Jamie McIntyre gave an accurate assessment of the circumstances surrounding the good General's plight. (In my words) Iraq is a disaster, at least as far as USA goals are concerned. I think the lack of post war planning was the end of any chance of stemming what is occuring now. In other words, Bush/Cheney lost the war from the day they entered Baghdad.
The invasion went exceptionally well, with little resistance, however, when chaos broke out and anarchy became the 'status' of the day there was no turning back because there was no security in Iraq. The desert bunkers provided to be an abundance of very sophisticated weaponry that is still in play today. The new government lost it's credibility when it could not stand up to Bush when he was attacking anyone that moved. Literally, no clear plan for this war, just military tactics and fun and games. In the meantime, Cheney was able to instill his cronies and especially Halliburton to get his old stockholders off his back. That was in essence Cheney's Mission Accomplished.
Over three years there has been leadership by Holy Men securing their hamlets throughout Iraq. According to General Abuzaid there are what could be called border skirmishes between Shia and Sunni. That divides the territories/provinces and the authorities that have clout in those areas. For the USA to take a confrontation approach to Iraqis at this late stage is simply hideous. There is no way General Abuzaid or any of the troops can understand where the justice in the country lies and where it doesn't. We don't know who is attacking who and why. So to take one part or the other is counter productive. The only 'moral' role in Iraq for USA forces is to train national military and police. The actual security of the country and Baghdad has to come from them. To date we still don't know the outcome of the kidnapped from last week, an astounding show of force and loyalty in the Iraqi capital.
This type of raid is getting the USA nowhere.
U.S., Iraqis seize seven in Baghdad raid
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4352399.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. and Iraqi forces backed by helicopters swept into Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite slum in a dark-of-night raid Tuesday that netted seven militiamen, including one believed to know the whereabouts of an American soldier kidnapped nearly a month ago.
Angry Shiites denounced the raid and a lawmaker from the district stood outside the Imam Ali hospital, holding the body of a boy killed in the attack and vowing he would not return to parliament until all American forces were out of Iraq.
Police said three Iraqis, including the boy, were killed and 15 wounded. No soldiers were hurt, the military said.
The raid came just weeks after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, had taken on the role of protector of the sprawling Sadr City district by ordering the U.S. military to lift a blockade of the slum.
A child dead and a lot of angry Shi'ites who now see their government as lacking the control over their country by having raids by USA soldiers again. That is not providing a belief in the over all federalization of security forces. It will serve to undermine the authority of the 'unity government' and there will be more attacks on recruits and their training facilities where there are going to be more USA troops.
ROBERTS: And, Michael -- and, Michael, what about that report we just heard that the Pentagon is considering a plan that, in the short term, would boost the number of U.S. troops by about 20,000 to help in training up the Iraqi forces, then cut the combat presence, in favor of expanding those training efforts? Is that a viable plan there?
WARE: Well, John, I mean, it's certainly one idea.
And, I mean, it depends upon whom you talk to here on the ground among U.S. commanders as to just what kind of a force strength it would take to really do this job properly. But, by and large, the assessment is, an additional 20,000 troops is really barely enough. It will only make a dent in certain areas.
I mean, look at Ramadi alone, where there's 5,000 U.S. troops in that city. Privately, U.S. commanders say they need as up -- as many as 15,000 troops, just for that city alone -- John.
ROBERTS: All right. Michael Ware, in Baghdad, good to see you again, mate. Thanks very much.
The American Commanders are not the people that should be seeking more military personnel in any areas because it will cause carnage by these people. I would never risk that type of presence in a country that has a form of internal security that is established by the people of the particular towns. If the USA tries to take back control at this point they will all see it as a renewed war front. Training forces in Iraq is the only solution and I have to agree with Abuzaid in that it has to be done in large number and quickly to provide for a stable force that feels confident in number and mission. Short of that, there is no sense to the USA being there.
GORDON: ... perhaps six months, because the American military is limited in its size. Another would be a diplomatic opening to Iran and to Syria, as Kissinger and the Baker commission is expected to propose. That might have some benefits in perhaps reducing the amount of external interference in Iraq. But there has to be a combination of efforts that, all put together, seek to change, in a positive direction, what is really kind of a downward situation in Iraq today.
How about this? Mr. Gates is so cozy with the politics of Iran and arms in the Middle East that he will be welcome as a friend and that is why we are seeing movement toward favoring the acceptance of Syria and Iran into the dynamics of Iraq right now. Indeed, if Mr. Gates can sweeten the deal with these three countries allowing American business interests to dominate the picture then perhaps the security of the country will actually fall in line when these other sovereignties have so much on the line and they already have significant influence within Iraq.
Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras.2 Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm
Not to say anything will be uncorrupt or above board but Gates has a track record with Iran and one the Iranians will probably respect.
Charles Rangel is way out of line. Bush as Commander and Chief can't even run a competent military now and we are supposed to give him more troops. No. Perhaps it would have been better to engage in a discussion about the Postal Service.
Postal Labor Negotiations Must Not Undermine Agency
Federal TimesNov 10, 2006
At midnight on November 20, all four U.S. Postal Service labor contracts are set to expire. Don't panic. Postal workers, as federal employees, are not permitted to strike. So your advertisements, credit-card solicitations and catalogues will still be delivered.
But while unionized postal workers can't strike, they can collectively bargain for increased wages and benefits. Union leaders know full well that USPS is not a private company. It's a government agency, and Uncle Sam is not going to let the Postal Service "go under." So unions push for deals that would sink a publicly-traded firm.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1015.shtml
OR
The Modularity, The Littoral Combat Ship coveted by The Lexington Institute as the quinessential battleship.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/lcs_final.pdf
Let's get down to it, CNN, your guest speakers aren't interested in peace, they are interested in war, including it would seem Charles Rangel. So, you actually think any credible person is going to actually listen to a biased discussion about draft induction into a military engaged in an illegal war? We did that once before, it was called The Vietnam War.
ROBERTS: Congressman Rangel, thanks very much for being with us. Appreciate it.
RANGEL: Have a good Thanksgiving.
ROBERTS: You, too.
Elbow deep in good will and why not, it's only a show and that is what counts not the well being of our democracy, young people, balanced budget and generational deficit. Who said we can afford to continue this charade in Iraq, anyway?
OMAR NASIRI, AUTHOR, "INSIDE THE JIHAD":
Not a bad idea to put it in print. Now the 911 families that continue to advocate for National Security and those still involved in lawsuits have still another witness of incompetence to draw on.
Poor Kramer threatened by age and instability from people that might actually not like him and could derail any 'act' he has going for himself right now. There is a history of 'comics' that have 'gone over/lost' their edge. There is a solemn side to a career in show business of any kind, it is hard to keep laughing all the time when a hint of failure might be around the corner. I do believe Mr. Richards has an inappropriate anger with race and needs to realize 'it ain't funny.' The community leaders, especially people within the business, can bring insight to Mr. Richards and hopefully find a way to help him resolve the issues that surrounded his outburst. It was a little scary.
enough
