Monday, December 12, 2005
If Starting a Troop Withdrawal Soon Is "Retreat," Then Why Does Rummy Seem to Support It?
FactCheck.org has some interesting analysis of a new Republican National Committee TV ad. The RNC ad airs excerpts of comments made by Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer and John Kerry about the U.S. presence in Iraq, intersperses images of white "surrender" flags, and then concludes with the phrase: "Retreat and defeat is [sic] not an option."
Of all the observations made by FactCheck.org, I found this piece of analysis most interesting:
After showing another white flag, the ad next quotes California Sen. Barbara Boxer advocating withdrawal of US troops from Iraq: "So there's no specific timeframe but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections December 15th."
... Is Boxer's call to begin withdrawal a call for "retreat and defeat?" Worth noting is that the Bush Administration itself plans to withdraw at least 17,000 troops from Iraq after Dec. 15, and more next year if "conditions permit." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated this on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on Dec. 8, 2005:
Rumsfeld: We're [at] about 155,000 [US troops]. And we're going to go back down to our baseline of about one hundred and thirty-seven, thirty-eight thousand, after the elections. I'm sure of that.
So if proposing a troop withdrawal after the Dec. 15 elections amounts to embracing "retreat and defeat," then count Rummy as a defeatist.
Rumsfeld Expects 20,000-Troop Reduction
Posted by rcade at 12:50 PM | permalink
AP - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday he expects some 20,000 U.S. troops to return home from Iraq after next week's elections, and he suggested that some of the remaining 137,000 forces could pull out next year. [Yahoo News]
President Bush said on 12/14/2005:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4528982.stm
Quote:A stable Iraq [is] in the interests of both the Iraqi and American people. Critics in Washington, many of whom had originally supported the decision to invade, [are] playing pure politics.
Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy; when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people; and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.
I bet we will withdraw our troops from Iraq in phase with measurable progress in meeting each of these three objectives:
(1) The terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy;
(2) The Iraqi security forces can protect their own people;
(3) Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country.
ican't, I hope you are right.
Samarra, Iraq -- Fighters loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have set up a base in Samarra, a Sunni-dominated city 60 miles north of Baghdad and home to a powerful insurgent movement.
The troops are part of an Interior Ministry special commando unit, based in Baghdad. But while they wear the camouflage fatigues of a government security force and receive a government salary, many of the SWAT-style team members have pledged their allegiance to al-Sadr and are adamant they are part of the Mahdi Army, his private militia.
At an outpost in Samarra, dozens of officers from the 1st Brigade Special Police Commando -- the Lion Brigade -- told The Chronicle that they followed al-Sadr. One, who identified himself only as Saif, said the men answered to the cleric and would do as he ordered. Like his colleagues, he wore a badge bearing the commando motto: "Loyal to country."
"There are almost 70 commandos here, and 57 of us are Mahdi Army," he explained. "Although we are in commando uniforms, we are still Mahdi Army. We have soldiers all over Iraq now, and every place in the south has Muqtada's men. Sadr is a hero."
All militias were supposed to have been disbanded and absorbed into a combined Iraqi security apparatus, sworn to uphold state rules. The reality is that various private armies continue to exist unofficially.
Mohammad Auoba, from the Shiite district of Iraq's capital where al-Sadr has drawn support from unemployed young men, insisted the commandos had enforced order in Samarra since their arrival last month.
"I'm from Sadr City -- we are in control there and security is very good. There are no problems," he said. "Samarra is bad -- there are terrorists here. I have already been shot at. We will make things better here."
He also claimed the troops did not respect their brigade commander, Col. Bashar Hussein, an ethnic Turkoman from the northern city of Kirkuk. "He is corrupt and no good," Auoba said. Al-Sadr, he added, is a great leader.
The remarks underline the fragility of efforts to create genuine national security forces that follow the law, rather than the word of controversial religious figures. In Baghdad, the Shiite-led Interior Ministry has its own police force, which has developed a fearsome reputation -- particularly among Sunnis, who accuse it of dispatching death squads against them, either with or without the permission of senior politicians.
Bodies of both Sunnis and Shiites, often handcuffed and showing signs of ritual execution, are frequently found in Iraq. With police forces too weak to conduct murder inquiries, most such deaths go uninvestigated.
U.S. raids on Interior Ministry buildings in Baghdad uncovered secret torture chambers where prisoners had been starved and beaten. The discoveries prompted former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite and a favorite of the Bush administration, to claim human rights abuses were as prevalent now as under Saddam Hussein.
Residents of Samarra, the scene of bloody clashes between U.S. soldiers and insurgents, said they feared a Shiite militia being unleashed on the city. Interviewed in their homes this week, they said they were unaware of a Mahdi Army presence, but claimed they had already suffered when commandos affiliated with al-Sadr's militia were dispatched to the city earlier this year.
Ibrahim Farraj, who lives in the Sikek district, said, "The Interior Ministry forces are very strong. The insurgents are afraid of them, but they are corrupt and we cannot trust them. The last time the Interior Ministry was here, they were al-Sadr -- people are scared of them and the Mahdi Army."
Farraj, a taxi driver, said he and other family members had watched the growing power of religious movements in Iraq with alarm. "We don't want clerics like Sistani (Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's Shiite religious leader) or Sadr running the country as they have in Iran. We want people, Sunni and Shiite and Christian, to have freedom and not be intimidated or forced to follow what religious leaders say."
Qutaybah Ismail Abid Abu Abbas, another resident of the Sikek district, said residents would wait to see how they were treated. "I don't know if there are Mahdi Army in the commandos," he said. "If they are, it's not a problem as long as we are shown the proper respect. All of us are Iraqi people. If they come to my house in peace, we will have no problems."
Al-Sadr, once charged by the now-disbanded U.S. occupation with murder, is a member of the leading Shiite coalition that apparently came in first in last Thursday's election for a new parliament. But during 2004, his forces battled the U.S. Army in Baghdad and in the key Shiite areas Karbala and Najaf.
His followers fought the Americans to a standstill, and the murder warrant was quietly forgotten.
U.S. Army Capt. Ryan Wylie, of the 3rd Infantry Division serving in Samarra, said he had heard rumors that the Interior Ministry was conducting a private war, but had seen no evidence.
"As far as I can tell, the commandos have not been abusing their power and they are behaving professionally and capably," he said. "They seem to be popular in the city -- people generally prefer Iraqi forces to Americans."
A West Point graduate, from Lincoln, Neb., Wylie said U.S. forces involved in training the Iraqis would not permit abuses. "We have guys with them all the time, mentoring them -- they'll make sure everything is done properly."
Col. Hussein, head of 1st commando brigade, said plans were in place to withdraw all U.S. forces from Samarra by early next year. When that happens, he insisted, his men would be merciless with any terrorists but would not crack down on civilians.
"We will not have any secret jails, and I demand my men treat everyone with dignity, even when we have prisoners," he said. "There is a new law that anyone helping the terrorists should be killed. They should be executed. We will send them to a court of law, and there will be a government executioner. When we see terrorists, of course we are going to kill them right away
I don't think anybody has said it was impossible, but this administration's incompetence has made success more difficult.
cicerone imposter wrote:I don't think anybody has said it was impossible, but this administration's incompetence has made success more difficult.
I agree!
Who in government do you think can do a better job? Why do you think so?
The endlessly repeated criticism of the administration -- absent recommendations of viable alternatives and absent recognition of competent decisions -- has also made success more difficult. Few people can function effectively in such a political environment. I am amazed that the administration has done as well as they have despite such a negative political environment.
To begin with, this administration ignored the expert advise of many experts in their fields. Those people that have disagreed with the "policies" of this administration are no longer working for them.
I wouldn't presume to know better than the experts that have spoken and are now gone.
1) after war troop requirements
2) security after the war
3) the long-term history of Iraq's tribes and their conflicts
4) our march to war without the international community support
5) "old Europe."
6) "UN insignificance"
7) "coalition of the willing; if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"
8) "mission accomplished!"
9) "stay the course"
and 10) "we are making progress" - as more coalition forces leave Iraq
cicerone imposter wrote:To begin with, this administration ignored the expert advise of many experts in their fields. Those people that have disagreed with the "policies" of this administration are no longer working for them.
I wouldn't presume to know better than the experts that have spoken and are now gone.
1) after war troop requirements
2) security after the war
3) the long-term history of Iraq's tribes and their conflicts
4) our march to war without the international community support
5) "old Europe."
6) "UN insignificance"
7) "coalition of the willing; if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"
8) "mission accomplished!"
9) "stay the course"
and 10) "we are making progress" - as more coalition forces leave Iraq
I assume that this is your list of what you believe to be the administration's ten biggest Iraq bungles.
Suppose you were to discover that a majority of USA voters agree with your list. What would you advise these voters do about these administration bungles?
According the the latest polls on the handling of Iraq, your assumptions seem contrary to the numbers.
Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
and JAMES RISEN
Published: December 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 - Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.
The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.
The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises "fascinating and difficult questions," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
Despite all of this good news, Americans remain pessimistic. Recent polls demonstrate rising support for President Bush, but that support remains well below 50 percent. While the economy continues to climb, only 38 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of the economy, according to CBS News. Americans also show low levels of support for Bush's foreign policy, at 36 percent, for his leadership in the fight against terrorism, at 48 percent, and his management of Iraq, at 36 percent. Over 60 percent of Americans feel that the country is moving in the wrong direction, according to an AP/Ipsos poll from early December.
cicerone imposter wrote:Despite all of this good news, Americans remain pessimistic. Recent polls demonstrate rising support for President Bush, but that support remains well below 50 percent. While the economy continues to climb, only 38 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of the economy, according to CBS News. Americans also show low levels of support for Bush's foreign policy, at 36 percent, for his leadership in the fight against terrorism, at 48 percent, and his management of Iraq, at 36 percent. Over 60 percent of Americans feel that the country is moving in the wrong direction, according to an AP/Ipsos poll from early December.
You left out the best parts of that quote:
Quote: In less than three years, America and its allies have turned Iraq from a radical terrorist-funding dictatorship capable of threatening its neighbors into a laboratory of democracy in the Middle East. And 2005 was the turning point.
At the end of 2004, our economy was growing steadily. The unemployment rate had dropped over the course of the year, but many questioned if employment levels would continue to rise -- The New York Times snootily derided the country's "subpar job creation," citing President Bush's tax cuts. So much for that idea. In October 2005, the unemployment rate dropped below 5 percent for the first time since August 2001, and as of December, it is now hovering at 5 percent.
Over the past two years and four months, the economy has created 4.2 million new jobs. Labor productivity continued to rise this year, as it has risen every quarter since the first quarter of 2001; the productivity rate is currently rising faster than it has in 40 years. In the third quarter of 2005, the gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 4.1 percent, a solid indicator of economic health. Since 2002, the economy has created 2.3 million additional minority homeowners. And the holiday season this year was incredibly successful, with retail spending up 8.7 percent from the same period last year. All of this despite the economic effects of the continued War on Terror and the costs of a massive hurricane wiping one of America's largest cities from the map. Our economy remains vibrant and continues to grow.
At the end of 2004, Americans voted on which candidate would better handle the War on Terror. President Bush won. So far, so good. Since Sept. 11, law enforcement has broken up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio, thanks to instruments like the Patriot Act. Terrorists caught overseas were mined for information -- information that has been extremely useful, as in the case of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, a top al-Qaeda mastermind.
Despite all of this good news, Americans remain pessimistic. Recent polls demonstrate rising support for President Bush, but that support remains well below 50 percent. While the economy continues to climb, only 38 percent of Americans support Bush's handling of the economy, according to CBS News. Americans also show low levels of support for Bush's foreign policy, at 36 percent, for his leadership in the fight against terrorism, at 48 percent, and his management of Iraq, at 36 percent. Over 60 percent of Americans feel that the country is moving in the wrong direction, according to an AP/Ipsos poll from early December.
Why are Americans so downhearted? Certainly, the media's focus on certain stories (FISA, Plame) at the expense of others (voting in Iraq, the economy) has dampened our enthusiasm while exacerbating our discontent. But at the end of 2005, let's pause for a moment and realize that despite 2005's tragedies, we are better off today than we were a year ago, or two years ago, or at any time since the attacks of Sept. 11. We are moving in the right direction. And 2006 will be even better.[/b]
LINK
No matter; most Americans see Iraq as a quagmire that will continue to cost us in American lives and treasure.
As Bush continues his war in Iraq to bring them democracy, this administration continues to destroy ours. I do not believe for a moment that most Americans will support this exchange.
I don't either, ci, which is why I am more hopeful than I have been in the past few years.
cicerone imposter wrote:According the the latest polls on the handling of Iraq, your assumptions seem contrary to the numbers.
My
assumption was that you think the ten bungles you listed were the ten worst bungles the administration has made. You don't need to know what the polls say to agree or disagree with that. The truth or falsity of my assumption is based totally on what you and you alone truly think.
You chose not to confirm or deny my assumption.
I bet you are correct that a majority of Americans
do not agree that the ten bungles you listed are the administration's ten worst Iraq bungles.
I infer from your failure to answer my question about what you would recommend to those voters,
if a majority of American voters agreed with you, that you haven't any such recomendation you are willing to disclose at this time.
icant, You ever hear of "personal opinion?" If my list doesn't agree with the American People, it's up to you to provide it. I don't have to prove "anything," it's my opinion.
Quote:But at the end of 2005, let's pause for a moment and realize that despite 2005's tragedies, we are better off today than we were a year ago, or two years ago, or at any time since the attacks of Sept. 11.
This is verifiably false; the average wage in America is only up .5% since 2001, while inflation is up considerably higher than that.
I love that Americans are downhearted because the media is 'focusing on the Plame and FISA issues.' Yeah f*cking right. You guys really crack me up.
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:According the the latest polls on the handling of Iraq, your assumptions seem contrary to the numbers.
I think some of your list of alleged administration bungles are truly not bungles.
cicerone imposter wrote:To begin with, this administration ignored the expert advise of many experts in their fields. Those people that have disagreed with the "policies" of this administration are no longer working for them.
I wouldn't presume to know better than the experts that have spoken and are now gone.
1) after war troop requirements
2) security after the war
3) the long-term history of Iraq's tribes and their conflicts
4) our march to war without the international community support
5) "old Europe."
6) "UN insignificance"
7) "coalition of the willing; if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"
8) "mission accomplished!"
9) "stay the course"
and 10) "we are making progress" - as more coalition forces leave Iraq
(1) The
left ought to get together and makeup their minds. Do we have too many or too few troops in Iraq? Some say we have
too many if we really intend to turn over to the Iraqis their own governance, and we should have started removing our troops soon after we dethroned Saddam. Others say we have
too few troops in Iraq to do an adequate job suppressing terrorist combatants. I say we will now commence removal of our troops (about 160,000 currently) as the Iraqi government makes measurable progress in securing its governance in general, and suppressing terrorist combatants in particular.
(2) I think the administration's bungle here was due to its naive assessment of the magnitude of the threat presented by disgruntled Suni who were former Saddam regime beneficiaries, and the magnitude of the threat presented by self-declared al Qaeda murderers who fled from Afghanistan.
(3) The administration did bungle about this difficulty, but is not now naive about the difficulty presented by Iraq's multiple conflicting mutually hating interest groups.
(4)(5) and (6) This was not the actual administration bungle. I think the actual bungle here was
waiting and trying too long to get the backing of France, Russia and Germany. We learned early on that they were opposed to removing the Saddam regime because of their special economic investments in the retention of the Saddam regime. The UN's support was therefore unobtainable, because both France and Russia possessed the power and declared their intention to veto such support.
(7) Yes, this was a bungle both logically and politically.
(8) Not a bungle by the administration; it was a blunder by the news media. That banner tied to the bridge of the aircraft carrier returning from Iraq was proclaiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" by the crew of the aircraft carrier and not "mission accomplished" by the administration. Bush many times before and after that event warned us the entire Iraq process would be a very long one. The new media has many times blundered by misreporting this correctly, too.
(9) Not a bungle; but a real demonstration of wisdom and perseverance.
(10) Not a bungle at all! We are making measurable progress in Iraq. We are now on step 6 and step7 of a seven step plan established way back in 2003. The news media is for the most part blundering in misreporting the actual progress.
ican711nm wrote:MEASURABLE PROGRESS
The Bush administration's solution is the seven-step course they specified in 2003. It is the course they have stayed and are staying and have repeatedly declared they will stay. Their solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. They have completed five of the seven steps in their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election.
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military.
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government.
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval.
(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government.
(6) Help train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(7) Remove our military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.
Is their progress toward their solution fast enough? NO!
Have they committed many bungles or blunders along the way? YES!
Are they nonetheless making measurable progress toward their solution? YES!
Is an increase in Iraqi voter turnout in their December 15, 2005 election of more than two-million, measurable progress? YES!
Not bad for government work! Who in government would have done a better job?
