The Iraq War: A Suspect Plot & A Disingenuous Script genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

When it became apparent that the war effort in Iraq was going to take far longer than anticipated, a debate ensued as to whether or not the strategy employed from the outset was sufficient. Early on in that debate, several observers as well as one high ranking active duty officer, General Shinseki, suggested that we lacked the necessary troop levels to win the peace. Shinseki and others argued that we would need at least 300,000 troops to achieve some progressive level of order in Iraq.

Time and again, the President, Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and other members of the administration routinely dismissed criticism and the calls for more troops. At the time, they argued that we were building an Iraqi military that would soon “stand up so we could stand down". Time and again, the number of fully trained Iraqi forces has been modified. One most recent assessment suggests that just over 6,000 Iraqi soldiers are capable of functioning fully independent of U.S. oversight…which then led to arguments about the definition of independent.

I recall that before the 2004 presidential election, the administration touted that the Iraqi security forces numbered nearly 200,000…though it was never clear if they were fully trained to assume the primary role in policing the country…and the number seemed to change from day to day. John Kerry suggested that we focus on training these forces as soon as possible in order to facilitate the reduction of American troops…and the president countered that those efforts were already underway and progressing as expected.

The most recent assessment states that the Iraqi security forces now number 337,000…of which 143,000 comprise the Iraqi military and 194,000 are members of the Iraqi police force. Discussions are also underway to increase the total security force to 365,000 by the end of the year.

While I’m no mathematician, when one takes a look at the chronology of the increasing numbers of Iraqi security forces along with the recent surge of American forces in comparison to the level of insurgent and sectarian violence, something just doesn’t add up.

If General Shinseki was wrong, then the Iraqi security force alone exceeds the number of troops the administration ever believed would be needed to prosecute our efforts in Iraq. The combined security forces in Iraq now number right at 500,000…far greater than the number the administration ever stated would be needed and well beyond the number that led to Shinseki’s forced resignation. At the same time, there is speculation that the U.S. troop surge could soon approach 200,000 American soldiers.

The only conclusions one can draw from this recent information…along with the four plus years of ever changing rationales…is that we are still being fed inaccurate assessments by an administration that places more weight on reconstructing its rhetoric than restoring security and rebuilding a functional Iraq.

If our efforts in Iraq were a theatrical production, it would no doubt have been billed as an epic tale of good versus evil…but the reviews would be more apt to characterize it as a poorly crafted and executed dramatic offering turned farcical comedy…one that left the audience scratching its collective head while wondering if it should succumb to satirically inspired laughter or simply acquiesce to the tears that are born of the Bush administration’s propensity and pattern of offering the far more familiar and formulaic tragedy.

Image courtesy of mycousinjoey.com

Daniel DiRito | May 30, 2007 | 11:25 AM | link | Comments (0)

Polls Be Damned - George W Knows Best genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak

President Bush has his own interpretation of public opinion...one that is contrary to existing polling data. In fact, the president has taken to offering his particular version in public appearances, a move that strangely fits the modus operandi of this administration. They seem to believe that if you say it often enough, it magically becomes the truth. The following excerpts are from an Associated Press article.

Democrats view the November elections that gave them control of Congress as a mandate to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Exit-poll surveys by The Associated Press and television networks found 55 percent saying the U.S. should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

The president says Democrats have it all wrong. The public doesn't want the troops pulled out - they want to give the military more support in its mission.

"Last November, the American people said they were frustrated and wanted a change in our strategy in Iraq," he said April 24, ahead of a veto showdown with congressional Democrats on a troop withdrawal timeline. "I listened."

"A lot of Americans want to know, you know - when?" he said at a Rose Garden news conference Thursday. "When are you going to win?"

Polls show that leaving - not winning - is most Americans' main goal.

In a poll released Friday by CBS and the New York Times, 63 percent supported a troop withdrawal timetable of sometime next year.

Another this month from USA Today and Gallup found 59 percent backing a withdrawal deadline that the U.S. should stick to no matter what happens in Iraq.

The article also points out that the lack of a clearly defined alternate plan of action in Iraq (think Democrats cave on a withdrawal timeline) likely provides this opportunity for the White House to define public sentiment. If one believes the premise that people are, for the most part, followers, then the lack of leadership on the part of Democrats cedes that role to the Bush administration. How unfortunate.

Image courtesy of www.lincolnsblog.com

Daniel DiRito | May 29, 2007 | 11:13 AM | link | Comments (0)

Iran, Iran So Far Away...But Not Anymore? genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak

I don’t begrudge anyone changing their mind…and frankly, I view it as having been willing to remain open to the possibility that changing circumstances may well warrant new conclusions. Notwithstanding, I do find myself less than accepting of the Bush administration’s propensity to state positions absolutely…such that those who hold the opposing view are deemed to be anything from wrong to near treasonous…until such time as they quietly reconsider…without so much as an acknowledgment of their possibly flawed judgment.

Such is the case with our frosty relationship with Iran. For much of the Bush administrations tenure, and especially prior to the 2004 election, direct conversations with Iran were off limits…and the president let John Kerry and the voting public know that it wasn’t going to happen. An article in today’s New York Times tells us that everything has changed.

BAGHDAD, May 28 — The United States and Iran held rare, face-to-face talks in Baghdad on Monday, adhering to an agenda that focused strictly on the war in Iraq and on ways the two bitter adversaries could help to improve conditions here.

“The Iranians as well as ourselves laid out the principles that guide our respective policies toward Iraq," he said. “There was pretty good congruence right down the line: support for a secure, stable, democratic, federal Iraq, in control of its own security, at peace with its neighbors."

The meeting occurred against a backdrop of a worsening conflict in Iraq and deepening animosity between Iran and the United States — each accuses the other of contributing to Iraq’s instability.

The American ambassador said he “laid out before the Iranians a number of our direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq." The United States has repeatedly accused Iran of meddling in Iraq, including training Shiite militiamen and shipping highly lethal weaponry into Iraq for use in attacks by Shiite and Sunni Arab militants against American troops.

The Iranian ambassador said he told Mr. Crocker that Iran was willing to train and equip the Iraqi security forces to create “a new military and security structure" and asserted that the American efforts to do the same were inadequate. He said Iran was also prepared to help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, which he said had been “demolished by the American invaders."

Mr. Crocker said the Iranian delegation proposed forming a “trilateral mechanism" to coordinate security matters in Iraq, a proposal that Mr. Crocker said he would forward to Washington for consideration.

If I’m properly deciphering the facts, some four years into the Iraq war, the Bush administration has apparently realized that without regional cooperation, it is doubtful that Iraq can become a stable nation. In fact, our reluctance to entertain direct talks with Iran and Syria may have served to amplify the insurgency and sectarian conflict within Iraq. The president’s proclamation that nations either stand with us or stand with the terrorists may have simply inflamed animosities and pushed others to join radical group’s intent on undermining U.S. efforts.

Clearly, this new attempt to dialogue about specific issues while still maintaining our objections to other actions on the part of the Iranian government is consistent with the successful efforts of prior administration’s to handle rogue nations. It is also consistent with the arguments put forth by a number of Democrats (and a handful of Republicans)…arguments that were ridiculed and dismissed.

I applaud the shift in strategy though I’m inclined to believe that it comes in response to what must be intense efforts by the GOP leadership to convince the Bush administration that it must consider any and all means to progress in Iraq prior to the 2008 election. At the same time, one can’t help but wonder how differently the war on terror and the subsequent conflict in Iraq could have proceeded had it been managed differently or had the administration been willing to consider alternatives along the way. Unfortunately we’ll never know.

Daniel DiRito | May 28, 2007 | 6:21 PM | link | Comments (0)

A Death By Any Other Name Would Not Be Accepted genre: Do Not Resuscitate & Happy Remembrances & Hip-Gnosis & Just Jihad

Sometimes when writing a posting, one knows in advance that it may be controversial and has the potential to be met with anger…and sometimes that leads one to decide against ever publishing it. Other times, despite the probabilities, one pushes ahead and publishes such words because one believes they need to be spoken regardless. This is one of those postings.

On Memorial Day weekend…as well as any time one seeks to stop and remember those who are no longer here…we look for ways to understand death and to reconcile with the ominous nature of our mortality. Try as we might, one is never fully prepared for the death and loss of a loved one…and though time may lessen the time we spend in pain, it never lessens the depth of the pain that we do experience.

When we attempt to understand death, we often draw comparisons in order to help us accept our loss. For example, with the death of an aged grandparent, we might tell ourselves that despite the obvious loss, our loved one had the good fortune of living a long and meaningful life. Unfortunately, there are times when our loss is virtually inconsolable and we’re unable to find a single scintilla of justification. Clearly, we all hope to avoid the latter…but life doesn’t always afford us our hopes.

The death of a soldier is an event that rarely goes without notice…and that is as it should be. Nonetheless, it is also quite troubling…and though we may not take the time to fully understand our reaction…in some primal way, it is known without analysis or discussion that the loss of a soldier requires a debt of gratitude since the life of each soldier is given in the service of the country we embrace. This unspoken, though well understood, sense of debt exists regardless of how one views the conflict that facilitates the loss of a soldier.

When a war is unpopular, or thought to be unnecessary, it creates a heightened angst when one is forced to recognize and assimilate the loss of a soldier. That heightened angst, in my opinion, comes from our natural tendency to seek to justify the loss of life. If one opposes the war, one may well struggle to find the means to soothe the loss. Perhaps the void that internal conflict creates is something we should embrace since it may be the very mechanism by which we can bring an end to conflicts that seem unwarranted. Nonetheless, navigating this highly sensitive terrain is akin to walking a mine field…if one fails to step lightly, an explosion can ensue.

With that said, I embark on a perilous journey…a journey intent on not only exposing the angst mentioned above…but a journey intended to accelerate that angst. To be clear, I honor and value the lives of every soldier lost as well as every individual and though I infer no disrespect, I realize some may not agree…and so I apologize in advance should my words seem otherwise.

This coming Friday, Dr. Jack Kevorkian will be released from prison after serving eight years for his part in assisting in the suicides of over one hundred individuals…individuals that by and large suffered ailments that would eventually end their lives or that had taken from them the lives that they cherished such that they already felt dead…though by some trick of fate, remained here in this existence against their will.

Assisted suicide is legal in only one state under highly regulated conditions and it remains a very controversial issue. Perhaps that is because we prefer to engage death as a matter of chance rather than as a matter of choice. I understand that argument though I’m not sure it can withstand a reasoned review. Again, let me be clear…my argument is not meant to minimize the religious beliefs that stand in opposition to assisted suicide and I readily accept objections to assisted suicide on that basis alone.

Notwithstanding, I’m of the opinion one can make a reasoned argument that we frequently fail to apply our beliefs about death consistently. Three headlines, one from 1998, and two from this Memorial Day weekend help demonstrate my point.

From The New York Times in 1998:

Kevorkian Deaths Total 100

Dr. Jack Kevorkian has helped a 66-year-old man with lung cancer kill himself and has now assisted 100 suicides, his lawyer has reported.

Mr. Herman died one day after the Michigan House of Representatives adopted a bill addressing Dr. Kevorkian, who has been acquitted in three trials.

The bill would make assisted suicide a felony punishable by as many as five years in prison and $10,000 in fines, or both. It now goes back to the Senate, where minor changes are expected to be adopted before it goes to Gov. John Engler, who is expected to sign it.

From The United Press International - 05/27/2007:

More Than 100 Soldiers Killed In May

BAGHDAD, May 27 (UPI) -- At least 101 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in May, the seventh time since the 2003 invasion that the monthly toll passed 100, military officials said.
In April, 104 soldiers were killed, the Web site icasualties.com -- maintained by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count -- said. The U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed 3,439 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, and 13 more await confirmation.

From The Associated Press – 05/26/2007:

U.S. Deaths Near Grim Memorial Day Mark

BAGHDAD - Americans have opened nearly 1,000 new graves to bury U.S. troops killed in Iraq since Memorial Day a year ago. The figure is telling — and expected to rise in coming months.

In the period from Memorial Day 2006 through Saturday, 980 soldiers and Marines died in Iraq, compared to 807 deaths in the previous year. And with the Baghdad security operation now 3 1/2 months old, even President Bush has predicted a difficult summer for U.S. forces.

This past week Congress authorized a military spending bill that met with the president’s approval and that did not include any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq…despite the fact that one can argue that the 2006 election sent a strong message that our elected officials bring an end to the war in Iraq and prevent the deaths of more U.S. soldiers.

Every indication suggests that George Bush will leave office…after eight years…with a significant presence of U.S. military troops still in Iraq. Back in 1998, the state of Michigan passed a law that led to the eight year imprisonment of Dr. Kevorkian for his part in facilitating the deaths of individuals who wanted to end their lives. Now I’m not suggesting the president or this congress should be imprisoned for their part in facilitating the death of 100 soldiers during the month of May…or the nearly 1,000 since last Memorial Day…or the 3,439 total soldiers killed in Iraq since the war began back in 2003.

However, on this Memorial Day weekend, I am suggesting Americans consider this information and put themselves through the process described above…the one which we humans go through when we lose a loved one. If at the end of that process, one feels some additional angst due to the growing absence of justifications for these deaths, then may I suggest that perhaps its time we demand that our elected officials do the right thing? If 100 assisted suicides warranted a law to imprison Dr. Kevorkian for eight years, what would be a reasonable equivalent for accepting the further loss of life in Iraq?

Daniel DiRito | May 27, 2007 | 11:32 AM | link | Comments (0)

Brewing The Iraq War: The Slow Drip Continues genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Looks like the White House may once again need to modify its explanation of the decisions and determinations made prior to invading Iraq. Time and again the American voter has been told that the President simply responded to the intelligence that was available at the time…seemingly suggesting that he and his neoconservative cohorts had no particular axe to grind.

Today we find further evidence that the administration ignored warnings from the CIA that an invasion of Iraq and the toppling of the Hussein regime might “lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists". If obtaining the full truth about the Iraq invasion were akin to the making of a good cup of coffee, then complete disclosure must be viewed as the ultimate in slow drip “brewing". Sadly, the bitter taste of the few sips we’ve been given suggest that the final product will be most foul and, more than likely, completely unpalatable.

In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East.

Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored.

In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists."

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I interpret this to mean that, despite repeated assertions by the administration to the contrary, there were clear indications of what could be expected in the aftermath of an invasion. One is left to wonder just how overwhelming the zeal to topple Hussein must have been at the time. Even if one were inclined to conclude that the stated reasoning for the war wasn’t contrived or manipulated, wouldn’t it still have been prudent for the administration to heed the warnings about the obstacles that would likely be encountered upon Hussein’s removal? If for no other reason, shouldn’t concerns about committing loyal and dedicated servicemen have led those in charge to consider the ramifications of an ill-conceived and hastily executed endeavor?

The report goes on to point out that the invasion may well fuel further radicalization and enhance the recruitment efforts of anti-American terrorist organizations…almost the exact opposite of one of the many justifications for the invasion that have been offered by the administration.

It also warned that “many angry young recruits" would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."

None of those warnings were reflected in the administration's predictions about the war.
In fact, Vice President Cheney stated the day before the war, “Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

A second assessment weeks before the invasion warned that the war also could be “exploited by terrorists and extremists outside Iraq."

“These should have been very sobering reports," says Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst at the Brookings Institution. “The administration should have taken them very serious in preparing plans for a difficult post-Saddam period. And yet the administration did not do so."

William Harlow, part of Tenet’s senior intelligence staff and co-author with Tenet on his book, added: “Although the intelligence got the WMD case in Iraq wrong, it got the dangers of a post-invasion Iraq quite right. They raised serious questions about what would face U.S. troops in a post invasion Iraq. The intelligence laid out a number of issues of concern. It’s unclear if administration officials paid any attention to those concerns."

On this Memorial Day Weekend, I can only imagine how this kind of information impacts the families of soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. A soldier’s love of country and the desire he or she exhibits to serve and protect this nation ought to be held sacred by those entrusted to risk the lives of these fine young Americans. A mother and father ought to be able to expect that our nation’s leaders will view their child as if he or she were their own…not as the vehicle by which small men satisfy large ambitions and egos.

Image courtesy of www.travelblog.org

Daniel DiRito | May 25, 2007 | 10:28 AM | link | Comments (0)

Keith Olbermann Special Comment On Iraq Betrayal genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

Daniel DiRito | May 23, 2007 | 9:00 PM | link | Comments (0)

Follow The Oil: Identifying The Real Surge In Iraq genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak

I sometimes find it difficult to comment further on the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq...its all been said before...and done before. The latest iteration of a troop surge seems little more than an encore of prior attempts to bring some semblance of order to a nation that seemingly isn't ready to sit down and figure out how its various sectarian groups can coexist. Four plus years into the conflict and those in charge are still churning out new rationales for their actions while asking the American public to remain optimistic and to be patient and give them a little more time.

A new report on the benefits of the latest troop surge, compiled by the Pentagon, suggests that the best case scenario is that the added military presence has created a slight decrease in violence. The more likely conclusion is that it has had virtually no impact on the overall statistics and the more important mind set of the combatants.

Newly declassified data show that as additional American troops began streaming into Iraq in March and April, the number of attacks on civilians and security forces there stayed relatively steady or at most declined slightly, in the clearest indication yet that the troop increase could take months to have a widespread impact on security.

Even the suggestion of a slight decline could be misleading, since the figures are purely a measure of how many attacks have taken place, not the death toll of each one. American commanders have conceded that since the start of the troop increase, which the United States calls a “surge," attacks in the form of car bombs with their high death tolls have risen.

As troops continued to arrive, the statistics show, the early effect on countrywide attacks was at best marginal, although there does appear to have been a slight decrease. The daily attack figures for March and April, released yesterday for the first time, were 157 and 149, respectively.

“The improvement is too small to be meaningful, but it’s too soon to declare defeat," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a research group that closely follows the conflict.

The attack data are compiled by the Pentagon but were made public in a report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office. It analyzed the effect of the attacks on the struggling American-financed reconstruction program in Iraq, especially the program’s failings in the electricity and oil sectors.

Alas, there is one surge happening in Iraq that has caught my attention and that I believe speaks to the real status of this ill-conceived and terribly executed mess we now call the war on terror...it is the surge of oil...in the form of 100,000 to 300,000 barrels a day that have continued to vanish each and every day.

A draft version of the report, obtained by The New York Times last week, indicated that every day during much of the past four years, somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels of oil, valued at anywhere from $5 million to $15 million, had been unaccounted for. But the draft report did not contain the attack statistics.

“Insurgents have destroyed key oil and electricity infrastructure, threatened workers, compromised the transport of materials, and hindered project completion and repairs by preventing access to work sites," the report says.

The report also contains the analysis of what appears to be billions of dollars of oil that is unaccounted for over the past four years. The report says smuggling, sabotage or colossal accounting errors could potentially account for the discrepancy.

A senior Iraqi official said yesterday that the Iraqi government believed the most likely explanation is a major smuggling effort by Shiite militias in the oil-rich south of Iraq.

Perhaps I'm hopelessly naive, but wouldn't it be safe to conclude that siphoned and smuggled oil money is funding much of the insurgent activity? I realize that when it comes to money, the U.S. frequently operates under the premise that the left hand need not understand the activities of the right hand...but aren't we dealing with far more than routine economics when it comes to Iraq? If I understand the conflict, economics is further fueling resistance to the crafting of an acceptable political solution as the various regions battle for control of oil reserves and the money they will generate.

If the U.S. effort cannot succeed in managing, monitoring, and maintaining Iraq's vast oil resources (the primary source of hope for rebuilding the country), just how do we expect to see an undermanned and poorly trained Iraqi security system do so? Further, unless Iraq can create a viable government that can sustain a functional economy, there simply isn't enough glue to hold the shattered country together.

If, as it seems, oil revenues are fueling the sectarian conflict, the battle to create a functional Iraq is not only a pipe dream...it is a shattered pipeline pouring out the fuel that will forever feed the fires of civil war.

Many months ago, Senator McCain described our efforts in Iraq as being akin to a game of whach-a-mole...a process of constantly shifting troops from region to region in an effort to quell unrest...only to see the conflict pop back up again in each area just after the troops have vacated.

I'll offer a far more ominous analogy...we're literally running out of fingers to plug the leaks in a poorly designed and fully makeshift barrier that is holding back the fuel (literally and figuratively) that has the potential to engulf the entire region in the flames of unfettered futility. If we can't oversee the flow of oil, what hope can there be to extinguish an unchecked and expanding fanaticism?

Daniel DiRito | May 16, 2007 | 8:06 AM | link | Comments (0)

Miss Jihad - 2007 genre: Hip-Gnosis & Just Jihad & Tongue-In-Cheek

Daniel DiRito | May 14, 2007 | 4:06 PM | link | Comments (0)