join in this national Act of Contrition over it."

Compare Miller’s statement to that of Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing of Tuesday, May 11, 2004:

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment," the Oklahoma Republican said at a U.S. Senate hearing probing the scandal.

"These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations," Inhofe said. "If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals." http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5106409

How can these two senators make such stupid, inappropriate statements and still live up to their obligation to uphold US and international laws (the Geneva Convention of 1947 is US law since it was ratified by the US Congress)? How can they criticize those who believe an apology is due to those Iraqis who were abused, many of whom were NOT terrorists, insurgents or murderers and who did NOT have “American blood on their hands?” How can anyone who has served in the US military (Miller served in the US Marine Corps for three years; Inhofe reportedly served in the US Army according to his Senate biography…see: www.inhofe/senate.gov.) not understand the dangers of America violating the provisions of the Geneva Convention? All military personnel are supposed to be indoctrinated on the provisions of the Geneva Convention for their own benefit if they are captured and for the benefit of prisoners they might capture or be responsible for guarding. How can professing Christians not be outraged at this kind of abuse of human beings of any race or religion? How can any American patriot fail to condemn such abuse when it can only lead to similar abuse of Americans held as prisoners of war or hostages? The statements of these two US senators, sound more like comments made by Rush Limbaugh or one of the other right-wing conservative talk show hosts or members of their call-in audience.

As an American patriot, a former US Air Force commissioned officer, a veteran of the Viet Nam War, a survivor of the 1968 TET Offensive, and a citizen of the United States, I condemn their appalling statements and the mentality that evokes such feelings and attitudes in this wonderful country. Some might see these statements as “right on target” and something that needs to be said but to you I say, “You are dead wrong.” I expect that someone out there might want to condemn me for criticizing America or the American military and point out the atrocities committed against American soldiers and civilians during this war and by terrorists in general. Believe me I am not an apologist for terrorists or for those who have or would commit atrocities against Americans. Instead, I say to you that we Americans should not lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists, murderers or thugs of this world. We are better than Saddam Hussein and his sons! We are better than Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda murderers! We are better, but only so long as we condemn such behavior as we have seen at Abu Ghraib, just as strongly as we condemn the beheading of Nick Berg. Furthermore, while Senators Inhofe and Miller compare the beheading of Berg to an Iraqi prisoner wearing a woman’s panties on his head, I am condemning the beatings, rape, sexual abuse, humiliation and the alleged murder of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers. I am also condemning the US policies that allowed such things to happen and those who conceived and approved of those policies. We must fully investigate these atrocities and punish ALL who are guilty regardless of how far up the chain-of-command it goes.

 

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 13 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Out of Control Soldiers or Approved Intimidation of "Illegal Combatants?"
Time: 11:26:05 AM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Worried

Americans who have seen the recently released photographs depicting the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war (POW) by US soldiers have generally expressed true shock and revulsion about what happened to these human beings. It is difficult for most American to believe that our military, CIA and contract interrogators would take part in such despicable activity. We do not want our citizens mistreated when they are taken as POWs or hostages by the enemy and neither do we want our military and intelligence agencies to abuse enemy POWs in this way.

Therefore, I must admit that I was angry and extremely repulsed to hear a segment of Rush Limbaugh’s radio talk show that was played last Friday night, May 7, 2004, by Bill Moyers on his television news magazine program, NOW. That program plays on our Public Broadcasting System (PBS) channel each Friday at 9 P.M. On the May 7, segment Limbaugh was talking to one of his call-in listeners and said he didn’t know what all the fuss was about. The caller compared what he saw in the POW pictures as more like a college fraternity prank than torture or mistreatment. Rush enthusiastically indorsed this view saying it was like something that might happen at “Skull and Bones” (a reference to the Yale secret society that both George W. Bush and John F. Kerry were initiated into while at Yale). Limbaugh excused the activity as just the troops “blowing off steam” and as necessary to extract intelligence information needed to save American lives. He said that by stopping this “so-called mistreatment” we are tying the hands of intelligence agencies so that they cannot extract the information needed to protect US military forces in Iraq. For more information see: http://mediamatters.org/items/200405050003 . Of course, Limbaugh, who never served a day in combat in his entire life (he got a medical deferment during the Vietnam War, bad back or knee, I think) is an authority on “troops blowing off steam!” He also never had to worry about being held as a POW and is obviously ignorant of or unconcerned about the rules concerning the treatment of POWs set forth in the Geneva Convention of 1949. Like most right-wing conservative demagogues and “super-patriots,” Limbaugh obviously believes anything US soldiers do in carrying out their mission is okay, even if the action otherwise would be considered illegal or immoral. If he had served in the military, he would have learned that soldiers must refuse to obey orders they know to be illegal. See: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_attn.htm “Blowing off steam” is never an adequate defense for the kind of activity depicted in the photographs we have seen of POW mistreatment in Iraq.

The real issue in this scandal is not so much what the prison guards did, but rather upon whose orders these guards were acting and how far up the chain of command the responsibility goes for allowing the guards to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention during confinement and interrogations. Furthermore, was this scandal the result of confusion caused by the President of the United States declaring some people taken into custody in Afghanistan and Iraq to be classed as “illegal combatants” and therefore in the view of the administration exempt from the strict rules of the Geneva Convention? See: http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2002/01/26/story37740.asp. Certainly, it is highly unlikely that the Bush administration, and Presidential Legal Counsel Alberto Gonzales would classify Iraqi soldiers captured in uniform as “illegal combatants” but it might be possible that individuals captured in Iraq wearing civilian clothes, carrying weapons or who were engaged or accused of carrying out insurgent actions against “coalition forces” would have been so classified. That, of course, could explain why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard B. Meyers did not rush to tell the President or Congress about the alleged human rights abuse investigations taking place at the Abu Ghraib prison as they claim. Perhaps they thought it would never get beyond the investigative stage since these were not POWs but “illegal combatants.” Certainly, if they had considered this to be a matter that would leak out to the press and cause national embarrassment, they would have immediately notified the president. Maybe it was only after they learned of the existence of photographs and videos of the mistreatment and the fact that 60 Minutes II was going to show the photographs on television that they really became concerned. Otherwise, I cannot see any justification for the way they both handled this situation. Surely, policies still exist within the Pentagon to up-channel such politically sensitive information to whatever level is necessary. It is inconceivable that such a serious and potentially “radioactive” matter would be handled so cavalierly.

Since May 1, 2003, when “major combat” ended, the Bush administration has constantly referred to the people attacking and killing “coalition” troops , as “thugs,” “hoodlums,” “insurgents,” and “terrorists.” Perhaps they did not consider any of these prisoners to be POWs with rights under the Geneva Convention of 1949. Therefore, as “illegal combatants,” these prisoners could be interrogated using methods similar to those used in Afghanistan and Guantanamo’s Camp X-Ray, which reportedly have included sleep deprivation, humiliation, use of women to interrogate Muslim males, and use of measures that were offensive to Arabs and Muslims because of cultural or religious mores. Certainly measures used at Abu Ghraib, such as being naked in public or in the presence of women, the use of dogs in the interrogation rooms or cells of the prisoners and being treated like a dog through the use of a dog collar and leash were patently offensive to Muslims. Being compared to a dog is one of the greatest affronts possible to Arabs and Muslims.

It seems clear that many of the techniques used at the Abu Ghraib prison were carefully thought-out or planned to compromise people of the Muslim faith. They obviously were designed to break the spirits of the prisoners, cause them to be confused, afraid and embarrassed. In my opinion, these were not accidentally used techniques by a bunch of immoral or out-of-control military police prison guards. I agree with others such as Seymour Hersch of the New York Times that these were carefully thought-out techniques that were photographed so that the prisoners could be shown the photographs during interrogations and further humiliated or intimated into giving up the desired information by threats to let the pictures fall into the hands of family or friends outside the prison. Military police guards would not be aware of such techniques or the effect they would have against Muslims unless they were told by people with far more experience in interrogating “illegal Muslim combatants.”

No, Rush, these were not “Skull and Bones” fraternity pranks and they were not acts of military policemen “blowing off combat-induced steam!” These were calculated acts designed to break the will of Muslim “illegal combatants.” Now the question must be asked, “Did the President make the determination that these prisoners were “illegal combatants” or was that decision made by someone else either in the chain-of-command or someone, military or civilian, who was responsible for extracting intelligence from these prisoners and did not have the authority to make such a determination? Was there confusion over the policy about who qualified as an "illegal combatant" and how prisoners were to be interrogated? Did instructions exist to find the weapons of mass destruction, the al-Qaeda connections to Saddam Hussein, or those behind the insurgency by any means possible result in this awful stain on America’s honor and integrity? We need the answers to these and other important questions about these events!

 

 

 

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: What Makes Americans Believe the Iraq War Was Right?
Time: 12:22:53 PM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Frustrated

I remain constantly amazed that so many Americans (about half of the nation) believe that it is patriotic to support an administration that has PREEMPTIVELY INVADED and WAGED UNNECESSARY WAR on another nation, even one led by a despicable tyrant. Somehow, many Americans, either through fear, super-nationalism or even misguided Christian fundamentalism have been led to believe that attacking a nation that did not pose an IMMINENT threat to America, had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01, and was not supporting or connected to the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the jihad against America was the right and moral thing to do. 

Don't get me wrong. I fully supported the President when he attacked the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. After all, it was al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein who was responsible for the attacks on our embassies in Africa, nearly sinking the USS Cole, bringing down the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and flying an airliner into the Pentagon. That's where the focus of our military action should have been...on the person who declared Holy War on America and on the repressive regime that was protecting him and his training camps in Afghanistan.

  Why do so many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the events of 9/11/0?  Perhaps, it is because the Bush Administration repeated that falsehood so many times, even after the US Intelligence Community proved no connection between the hijackers and Iraqi Intelligence. Maybe, if it is repeated often enough by leaders with other motives for attacking Iraq, the American people will start to believe it. That certainly seems to be true about the lies the GOP "attack dogs," including the vice president, have been telling about Senator John Kerry lately. These unprincipled people, some of whom, had "more important things" to do than to serve in Vietnam, or even in the US military during the Vietnam War, have no compunction about telling lies about Senator Kerry's antiwar activities in the 1970s, his voting record in the Senate or sending other people to die in Iraq for reasons which are neither clear nor fully justified. It bothers me when a respected reporter like Bob Woodward tells me that Vice President Cheney had a "fever" about going to war with Iraq. Why? Perhaps it was because the vice president never experienced war "up close and personal." Perhaps it is because he believes what he reads in the Washington Times or watches on Fox Cable News, which he recently indorsed as being the most accurate news in America. Maybe, he has that opinion because both of these media outlets are highly conservative, extremely right-wing and very supportive of the Bush Administration's actions on everything it does!

Sadly, I heard Matt Drudge say today that Fox Cable News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined. Personally, I find that scary and very disconcerting about the level of intelligence of the American people. Anyone who watches Fox Cable News (the "Fair and Balanced" news channel) should soon realize that it is anything but "fair and balanced."  That is such a joke as to be totally laughable in my opinion. Watching it for only a few minutes, one will hear repeated references to the "liberal news media" and vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Administration, Senator John Kerry and any American who chooses not to believe the misinformation of the Bush Administration. Again, repeated often enough and tied to President Bill Clinton's moral failures, the American public seems eager to lap it up as the gospel truth.

Personally, I think C-SPAN and PBS's The News Hour with Jim Lehrer are the best sources of accurate news in this nation. Of course, most people do not have time to spend hours watching C-SPAN and PBS has been branded repeatedly by the neoconservative right-wing as the "most leftist and most liberal" of all news media. Conservative congressmen are always threatening to cut off funds for PBS. They know that is where the truth is found and they want to kill it. In fact, they want to destroy anything or anybody that disagrees with them. It is the nature of the neoconservatives to lash out, call people names and personally attack anyone who disagrees with them. They are seldom open to debate or other views which differ from their own. They assume they have the moral high ground and are always right. They often use the name of Almighty God to justify their positions as if they are the only ones who know the mind and will of God. To me that is the worst form of taking God's name in vain. It particularly worries me when I read or hear that George W. Bush, after being elected Governor of Texas for the second time, told a group of evangelical leaders in the Governor's mansion that he "believed God was calling him to be president." Then I read that Mr. Bush told the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Abbas, that "God told me to strike Afghanistan and I did. Then He told me to strike Iraq and I did." To me this is shocking and very troubling as is his goal of using America's power to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world and to impose democracy at the point of a bayonet, wherever he thinks appropriate. If God is directing the most powerful leader in the world to carry out such missions why would Mr. Bush need Congress or the UN to tell him otherwise. Mind you, I am not saying that our President should not rely on his faith for guidance and strength but to claim that God is directing his aggressive activities is something totally different. I wonder how that differs from the very devoutly religious mother who drowns or stones her children to death because God was telling her to do so. I believe that sometimes what people hear is not the voice of God at all. I am not criticizing the president's religious faith and I am certainly not saying that God is not active in the world today. I just believe that God's name is often used to justify what we want to do in our lives and to cover pride or even sinful desires. I am not insinuating that President Bush is evil or mentally derranged but I do believe that power often corrupts our motives and our human desires. I also undertand the power of the evangelical Christians as a voting block. But, I also worry about a president or any person who does not believe he or she has made mistakes and who does not reassess his or her actions to see where mistakes were made and things could have been done better.  My concern is that when God is used as justification for action such as war or terrorism, it is difficult for mortal man to object to or condemn those actions. Mr. Bush needs to take responsibility for his own actions for which he will be judged by a jealous God who has warned us not to take or use His name in vain.

Americans need to recognize propaganda and exaggerations for what they are. We need to question the actions of our leaders when they take us into a war that was never debated or fully justified to the American public. This responsibility becomes even more accute when we find out that much of what we have been told is either  inaccurate or untrue. We must hold our leaders accountable for their actions and decisions. If we give up that responsibility and that right we will get the kind of government not that we want but rather that we deserve. Leaders must realize they cannot hide behind God's Will any more than the terrorists can hide behind the will of Allah! 

 

 

 

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 20 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: A Tribute to the Fallen In the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War
Time: 2:14:30 AM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Sad

As I sit here tonight, I have just heard on the news that we lost another ten soldiers in Iraq today. So far, I think the CNN reporter said that we had lost 110 military personnel during this month alone. Tonight while watching The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, I grieved as I heard nineteen more names of US Soldiers, Marines and one Coast Guardsman who died in Iraq.

On Friday night on ABC's Nightline all of the names of those who have died in Iraq will be read by the show's host. This has stirred up a controversy but I think it is important for them to be remembered in that way, even though the show comes on late at night after many Americans have already gone to bed. It is one of the few ways we are permitted to honor our fallen heroes these days.

We are not permitted by the Defense Department to see photographs or video of the flag-draped caskets of our fallen heroes coming back to Dover AFB. We are only allowed to see the joyous return of survivors returning with their units to their home bases. It makes war seem so non-threatening and so clean. If we didn't see their pictures and hear their names on programs like The News Hour and Nightline, we might be led to believe that Americans are invincible and never get killed in these wars, or even wounded.

Seldom have I seen stories about the many horribly wounded US military personnel who are going through long and painful recoveries in our military hospitals. It is almost like they do not exist and yet, they are our heroes! 

I think one of the worst experiences of my life was in 1968, when I was stationed in Vietnam as a young US Air Force captain and was medically evacuated to Cam Rahn Bay hospital through the MEDEVAC hospital at Tan Son Nhut AB in Saigon. My problem had nothing to do with combat, although I had just been through some heavy fighting during the Tet Lunar New Year attack on our city. My problem was some tainted food I had eaten at our USO club that made me very sick.

On my way into the hospital, I passed by more caskets than I could count stacked up outside the hospital being readied for shipment back to the States. That was bad enough but when I went inside the Tan Son Nhut hospital, I nearly went into shock from the sight of so many horribly wounded and disfigured young Americans waiting to be evacuated to the States. Most of them were missing limbs or were suffering severe damage to their faces or bodies. Unlike our marines and soldiers who were slogging it out in the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam, I was fortunate to be stationed in major city south of Saigon in the Mekong Delta. While my work was hazardous, I never saw combat deaths close-up and personal like my Marine, Navy and Army comrades did. The dead ones I had to deal with had either been murdered or had committed suicide and that was bad enough.

 But there at Tan Son Nhut were the guys who had been slugging it out with the enemy every day and who had gotten wounded serving their country in a war that was totally unpopular at home. Unlike the respect and support our soldiers are getting in the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War, military members fighting in the Vietnam War were treated horribly back in the USA. Returning men in uniform were often spat upon or had animal blood thrown on their uniforms by college students protesting the war. We did not arrive back home from the war to parades and great receptions but rather were taunted with chants of  "Hey, Hey what do you say? How many babies did you kill today?" No one but our friends and families appreciated what we did there. When we were off-duty, we couldn't even wear our uniforms off-base. I guess that is why I am so concerned that my disagreement with the Iraq War is not interpreted as disrespect or lack of support for the men and women who are fighting over there and who are dying or getting wounded in the service of their country. They truly are America's heroes, every one of them. My disagreement is not with them but rather with those who sent them to fight this unnecessary and terrible war. I never wanted to see our national leaders make the mistakes again that were made in the Vietnam War but sadly it looks like they repeating those mistakes in Iraq. Once again we are failing to win the hearts and minds of those we went to help and the rationale for the war was, like Vietnam, based upon misjudgments or, at best, inaccurate information and at worst outright lies. When will we ever learn? 

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 6 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Grieving for Pat Tillman and All of Our Heroes In War!
Time: 11:56:50 PM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Sad

Followers of professional football, especially Arizona Cardinals fans, were shocked and saddened to learn today that one of the Cardinals' former stars, Pat Tillman, has been killed while fighting with the US Army Rangers in Afghanistan. All day long the TV cable news media as well as other news media outlets have been showing clips of Tillman in his number 40 jersey making outstanding plays on the football field, as he was often known to do. News stories on the Internet talk of his bravery on the gridiron and also as an Army Ranger. They noted that Tillman was tough, hard-charging, and difficult to slow down. They also point to the fact that he walked away from a lucrative $3 million contract playing professional football to join the Army after the attacks on the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

It soon became obvious to me that this was a special young man, he was only 27, who knew the true meaning of patriotism and who had his priorities well-ordered. I don't ever recall watching him play football, but I wish I had. I am not a big NFL fan. It appears, though, that I missed some exciting plays by a very talented player who loved the game. I suspect that he was also a leader of his team and left a lot of people wondering why he would leave professional football to go into the Army, especially in a time of war. It seems though that those who knew him best were not at all surprised by his actions. They knew him as a hero both on the football field and off. He, no doubt, died a hero bravely doing his best in a firefight with remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It was the kind of thing that Tillman would have been expected to do by his Cardinals teammates, coaches, fans, as well as his close friends and family. His brother also left a professional baseball career to join the Army with Pat so gallantry is not uncommon in the Tillman family. Obviously, theirs is a family of extremely high values and love of country. The loss of Pat Tillman is a sad but inspiring act of patriotism and self-sacrifice. It will deeply affect both those who knew him and those who did not, but do now! What a MAN!

When the news reports of his death started, I asked myself what made this death any more special or any more newsworthy than any of the other 110 deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan...or even just the 39 who died in combat? I then wondered why his death was any more special than any of the 600-plus American soldiers who have died in the Iraq War. Finally, it came to me. His death wasn't any more special than the others! Even Pat knew that!  He did not even want any publicity when he joined the service for fear his celebrity and the publicity about him would diminish the contributions of other soldiers. He would feel the same now about his death. 

All of our soldiers died in the service of their country. They all died fighting for what they believed was a worthy cause. They all had family and friends who loved them and will miss them dearly. They all made sacrifices to volunteer for military service and they all made the ultimate sacrifice while trying to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism and to bring freedom and independence to oppressed peoples. Tillman, like some of the others who died, had fought in both Afghanistan and in Iraq.  Neither he nor they questioned their duty but did what was expected of them by their superiors and by their country. They did not get involved in the debates going on in the United States and other parts of the world about whether or not the wars were right or wrong. They were not political creatures. They did not seek glory but rather sought to do their duty with honor. And for that the nation should be grateful beyond measure!

Pat Tillman was known and respected by many fans and that is why his death is attracting more attention than the others. That is to be expected. Still, all of those who died were equally known by God, who knew even the number of hairs on each of their heads. He knew the hopes, desires and inner most thoughts of them all and He loved them! We must never forget their sacrifices and we must never allow our feelings about the politics or decisions behind the war to get in the way of our respect for everyone of our brave soldiers, including those who have served, died or been wounded in either Afghanistan or Iraq.  Regardless of what terrorists have done or the mistakes our politicians may have made, these brave men and women are the heroes of our nation and deserve our deepest respect and our most sincere gratitude. This is true not only for those who have died but also those who have been wounded and those have suffered only the mental and emotional anguish of bein in combat. May God Bless Them All and Grant Them, Their families and Friends Peace.

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 6 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Dangerously Approaching Quagmire in Iraq
Time: 2:48:49 PM EDT
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Worried

As predicted, the situation in Iraq continues to become more dangerous every day as the deadline approaches for the US to turn over power to the Iragi Governing Council. The closer to the June 30, turnover date, the more violent the insurgents, terrorists and remnants of the Baathist Party, Fedayeen Saddam and loyalists in the former Iraqi military will become. The real danger, however, is that the recent troubles caused by Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, added to the violence in the Sunni Triangle city of Fallugah, could erupt into a full-scale revolt against the "Coalition" forces or develop into an Iraqi civil war pitting the Shiite majority against the Sunni and Kurdish minorities with "Coalition" forces caught in the middle.

At the moment, al-Sadr's militia is relatively small but if more Shiites join in, the dangers will mount significantly. Already, the news media is reporting that violence has broken out in approximately 36 cities across the country. Even US Central Command's  Commander-in-Chief, General Abizaid is making plans to quickly reinforce the 135,000 troops in Iraq if the already dangerous situation continues to get worse.

From the outset of hostilities in Iraq, the "Coalition" leadership has feared that a lengthy occupation could lead to growing frustration and opportunities for the Iraqi radicals to gain support of the general population to throw the "Coalition" forces out of the country. The radical Shiite movement has become more vocal in recent days after the Coalition Ruling Council, headed by Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, shut down a newspaper published by al-Sadr. It was alleged that the newspaper called for violence against the occupation forces and the Ruling Council. After the violence erupted, a warrant was also issued for al-Sadr's arrest based on a charge that he was involved in the death of another popular cleric.

The US has worked hard to keep the Shiite majority content but has always resisted allowing them to gain control of the government, even though they represent 60-65 percent of the total Iraqi population. During Saddam Hussein's rule they were badly oppressed by the Sunni and Baathist minorities and were not permitted to even make pilgrimages to their holy city of Najaf, or participate in certain religious celebrations.  Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a moderate, is the most powerful Shiite cleric in the countrybut al-Sadr's power could grow dangerously if the "Coalition" fails to handle this current uprising appropriately. Already, the deaths of several Shiites (36 killed and over 100 wounded in Baghdad fighting according to CNN reports this morning) including at least one child at the hands of  "Coalition" forces have further inflammed the situation. With the ready availability of weapons in Iraq, if the Shiite revolt continues to grow, the "Coalition" forces could quickly find themselves outnumbered and in a very precarious situtation. None of this bodes well for the "Coalition" efforts to install a democratic government in Iraq. It also jeapordizes future US-Iraqi relations once the US turns over control of the government back to the Iraqis. As we have seen, the "Coalition" was not greeted with "flowers and dancing in the streets" during the invasion a year ago, as some US officials predicted it would be. Now, the longer the occupation continues the more likely it will be that the militant radicals will gain sufficient backing and power to mount a concerted effort eject the "Coalition" forces. This will only lead to further bloodshed on both sides and make it more difficult for the US to withdraw its military forces. In other words, we are getting closer to a quagmire in Iraq every day.

 

 

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

Subject: Strong Resolve for the Wrong War
Time: 3:48:51 PM EST
Author:  frosty40m
Mood:  Sad
Music:  Where Have All The Flowers Gone

Americans have watched in horror as US military and civilian casualties in Iraq have started to rise over the past several days. No one was particularly surprised at the upsurge in violence as the June 30th date for turning the control of the government over to the Iraqi Governing Council approaches. "Coalition" leaders had been saying for months that this would be a dangerous period as the insurgents, terrorists and followers of Saddam Hussein mount a major offensive to disrupt process. Few, however expected to witness the barbarism displayed in the past couple of days.

Most disturbing to many Americans was the murder of four US civilian contractors in the Sunni Triangle city of Fallujah and the subsequent dismemberment and desecration of their bodies by a mob Fallujah's citizens. After the civilian contractors were ambushed and killed, the mob torched their vehicles and burned their bodies. Then, as video cameras recorded their actions, they threw rocks, beat the dead with shoes and sticks, cut off heads and limbs from the bodies and hung the limbs and bodies over power lines and on a nearby bridge. The entire time this horrific scene was unfolding, the mob danced and shouted with jubilation over the deaths and displayed signs which read, "Fallujah will be the graveyard of America."

These events recalled the horror in Mogadishu, Somalia during the Clinton administration, when US Blackhawk helicoptors were shot down and the bodies of American soldiers were desecrated and drug through the streets of that city. Already, many Americans are calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq as was done shortly after the Mogadishu incident. Unfortunately, it is impossible to withdraw from Iraq after US troops, acting on orders from President George W. Bush, preemptively invaded that country, destroyed its government, captured or killed its leaders, disbanded its army and destroyed much of its infrastructure.Now, we are obligated to rebuild Iraq, stabilize it on the road to democracy and prevent outside forces from interfering with it during its period of recovery. Failure to carry out that mission will demonstrate to the world that the US is not the superpower it claims to be. Even the suggestion that America withdraw now, plays directly into the hands of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. No doubt he is ecstatic that President Bush has destroyed his old enemy and competitor for the leadership of the new Middle East, Saddam Hussein. This war has diverted attention away from him and al-Qaeda and has caused support for them to grow exponentially. Volunteers for al-Qaeda are now coming from all over the world to replace those who were killed during the war in Afghanistan. However, now, if America withdraws from Iraq before the country is stable and able to defend itself, bin Laden will have a ready-made replacement for Afghanistan, only with a lot more oil and a better strategic location for controlling the entire Middle East. The Iraq War played directly into his hands. It is even conceivable he planned it exactly this way, knowing Bush's animosity for Saddam Hussein. He may have even plotted the events of 9/11 hoping that Saddam would be blamed from the outset, which he almost was if only Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had had their way. Regardless, it did provide the excuse the Bush administration needed to sell the American people on invading Iraq before the war on bin Laden and al-Qaeda was over. Now, talk of withdrawing US troops only adds to bin Laden's credibility when he proclaims that America does not have the stomach to stick it out and fight to win. He points to South Vietnam, Beirut, Lebanon, and Mogadishu, Somalia as prime examples of where the US gave up the fight when too many body bags began coming home. If we do the same thing in Iraq, he will submit that as proof positive that he is right and Allah is on his side in his jihad with the infidels of the West.

No, even though the Iraq War was a terrible mistake, we must stick it out now until the tasks are finished and Iraq is once again able to defend herself from the likes of bin Laden and her hostile neighbors, Iran and Syria. Doing anything less would be tantamount to suicide for the US and other Western democracies. Thanks for getting us into this mess, Mr. Bush. Now, how do we get out of it and when?  

Written by frosty40m Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 19 comments: Show Recent | Add your own