A Life Rule lesson

Seriously, what is going on. I railed against it when he announced, and I'll say it again. If you give bad guys a date that the good guys are leaving no matter what, the bad guys will usually just take a vacation and wait until you've left the premises. I genuinely question the logic of setting such a hard timetable for Iraq's exit, and vociferously question the logic and integrity of whomever decided it was worth announcing to the world. I don't understand how anyone will think it's a surprise when the violence goes up. If POTUS claims he ended the Iraq war, I disagree. I think this is a perfect example of why he has never made the transition from popular kid voted class president to being an actual class president. Read the original here.

Dozens die as 14 bombs explode across Baghdad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq
MSNBC:

BAGHDAD — A wave of bombings ripped across Baghdad on Thursday morning, killing at least 60 people and injuring more than 150 in the worst violence Iraq has seen for months. The bloodbath comes just days after American forces left the country.




The blasts also came on the heels of a political crisis between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite factions that erupted this weekend.

The political spat has raised fears that Iraq's sectarian wounds will be reopened during a fragile time when Iraq is finally navigating its own political future without U.S. military support.

While the string of explosions was likely not a direct response to the political Sunni-Shiite confrontation, it will ratchet up tensions at a time when many Iraqis are already worried about security. If continued, it could lead to the same type of tit-for-tat attacks that characterized the insurgency years ago.

Iraqi officials said at least 14 blasts went off early Thursday morning in 11 neighborhoods around the city.

Figures gathered from Iraqi health and police officials across the city put the death toll at 60, with 160 injured. The spokesman for the Iraqi health ministry put the death toll at 57 and said at least 176 people were injured. Conflicting casualty figures are common in the aftermath of such attacks.

The explosions ranged from blasts from sticky bombs attached to cars to roadside bombs and vehicles packed with explosives. There was at least one suicide bombing among the attacks.

'A huge explosion'
At least 18 people were killed when a suicide bomber driving an ambulance detonated the vehicle near a government office in the Karrada district, sending up a dust cloud and scattering car parts into a kindergarten, police and health officials said.

"We heard the sound of a car driving, then car brakes, then a huge explosion, all our windows and doors are blown out, black smoke filled our apartment," said Maysoun Kamal, who lives in a Karrada compound.

Raghad Khalid, a teacher at a kindergarten near the Karrada blast, said "some parts of the car bomb are inside our building."

"I saw all the windows were blown out and glass scattered everywhere. The children were scared and crying," Khalid added.

Two roadside bombs struck the southwestern Amil district, killing at least seven people and wounding 21 others, while a car bomb blew up in a Shiite neighborhood in Doura in the south, killing three people and wounding six, police said.

"My baby was sleeping in her bed. Shards of glass have fallen on our heads. Her father hugged her and carried her. She is now scared in the next room," said one woman in western Baghdad who identified herself as Um Hanin. "All countries are stable. Why don't we have security and stability?"

More bombs ripped into the central Alawi area, Shaab and Shula in the north, all mainly Shiite areas, and a roadside bomb killed one and wounded five near the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya, police said.

Violence in Iraq has ebbed since the height of sectarian violence in 2006-2007, when suicide bombers and hit squads targeted Sunni and Shiite communities in attacks that killed thousands of people.

Stubborn insurgency
Iraq is still fighting a stubborn, lower-grade insurgency with Sunni Islamists tied to al-Qaida and Shiite militias, who U.S. officials say are backed by Iran, still staging daily attacks.

The last few thousand American troops pulled out of Iraq over the weekend, nearly nine years after the invasion that toppled Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein. Many Iraqis had said they feared a return to sectarian violence without a U.S. military buffer.

Just days after the withdrawal, Iraq's fragile power-sharing government is grappling with its worst turmoil since its formation a year ago. Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish blocs share out government posts in a unwieldy system that has been impaired by political infighting since it began.


The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is a Shiite, has accused the Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi of running a hit squad that targeted government officials.

Al-Maliki is also pushing for a vote of no-confidence against another Sunni politician, the deputy prime minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Al-Maliki was likened to Saddam by al-Mutlaq.

Many Sunnis fear that this is part of a wider campaign to go after Sunni political figures in general and shore up Shiite control across the country.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the morning's violence. But the coordinated nature of the assault and the fact that the attacks took place in numerous neighborhoods suggested a planning capability only available to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Many of the neighborhoods were also Shiite areas which are a favorite target of al-Qaida. The Sunni extremist group often targets Shiites who they believe are not true Muslims.

U.S. military officials have said they're worried about a resurgence of al-Qaida after the American military leaves the country. If that happens, it could lead Shiite militants to fight back and attack Sunni targets, thus sending Iraq back to the sectarian violence it experienced just a few years ago.

Iraq Troop reduction: Politics or Strategy?

Read the original here.

Sources: Obama Administration To Drop Troop Levels In Iraq To 3,000

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.

Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.

"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.

Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.

Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.

Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.

"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said. Another source said the actual total could be as high as 5,000 when additional support personnel are included.

A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.

"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.

This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that the U.S. has operated responsibly to meet the year-end deadline to remove troops from Iraq, per a 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.

He added that negotiations with the Iraqis will determine the outcome, and while costs are a factor in every decision, the administration makes decisions on what is best for the United States.

The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.

Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."

Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said reducing the troop presence to 3,000 "would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."

"The biggest winner of a U.S. decision to move to 3,000 troops in Iraq would the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs would rejoice," he said.

Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.

"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."

On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.

Fox News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/#ixzz1XGohwhwt

What's your priority?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq;_ylt=Atnmhg9ECt5u1Etu6f1zOfWs0NUE

In the attached news article, McCain points out the truism that removing troops from Iraq is less important than reducing casualties. Who would disagree that our primary goal in terms of troop levels should be minimization of casualties? He goes on to point out that withdrawing them is his goal but he doesn’t want to do it in a way that puts more of them at risk.

Two prominent Democrats disagree with this assertion: Joe Biden and Harry Reid. This is a time when having a VP nominee to go out and slam them would be great. This is the perfect time where someone should go out and say:

“Joe Biden and Harry Reid are simply echoing the irresponsible line from Barack Obama: that retreat from Iraq is more important than keeping American troops and Iraqi civilians safe. Apparently, having their Presidential nominee state that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff to get American troops home is not good enough for the Democrats. They now need other Democratic leaders to say that not only is genocide acceptable but sharp increases in American casualties is acceptable as long as we remove troops. This is unacceptable and naïve.

“The Democrats have been complaining for some time that people question their patriotism. When they come out and say such despicable garbage, when they say flat out that exiting Iraq is more important than keeping our troops safe, how can they not expect people to question their patriotism? Maybe they think that abandoning an ally begging for assistance to be patriotic. Maybe they think that putting civilians in the way of genocide is patriotic. Maybe they think that cutting off funding for troops in the field to make a political point is patriotic. Maybe they think that putting soldiers at needless risk for political gain is patriotic. Maybe they think that increasing American casualties is patriotic. I believe that most Americans would disagree.

“Let me be very, very clear on the topic. Joe Biden and Harry Reid should be deeply ashamed of themselves for their statements today indicating that safeguarding our troops should not be our top priority. The troops in the field of battle deserve better than to have their civilian leaders come out in public and say that their safety is not of tantamount priority.”

GWOT is not WWII

John Derbyshire writes for the National Review, writing a blog tracking the election and political issues. In an recent post, he ponders:

"The folk who direct our armed forces have spent four and a half years struggling inconclusively with a rabble of fanatics who have no navy or air force, no armored units, no regular formations at all in fact, and munitions they operate with cell-phones and lengths of string. In three and a half years, our grandfathers turned two mighty, sprawling fascist empires to rubble. What am I missing here?"

I hate this line of argument. You hear this brain-dead idiocy from so many people these days - we only took three and a half years to win World War II, so why do we still have troops in Iraq after four and a half years? I hate to break it to you, but we still have troops in Japan and Germany and they faced resistance and civil unrest after the war. During World War II, we lost over 270,000 members of our armed forces and tens of millions of civilians died. In Iraq, we've lost barely more than 1/100 of that number in both service members and Iraqi civilians. Then, of course, there's the messy bit that World War II had been going on for several years before we got there. Oh, and don't forget how we ended up winning that war: we used nuclear weapons to annihilate two cities and kill a few hundred thousand civilians.

So, until we're willing to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, willing to kill millions of civilians, and willing to use such tactics such as firebombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki while rounding up all American Arabs to put them into concentration camps, let's hold off on comparing the war in Iraq to World War II.

If even John Murtha says we're winning...

If even Rep. John Murtha is willing to admit that we're winning, then where do the rabid anti-war Democrats - and Senator Clinton - get off claiming once again that we're losing? More importantly, if we're winning then why are the Democrats so dedicated to either cutting off troop funding or forcing us to surrender?

Murtha finds military progress in trip to Iraq
Warns that Iraqis must do more for their own security
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week, but he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration still must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrats said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year. But the Iraqis "have got to take care of themselves."

Violence has dropped significantly in recent months, but Mr. Murtha said he was most encouraged by changes in the once-volatile Anbar province, where locals have started working closely with U.S. forces to isolate insurgents linked to Al Qaeda.

He said Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional."

Have they taken the final step?

The budget battle between the Democrats and the Administration over funding has moved to the point of ridiculousness. It's a disgusting shame that people like Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and Harry Reid are not only playing politics with funding the troops but are accusing the Administration of doing the same.

In fact, it's going a step further. The new stance of the Democrats is that the only two options for the Administration are either engaging in operations in Iraq absent of funding or precipitously, immediately retreating just now as the war has moved fully into a wind-down victory stage. What is particularly galling is that the Democrats seem to have moved beyond their immoral use of the troops as political pawns, moved beyond merely hoping that the U.S. loses the war in Iraq but now appear to be actively working to ensure our defeat.

Beyond unacceptable, beyond immoral, if the Democrats do not back down from this push towards defeat for the troops, back down from their attempts to deny funding for essential war operations, back down from their desire to turn victory into defeat then they are clearly and unambiguously operating at odds with the country. Holding to these attempts to ensure defeat is not patriotic descent. It is treason.

Democrats: Don't do this. Support the troops. Give them the money they need to be safe. Let them stay in Iraq to complete the job they're so close to completing. You say that you're patriotic. If so, stop using the troops as pawns; stop trying to push for our country's defeat. We are a nation at war. Start acting like it.

Dems Says Pentagon Using Scare Tactics
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In their latest tussle with the White House on the Iraq war, two leading House Democrats said Tuesday the Pentagon was using scare tactics to try to goad Congress into passing another war spending bill.

And Reps. David Obey and John Murtha said they won't budge. Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Murtha, D-Pa., head of the panel's Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said they won't support more money for the war this year unless President Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawals.

Last week, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would keep operations afloat for several more months, but sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. After Bush threatened to veto the measure, Senate Republicans blocked it.

"If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is to call the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it," Obey told reporters.

The APs problems with photographers

A terrorist posing as a photographer and infiltrating the AP is set to be charged with terrorism in an Iraqi court, according to AFP reports. He was captured at his home with bomb-making materials, insurgent propaganda, and surveillance photographs of military installations.

The problem with the situation is the AFP's view of the situation as a matter of criminal behavior, they say he "has been held for more than 19 months without charges in US military custody." The U.S. government has allowed the ridiculous mindset that individuals captured on the field of battle somehow are criminal defendants. They are not. They are militarty combatants. The best resolution is for the U.S. government to reclassify these individuals as prisoners of war, even though they are correctly classified as unlawful combatants. By granting them POW status in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, we can avoid the messy complication of the media expecting that these people will be dealth with as criminals instead of under the Geneva Conventions as combatants.

We need to make this very clear distinction: terrorism is an illegal act of war. It is not a criminal offense. We must treat these people as POWs first and war criminals second and must avoid using the criminal system. We tried for years to treat terrorism as a police and criminal matters, with horrible consequences.

US military accuses AP photographer of being "terrorist media operative"
AFP

The US military has filed a formal complaint with an Iraqi criminal court accusing a detained, award-winning Associated Press photographer of being a "terrorist media operative," the Pentagon said Monday.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the military made the complaint about Bilal Hussein, who has been held for more than 19 months without charges in US military custody, to Iraq's Central Criminal Court.

"We believe Bilal Hussein was a terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP," he said. "MNF-I possesses convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to security and stability as a link to insurgent activity."

Morrell said an investigative hearing into the case by the court is scheduled to begin on or after November 28.

Bring them here!

Daniel Byman, writing for Slate, calls for the U.S. to dramatically expand its acceptance of Iraqi immigrants. He bases this on two justifications: morality and strategic interest. Both are pretty straightforward. As we invaded the country, it is our responsibility to deal with its ramifications. The displacement of Iraqis has the potential to create the sort of discontent that the displacement of Palestinians has caused.

I'd like to add a third criteria: an economic one. The people of Iraq tend to be well educated and secular, particularly those who have been displaced. We should very easily to be able to attract Iraqi engineers, doctors, nurses, and scientists in addition to providing for humanitarian and strategic interest concerns. Bringing in highly qualified immigrants will be a boon for our nation, particularly here in Detroit where we have the ability to acclimate Arab immigrants and the desperate need for hard-working, well-educated individuals willing to work to build up our local economy.

The Next Phase of the Iraq War
Why We Must Welcome Thousands of Iraqi Refugees To The United States
Foreigners for Slate

Rarely do morality and strategy come together in the Middle East - particularly in the case of Iraq. Yet there is one area where the right thing to do for Iraq is also the best option for America's long-term interests: preventing the Iraqi refugee crisis from further destabilizing the region. So far, the debate in the United States has focused on the fates of Iraqis who have worked with U.S. diplomats and soldiers, as translators, and so on. Although these individuals are owed a special debt, our responsibility does not end there. The United States should accept tens of thousands of refugees and must encourage other major powers to do the same. Washington should also initiate a program to boost the capacity of neighboring states to host refugees and prevent them from becoming a source of instability.

Although casualty reports dominate the headlines, Iraq is also suffering a staggering exodus of refugees. More than 2 million Iraqis - from a total population of 27 million - have fled the chaos, and the numbers grow every day. (Even more Iraqis have fled their homes but have resettled in other parts of Iraq, thus technically avoiding the label "refugee.") So far, the migrants have clustered in nations close to Iraq, particularly in Syria and Jordan. The U.S. efforts to help these refugees have ranged from feeble to nonexistent. The United States has so far taken in barely more than 1,000 refugees but will reportedly boost this to 12,000 next year: a significant percentage increase on the surface but only when the absurdly low base rate is considered.

It is both morally abhorrent and strategically ill-advised to abandon these refugees. To state the obvious, the U.S. failure to establish security in Iraq drove them to leave their homes. Literally millions of people have fled under horrific circumstances, and the United States bears much of that responsibility. Americans may, understandably, say that they can no longer sacrifice to bring stability to Iraq, but that does not excuse us from the broader duty to help those who continue to suffer.

Putting aside our moral responsibility, the United States needs to take in refugees to offset significant strategic risks. The 1948 Israeli war of independence produced more than 700,000 refugees. Almost 60 years later, the region still suffers from the failure to solve this refugee problem. The Palestinian refugee crisis contributed to wars between Israel and its neighbors in 1956, 1967, 1982, as well as to Israel's constant terrorism problem.

Few Iraqi refugees are incorporated into the nations that are hosting them, but there is no prospect that they will return to Iraq in large numbers in the near future. It would not be surprising if, 20 years from now, millions of Iraqis still lived outside their home country. In other words, this problem will not disappear if we ignore it.

Entitlement spending since 2002 cost family of 4 $146,300

The AP has a story reporting on a partisan "study" done by the Democrats which states that the 7 year cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2002 to 2007 will cost a family of four $20,900. This is based on the assumption that the wars together cost a total of $1.6 trillion.

Of course, during this time the nation has directly spend over $7 trillion on entitlement spending with no effect on poverty rates among children or working age adults. Why aren't the Democrats harking about that amount? Using their "math" - remember, this is the same math - remember, this is the same math which states that 50% of taxpayers paying 3% of federal income taxes is unfairly high - entitlement spending over the same period of time costs that family $146,300. Of course, this $7 trillion for entitlement is actually spending and not some trumped up number which assumes it is accountable for 100% of the budget deficit or other mysterious hidden costs that apparently you need to be a Liberal Elite to see.

I'm not going to even mention that they're now apparently considering that the war in Afghanistan is not worth funding.

Dems: U.S. wars cost family of 4 $20,900
Detroit News

WASHINGTON - The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion - roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee.

The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including hidden costs such as interest payments on money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care required for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would costs a family of four $16,500, the report said.

Nothing to see here...

Yet another report, this time from MSNBC, that the war is going well. More than 46,000 people have come back home to Iraq in October, a rate described by the left-leaning MSNBC as "streaming home." Of course, expect liberals like John Dingell, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton to ignore this success and call for a 'change' from our current, successful strategy back, essentially, to the failed pre-2007 strategies.

Iraqis reportedly streaming home from abroad
Spokesman says more than 46,000 return; 17 bodies found in mass grave
MSNBC

BAGHDAD - The number of Iraqis returning to their country after fleeing abroad is growing, with more than 46,000 people coming home last month, an Iraqi government spokesman said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Army said 17 bodies were discovered in a mass grave northeast of Baghdad in an area troops have only recently been able to enter because of a downturn in violence.

Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the Iraqi spokesman for a U.S.-Iraqi military push to pacify Baghdad, said border crossings recorded 46,030 people returning to Iraq in October alone. He attributed the large number to the "improving security situation."

"The level of terrorist operations has dropped in most of the capital's neighborhoods, due to the good performance of the armed forces," al-Moussawi told reporters in the heavily-guarded Green Zone. Al-Moussawi did not give numbers of Iraqis returning home before October.

Hard choices are sometimes required

Buried down in the bottom of a long, protracted, and intellectually void article written for Slate by Gary Kimaya, he claims incredulously that a 1% chance of our enemies obtaining and us using a nuclear weapon on our civilian population is insufficient grounds for attack.

Perhaps he lives in a different reality, but the one in which I live in looks at a 1% chance of millions of civilians killed as a pretty significant problem. From a very basic analysis, a 1% chance that a million civilians are killed in a nuclear attack by, say Iran, is about equivalent to a 100% chance that 10,000 Americans are killed in a war with Iran. It might seem a harsh calculus for a political party whose entire platform is built on the naive and childish notion that we can save everyone, everywhere but real leaders have to sit down and make that balance. If a war would cost 5,000 lives but has a 1% chance of saving a million, isn't that worthwhile? If the chances that Iran is, indeed, working towards a nuclear weapon that they would use against us are much greater than that - 10% or 15% - then what possible individual can rationally believe that it's not worth the sacrifice?

Is this an easy sacrifice? Of course not. However, when it comes to defending the lives and freedom of our country, we must sometimes have to make very difficult decisions and a real leader needs to sit down some times and realize that it might be worth sacrificing a few thousand to save a million.

Iraq taught us nothing
The U.S. establishment's acceptance of a possible war with Iran shows that the folly that led to Iraq still rules Washington
Current Opinion for Salon

The U.S. could attack Iran in the next few months.

Let's repeat that. The U.S> could attack Iran in the next few months.

The fact that this sentence can be written with a straight face proves that the Iraq debacle has taught us absolutely nothing. Talk of attacking Iran should be confined to the lunatic fringe. Yet America's political and media elite have responded to the idea of attacking Iran in almost the same way they did to the idea of attacking Iraq. Four and a half years after Bush embarked on one of the most catastrophic foreign-policy adventures in our history, the same wrongheaded, ignorant, and self-destructive approach to the Arab-Muslim world and to fighting terrorism still rules establishment thinking.

The disturbing thing is that we have no excuse this time. Five years ago, a wounded, fearful and enraged America was ready to attack anybody, and Bush waved his red cape and steered the mad bull toward Iraq. We now know that was folly. The completely unnecessary invasion has so far resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and almost 4,000 Americans, severely destabilized the region, cost billions of dollars, and increased the threat of terrorism. Yet today we are blithely considering attacking a much larger Middle Eastern country for equally dubious reasons, and mainstream politicians and the media are once again going along. The American people have signed off on the conventional "wisdom". In a recent poll, 52 percent of Americans say they would support attacking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is surreal. It's as if we're back on Sept. 12 and Iraq never happened.

Joe Biden's version of history...

Glad to see we have Presidential candidates who either have no idea how the Iraq war started or are willing to lie to a bunch of fourth-graders. Nice!

Biden's History Lesson to Fourth-Graders
Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. - The words were a bit simpler but the answers none the shorter when Joe Biden, who has a reputation for being verbose, faced an audience of fourth-graders Thursday.

The Democratic presidential candidate encountered the group in the lobby of the New Hampshire statehouse on his way to filing his candidacy with he secretary of state's office.

Asked how long he had been in the Senate, the Delaware senator, who was elected in 1972, started talking about the civil rights movement of the 1960s. He then detoured into an aside about how his sister was pushed to be a nurse or teacher was he was encouraged to pursue any career he wanted despite grades worse than hers.

He also gave a detailed answer to a question adults don't often ask candidates: How did the war in Iraq start? Biden compared the war in Iraq with the invasion of Afghanistan.

Rep. John Dingell advocates Iraq withdrawal

Representative Dingell invokes the Iraq Study Group Report several times in his October 29th Opinion column wherein he calls for an unequivocal, immediate and complete retreat from Iraq. It is obvious that either he has not read that report or is being intentionally deceptive:

"A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. (Iraq Study Group Report, Page 20)."

In direct opposition to Representative Dingell's retreat plan, the Iraq Study Group foresaw a direct role for the U.S. military in Iraq in both combat and support roles. While most combat brigades would be removed from Iraq under the plan, U.S. military would remain in the country. The roles envisioned for the military would include embedding combat troops within Iraqi positions, anti-terrorist operations, and protection of American operations.

A complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will not result in the end of war in Iraq. It will only result in the temporary suspension of American action in Iraq. Without our military's presence, civil war would flare to full extent, foreign nations likely including Iran will expand military operations in the country, ethnic cleansing would occur, and genocide is a very likely result. The dishonest description of Representative Dingell's plan as either in accordance with the Iraq Study Group's report or as ending the war is reprehensible.

Let's end Bush's war before he leaves
The Detroit News

Recent news regarding the war in Iraq has made it increasingly clear that a change of strategy is desperately needed. The cost of the war is increasing at an unbearable rate, but the president has yet to announce any plan that would bring our troops home before his term ends.

As the Bush presidency enters its final year, it is increasingly likely that the difficult job of redeploying 140,000 troops from Iraq will be left to the next president. This is irresponsible. In an effort to address this issue, I recently introduced legislation that would require our troops be out of Iraq before President George W. Bush leaves office.

The president recently finalized a $196 billion spending request to fund the Iraq war for the next year. More than four years after the invasion of Iraq, it is alarming that the president requested more than half a billion per day in funding for our efforts there.

By the time President Bush leaves office, he will have spent an astounding $1 trillion in Iraq, which is more than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. Without a strategy change, these costs will continue to add up for the foreseeable future. The Congressional Budget Office this week released a report indicating costs related to the Iraq war could reach $2.4 trillion during the next decade, even if the number of troops is cut in half.

A withdrawal not in America's or Iraq's best interests

"A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

-- The Iraq Study Group

These individuals are:

James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton, Co-Chairs

Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Vernon E. Jordon, Jr., Edwin Meese III, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Charles S. Robb, Alan K. Simpson

I must have missed where thesewere members of the Bush Administration, trying to promulgate a fantasy. Former Democratic Representative Hamilton certianly would be surprised to hear that. Sou would former Pres. Clinton Attorney Vernon Jordan, former Pres. Clinton Advisor Leon Panetta, Former Democratic Cabinet Secretary William Perry, and Former Democratic Representative Charles Robb.

The paranoid withdrawal fantasy
Current Opinion - Salon

Dear Camille:

To end the Vietnam War fiasco, the U.S. did exactly what you are calling for in this Iraq fiasco: Get out now! We did get out in Nam and immediately, and nearly 3 million innocent souls were slaughtered by Pol Pot.

Question: Are you not even a bit concerned that another "killing fields" situation will occur, as will surely come to pass this time in much larger numbers?

Frank Baldino
New Haven, Conn.

[Camile P.] Withdrawing U.S. troops and equipment from Iraq will be a complicated and dangerous process that will take many months. But it should be launched on a massive scale immediately. Iraq's fate needs to be decided Iraqis, whose quarreling ancient tribes and factions have little motivation to compromise as long as the U.S. military is planted there to keep the peace. A democratic Iraq would be desirable in the best of all possible worlds, but it may be a desert mirage -- not worth the loss of thousands of American lives or the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars desperately needed for U.S. social services and infrastructure.

If there are parallels between Camldia in the 1970s and Iraq now (as President Bush asserted to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August), they simply prove the folly of current U.S. policy in the Middle East. We will never know how many horrific deaths can be traced to the ruthless dictator Pol Pot (it could have been half the number you cite), but they were not always due to "slaughter" per se. Hundreds of thousands of peasants died from starvation and untreated illness in Pol Pot's madly unrealistic plan to turn Cambodia virtually overnight into an agrarian communist utopia.

Can we question Democrat's Patriotism now?

A new Fox News Poll says, "Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq." There's really nothing much else to say about that.

FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War
Fox News

NEW YORK - Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.

The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would better off if the U.S. lost the war.

Overall, 11 percent of Americans think the world would be "better off" if the U.S. lost the war, and 72 percent agree.

Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll 900 registered voters for FOX News from Sept. 25 to Sept. 26. The poll has a 3-point margin of error.

What's reasonable and responsible about genocide?

I'd love to see Sen. Levin's plan which would have a "reasonable date of completion" for handing off duties to the Iraqi's in less than 15 months. I love that the Democrats have started using words like "reasonable" and "responsible" to refer to their unreasonable, irresponsible dates for surrender.

GOP Offers New Iraq Plan
ABC News

A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.

The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on the war. What attracts democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground.

"To try to put this off until after the election, rather than a reasonable period of completion, I believe would be to unnecessarily introduce a political element to what is a bipartisan effort," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Democratic Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

The proposal, by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would require that Bush change the misison of U.S. troops from combat to primarily support roles, such as training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. infrastructure in Iraq. His legislation would set a gol of completing such a mission transition within 15 months.

Glad to hear they know better...

"The surge is, unquestionably, what has been the catalyst that has created the opportunity to have more forces operating in more places at the same time and to deny Al-Qaeda and the extremists safe-haven and to take away sanctuaries."

- Rear Admiral Mark Fox

Why is it, again, that the Democrats think they know more about what's going on than the actual military commanders on the ground? It must be their impressive experience in the military and in foreign-policy positions. Wait, what? The three leading contenders for the Democratic nomination have never served a day in either the military or a foreign policy position? What is it that qualifies them, then, to disagree?

US military deaths in Iraq lowest in 14 months
AFP

US military losses in Iraq for September stood at 70 on Sunday, the lowest monthly figure since July last year, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures.

The figure also marks the fourth consecutive drop in the monthly death toll following a high of 121 in May. June saw 93 deaths, July 82 and August 79. The monthly toll of July 2006 was 53.

Two US soldiers were killed on Saturday in separate incidents, pushing the overall toll of American losses since the March 2003 invasion to 3,801.

A surge in US troop numbers saw an extra 28,500 personnel in deployed from mid-February, mainly in Baghdad and the neighboring province of Anbar, although commanders said most were not in combat positions until May.

They could do better?

I am so sick of the "end Iraq war" crowd. Not because they want troops out of Iraq, but because the work under the beleaguered fantasy that somehow we can end the war by removing U.S. troops from Iraq. After all, every time there's a power vacuum it immediately quells violence. Obviously, the best way to stop al Qaeda from trying to overthrow the Democratically-elected Iraqi government is by withdrawing the primary thing standing in their way. Obviously, the best way to stop Sunni and Shiite factions from slaughtering each other's civilians is to stop trying to disarm them. Obviously, the best way to stop the new-Baathists from trying to instill a military dictator is to step aside and ignore their attempts at doing so.

Just be honest. If they wanted to end the war in Iraq, they wouldn't be asking for troops to leave. They want to end the U.S.'s involvement in the war which is a dramatically different thing.

Dems could do far more to end Iraq war
The Politico

The vast majority of Democrats in Congress are powerfully clear about what they think about the war in Iraq. It is the greatest strategic blunder of a generation.

It is a lost cause. Above all, it is immoral - with more men and women dying each day for a war that many Democrats concluded years ago was a terrible mistake.

But clarity gives way to muddle when you pose a simple question to Democrats: After eight months in power on Capitol Hill, why have you not done more to end the war?

Most answers come down to some version of "There's nothing we can do."

Gotcha!

It was only a matter of time. Let's see Iran weasel out of this one...

U.S. military says it nabbed Iranian commando in Iraq
CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Coalition forces on Thursday arrested a suspected member of an elite Iranian unit that has been accused of training and equipping insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. military said.

The military said the suspect, who was not identified, is a member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force.

The U.S. military calls the force "a covert action arm of the Iranian government responsible for aiding lethal attacks against the Iraqi government and coalition forces."

The military said the Quds Force suspect was involved in bringing roadside bombs from Iran into Iraq and in training foreign terrorists in Iraq.

Quote of the Day

"As one who always thought the word "surge" was ridiculous, I find it pointless to complain that even President George W. Bush uses the term as a cover for retreat...It makes no sense to announce that the more we surge, the faster we can be out of there; everybody knows that unless the United States affirms its iron determination to stick around and to hold the ring, every faction in Iraq will start making its accommodations to a future that will be arbitrated instead by local militias and cross-border neighbors."

-- Christopher Hitchens