Most of the world has known, and accepted, that the Bush Administration “cooked the intel” with regards to Iraq and forced the United States into a war of choice that has cost far more in money and lives than we were expected to accept. In proving that they are only several years behind the curve, the U.S. Senate today issued a report that blames the Bush Administration of leading the nation into war under false pretenses.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia in written commentary on the report.

At the same time, a British newspaper is today reporting on a secret deal between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government that, if agreed to and signed, would keep the United States in Iraq indefinitely with more than 50 military bases, allow the US to conduct military campaigns against “terrorists” without Iraqi authority, keep control of Iraqi airspace, and offer immunity from Iraqi law for all Americans working in that country, whether employed by the US government directly or through one of its mercenary contractors.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Of course, immediately on the heels of the article in The Independent, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq comes out with the denials. Which is why we know that this “secret plan” as revealed is more truth than not.

“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing.

Translation: Yes, this is exactly what we’re trying to do, and if it weren’t for you darn kids and your stupid dog we’d have gotten away with it.

Iraqi politicians and Iraqi’s in general seem to be opposed to any such deal, and US officials fear that if the plan is put to a general referrendum it will fail.

Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. (msnbc.com)

Which could explain why the Iraqi government is being put under great pressure to finalize this deal in the coming months. With a signed accord in hand, Bush could not only claim (once again) Mission Accomplished, but he could tie the hands of the next president by agreeing to a long term treaty.

Or would he?

Although almost every precedent Bush has engaged in has been unsavory at best and un-American at worst, he has initiated a precedent for ignoring treaties signed by past US administrations that could be useful in this case. Clearly, following the lead set by Bush, our next President could duly bypass any Bush-signed treaties that would bind us to Iraq for several generations. We already know what McCain thinks-he’s happy to keep us embroiled in Iraq for another 100 years. But a President Obama might just decide that any Iraq treaty engineered by Team Bush and coerced through a reluctant Iraqi government isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on. He’d be right too.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq….

Bush’s plan was immediately rejected by a Democratically controlled Congress, a majority of the American public, a large contingent of world governments, former and current military commanders, most puppies and, of course, the baby Jesus. None the less, Bush stuck out his jaw and pressed forward. The surge was on, will of the people be damned.

In the 13 days that followed, Bush has made no indications that he is going to change his mind. Why should he? He is the Decider-in-Chief, after all. So, despite Congressional resolutions and pending legislation that would variously condemn, chastise, or curtail appropriations for new war outlay, Bush came forth in his State of the Union Address to reassert his administration’s plans for a broader Middle East conflict. Reiterating the themes he presented to the nation on January 10th, Bush told the assembled Congress and the American people that more troops were already being sent to Iraq…

“So we’re deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq.”

No more debate folks, they troops are on the way. Bring on the surge.

Americans have made it loud and clear to this president that they want American involvement in Iraq to come to an end. They have declared that ending the war in Iraq is at the top of their governmental “To Do” list. The president has told the American people to Shut The Fuck Up.

But the president didn’t stop with the war in Iraq in the SOTU adress. He also remembered to ratchet up the threats to Iran. In a thinly veiled attempt to deflect attention to his intentions, Bush reminded us all that his entry into Iraq was legal under a UN resolution…

“Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we’re not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations.”

And in the next breath he declared that:

“The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

Taken together with the recent build up of American naval power in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of the January 10th speech, it becomes more clear every day that Bush will expand his Middle East initiatives at the first opportunity, all the while claiming to seek a diplomatic solution. Just like before Iraq. Yet it is hard to engage in diplomacy when you refuse to speak to your adversary.

Make no mistake. The surge is on. And it may well not stop in Baghdad.

Bush has finally and very overtly changed the game of American politics. He has unilaterally declared himself unstoppable. He has thrown off the constitutional shackles imposed upon the Executive Branch repeatedly over the years, but has managed to stay out ahead by obstinance and obfuscation. But now he has done something even more bold. He has denied the will of the people he professes to serve, he has ignored the masses who he purports to hold dear. He has donned the rosiest of all rose colored glasses. He is an island unto himself. And that, my friends, is not what the American president is supposed to be.

I support a surge of elected officials demanding investigations into this administration’s covert and extralegal shenanigans.

I support a surge in politicians jumping out of the president’s sinking lifeboat of a party and climbing onboard the USS Sanity.

I support a surge in honest, hard-working Americans protesting online and in the streets against this president and his attempts to embroil this country’s future generations in unending warfare based on fabricated evidence and historical mythology.

I support a surge in scientists condemning the president’s anti-science agenda’s and bringing forth widely accepted evidence to counteract the president’s hired pseudo-scientific spin doctors.

I support a surge in religious leaders condemning the very unChristian antics of this, the Born-Again, Evangelical President.

In short, I support an overwhelming surge against this president, his policies, and his administration hacks who perpetuate this assault on American integrity and security.

I’m supporting the surge. Just not the same one Bush is supporting. On second thought, maybe it’s a purge I should be supporting.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For a while now, we’ve heard Team Bush lubricate the public with the notion that more troops in Iraq are inevitable, this despite comments from top military folks who don’t think that sending more U.S. soldiers into a civil war is such a bright idea. Now, all of a sudden, those top brass are getting their wrists measured for that golden TImex, because they are out.

(from the link)

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military’s ability to maintain in increase of that size “is simply not something that we have right now.”

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is “not necessarily opposed to the idea” of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to “help us progress to our strategic objectives.”

Shuffling in are two men who appear more inclined towards bending to the president’s foul wind. So part one of the plan is to toss out those who question and insert compliant tools.

More shuffling is happening with and old Bush family confidante, John Negroponte. His move from NID to 2nd at State is questionable, at least in terms of an “Iraq Policy” move. I’m no fan of Big John here…he has a history of being in just out in front of sectarian death squads in war torn third world countries…so don’t shed any tears at his leaving what should be an unbiased position. (A National Intelligence Director should tell a president what is real instead of fueling his boss’s fantasy filled worldviews.) This move smells more like political manuevering than anything else, tossed into the the “Iraq Plan” so as to not make waves of its own. Some are postulating that Negroponte move to State is a precursor to setting up Secretary Rice as a possible presidential candidate, the thinking going (I guess) that she could give Hillary a good run for the money. But I digress…

The President also wants to loosen the binds on descretionary funds “for reconstruction” that military commanders have control of. As if there hasn’t been enough misappropriations of funds so far. Other financial incentives Bush is pushing to convince Iraqi’s to “all just get along” include setting up a small business loan program. Perhaps that will be included in the new Balanced Budget Bush presents. (As an aside, I wonder what the budget has allotted for American small business assistance?) I guess this war just needs a little less accountability and ready cash to fix the problem.

Oh, and let’s not forget the sanest part of the plan- send in more troops! After all, if we don’t keep fighting them there (and making lots more of them by the way) they’ll be clammoring to our shores and attacking us here. Despite the fact that Bush told you he’s beefed up security around the borders and spending all that money on all that ‘security stuff.’ Funny, if we’re so much safer now, how could they even get here to fight us here? Kind of a paradox if you think about it. Oops…forgot…no thinking in the War Room.

Of course, all of this, though widely reported, is still speculative to a degree. And what the new Democratic Congress can do about any of it is still up in the air.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a grand new plan for ‘success’ folks. It’s just another shell game.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For over 200 years, Americans from all walks of life have answered their country’s call to arms during times of war. They have sacrificed their security, their future, and their lives to defend this country and our way of life. They march, sail, and fly into battle at the behest of our leaders with a single thought: protect American freedom and lives. They endure hardships and experience horrors most of us can never really comprehend, and they do it without thinking twice. America has been engaged in many wars over the course of our history, some of them righteous, others less so. But no matter the reason for conflict, when the military is ordered into action they go. It is this unwavering devotion to duty that makes our military among the finest in the world.

As we remember those who have fallen and those who are still fighting on this Veteran’s Day, we must try to separate the conflict from the men and women who go off to fight it. We must remember that these people did not create the wars they are sent to fight. They do not decide what weapons to use, what enemy to target, what building to destroy. They operate on orders from our civilian leaders, funneled through the military command. They just do what they are told to the best of their ability. They do it because they have to. They do it out of honor. They do it for us.

We must always remember that regardless of how we may feel about a particular conflict, we can never allow our feelings about war to denigrate those who would stand and fight for us. In the 1960’s and 70’s, American soldiers were demonized by average citizens because of widespread discontent with the war in Vietnam. No matter how wrong American policy may have been at that time, it was not the soldiers who deserved condemnation.

The war in Iraq has been drawing comparisons to the Vietnam conflict almost since it began three years ago. Some of those comparisons may be dead on, others a bit off the mark. But if average Americans learned anything in the years following Vietnam it was that our soldiers are not our enemy. There will always be atrocities in war and there will always be people in and out of uniform who betray the cause by acting in ways that bring shame to themselves and to our military. Prime examples of this include the horror of My Lai and the despicable actions at Abu Ghraib. But we must strive to remember that as a whole, our men and women in uniform work hard to live up to the high expectations we have of them. Americans no longer blame the military en masse for the acts of a few bad apples. We know that those who would fight for us deserve better than to be painted with such a wide brush.

On this Veteran’s Day, I hope that you will take a moment to honor those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honor those who have fallen in the wars of yesterday. If you have a veteran in your family, offer them thanks. If you see a veteran on the street, shake their hand, buy them a cup of coffee, throw a few dollars in their tin cup. Take time today to remember the service they have given in your name and the sacrifice they have made for all of us.

Fighting the battles of war is the job of the military. Fighting the politics of war is our duty. Tomorrow will bring another day of fighting and death abroad. Tomorrow will give another chance to confront the political machinations that have brought this war upon us. But for just one day, today, let’s forget about the politics of war and remember the warriors.

(cross posted at Bring It On! and Blogtemps)

Seems like fighting the War Against the Evildoers and keeping the lights on at our Army posts at the same time is just too much to ask for. Oh well, just another sacrifice that our soldiers and their families will have to make while the rest of us keep shopping to defy the terrorists.

“A diversion of dollars to help fight the war in Iraq has helped create a $530 million shortfall for Army posts at home and abroad, leaving some unable to pay utility bills or even cut the grass.”

So basically, we have enough money for Halliburton to swindle in Iraq but not enough to pay the electric bill on our Army bases. Enough to give tax breaks to those poor, struggling oil giants but not enough to make sure that our Army bases have medical supplies or government communications like pagers or cell phones. Plenty in the coffers to fund proactive wars off the books, but not enough to pay the trash bill. Seems we even have enough money to give some more tax breaks to the rich, but at Fort Sam Houston (in our Dear Leader’s beloved TEXAS, no less) they might not be able to buy food for the horses that carry soldiers’ caskets to their graves.

In addition to not being able to pay the bills for utilities, U.S. Army installations worldwide are having to lay-off civilian contractors and close base services that those people staffed. Hmmm….what was that again about the blossoming economy and our growing ‘ownership society?’

Thank you again President Bush for all you do for our fighting men, women, and their families. Thank you Congress for all your support too, by giving all that he asks for and then some. We’ll just add this to the growing list of ways you’re Supporting The Troops. (Right next to sending them into a poorly planned battlefield, not giving them enough good armor, cutting funds to the Veteren’s Administration, cutting services that military families depend on like food stamps and student loans, or even constantly redeploying them into Iraq)

Gee, with leadership like this looking out for you, who needs radical religious enemies?

New and Improved?

Ever since I was a kid, I have enjoyed the clear, refreshing taste of 7-Up soda. So I was surprised to find out that The Uncola that had always been Crisp, Clean, With No Caffeine, was making a change. The recently unveiled 7-Up is now 100% Natural, giving soft-drink sippers “more crisp, refreshing taste.” Clearly, the soft drink geniuses have given us someting New and Improved to make life better than ever before.

But a cursory look at the fine print on the can’s ingredients label shows that where the old version had just citric acid, the new version has natural citric acid. Where there was once sodium citrate you can now find natural potassium citrate. And lo and behold, that old calcium disodium flavor protecter in the old stuff has been taken out completely. Seems to me that this New and Improved 7-Up isn’t really all that new or improved. And to tell the truth, I can’t taste a single difference in the two.

The analogy, of course, is coming.

As I though about the slick marketing campaign that 7-Up was plying on the public, I couldn’t help but think about our American partisan politics, especially during election times. We consumers, the voting public, are presented with any number of New and Improved candidates who promise to make our lives More Crisp and Refreshing, so to speak. But time and time again, we ignore the fine print and only belatedly (if at all) realize that we’ve just bought the same old thing again. Maybe when it comes to soft drinks, that’s not such a big deal. But when your country is going to hell in a hand bag, you can’t afford to forget to read the fine print.

Our ‘leaders’ are hoping that we’ll do just that, and that is why they trot out mostly irrelevant issues for us to sink our teeth into while they go about the business of bankrupting (both morally and financially) our country.

Sometimes staying the course is stupid.
This November, change the course.

(Cross posted at Bring It On!)

In case you aren’t familiar with the practices of these ‘legitimate businesses’ let me fill you in on some of their favorite schemes, courtesy of this study from the University of Florida:

“Charges for payday loans vary, but a typical lender will charge around $17 or $18 for a two-week loan of $100. That’s roughly equivalent to an annual interest rate of 450 percent.”

and

“After collecting data from more than 13,000 ZIP codes across the country, the study’s authors found payday loan operations clustered in areas near military bases.”

And another from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“Their business is geared toward confusing people and trapping them in this treadmill and squeezing every dollar that they can out of them,” said Robert Pregulman, executive director of WashPIRG, a consumer protection group in the state. “The whole premise behind the industry is to target a certain group of people and take advantage of them.”

Let’s look at some truths here: in our current era of unending pre-emptive war and the massive call-up of National Guard and military reservists to act as cannon fodder, the number of active military families is increasing. At the same time, Congress, filled with ‘we love the troops’ Republicans, have been cutting benefits for the troops while increasing their deployments. For many reservists and guardsmen, this amounts to leaving a civilian job for full time military service with lower pay. Lower pay coming in makes it harder for families to pay the bills. Creditors come calling, credit ratings plummet, and the option of getting regular credit terms evaporates. In comes the payday loan, with all of its associated pitfalls and trapdoors waiting for a financially unsavvy customer to come walking through the door.

Here’s the rub though. The UCMJ (those rules that govern military conduct) takes a dim view of soldiers who can’t repay their debts. Penalties include docked paychecks, loss of rank or security clearance, and possibly time in the brig. As more military members turn to quick loans to make it to the next payday, they become more vulnerable to these consequences, especially as fees and interest rates stack up. This loss of manpower can be the difference between having a ready force or having one half-staffed or under trained. And we’ve all seen the consequences of not having good intelligence, enough troop strength, or poor training. It’s called the aftermath of Iraqi Freedom. By targeting military families, these businesses directly affect the security of our nation. They must be helping the terrorists then, right?

But it’s not just the terrorists who use suicide bombing as their main military tactic who are being aided and abetted by these payday loan companies. It is also local, home grown terrorists (read politicians who permit these predators to continue using these tactics) who benefit through donations from the payday loan industry. And as one lawmaker admits, the rise of these lending houses were made possible by lawmakers across the nation.

“We made it a much more profitable industry,” said Rep. Shay Schual-Burke, D-Normandy Park, referring to legislative action in 2003 that raised the maximum payday loan by $200 to $700. “We actually authorized these predators. I’m not too proud to say that we made a mistake.”

The answer to the problem goes beyond just regulating this ‘industry’ though. At the heart of the matter are two very key issues: education, and congressional responsibility.

Education, real education about personal finances, budgeting, and spending habits need to be addressed in high school or even junior high school if citizens (military and civilian alike) are ever going to break the cycle of debt. We need to teach people that a responsible personal budget can go a long way towards achieving a more satisfying life. And regardless of income level, knowing how to budget what you earn and owe is a skill all should have.

Congressional Responsibility, taking the form of laws against obscene interest rates, caps on maximum short-term loan amounts, fuller disclosure, and limiting the number of short-term loans a person can get would be a start. But for military families, the bigger solution lies in fully funding military benefits, raising military pay at the lower ends of the pay scale, and creating and funding programs for the families of active duty personnel.

Defenders of payday loans need not come crying to me about how these companies are just providing a service, and if you’re dumb enough to use them you get what you deserve. They may be providing a service, but so does the mob, and I’ve yet to see a politician stand up in praise of mob practices. And to call someone who is strapped for cash dumb does not address the issue at all. In many cases, the only dumb thing they did was take a job in the military during a time of war with a Congress and White House more concerned with corporate profits than the men and women who are keeping those profits afloat with blood and bullets.

I don’t know what we can do about this, other than pressure lawmakers to rein in these companies. But somehow I don’t think this is high on their radar screen at the moment. They all seem too busy battling each other over gay marriage, abortion rights, and other hot button non-issues. That, and racing to be the next politician indicted for corruption.

Just a little something to think about as we enter the Memorial Day Weekend.

(Cross posted at Bring It On)

As we remember those who have fallen and those who are still fighting on this Veteran’s Day, we must try to separate the conflict from the men and women who go off to fight it. We must remember that these people did not create the wars they are sent to fight. They do not decide what weapons to use, what enemy to target, what building to destroy. They operate on orders from our civilian leaders, funneled through the military command. They just do what they are told to the best of their ability. They do it because they have to. They do it out of honor. They do it for us.

We must always remember that regardless of how we may feel about a particular conflict, we can never allow our feelings about war to denigrate those who would stand and fight for us. In the 1960’s and 70’s, American soldiers were demonized by average citizens because of widespread discontent with the war in Vietnam. No matter how wrong American policy may have been at that time, it was not the soldiers who deserved condemnation.

The war in Iraq has been drawing comparisons to the Vietnam conflict almost since it began two years ago. Some of those comparisons may be dead on, others a bit off the mark. But if average Americans learned anything in the years following Vietnam it was that our soldiers are not our enemy. There will always be atrocities in war and there will always be people in and out of uniform who betray the cause by acting in ways that bring shame to themselves and to our military. Prime examples of this include the horror of My Lai and the despicable actions at Abu Ghraib. But we must strive to remember that as a whole, our men and women in uniform work hard to live up to the high expectations we have of them. Americans no longer blame the military en masse for the acts of a few bad apples. We know that those who would fight for us deserve better than to be painted with such a wide brush.

On this Veteran’s Day, I hope that you will take a moment to honor those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honor those who have fallen in the wars of yesterday. If you have a veteran in your family, offer them thanks. If you see a veteran on the street, shake their hand, buy them a cup of coffee, throw a few dollars in their tin cup. Take time today to remember the service they have given in your name and the sacrifice they have made for all of us.

Fighting the battles of war is the job of the military. Fighting the politics of war is our duty. Tomorrow will bring another day of fighting and death abroad. Tomorrow will give another chance to confront the political machinations that have brought this war upon us. But for just one day, today, let’s forget about the politics of war and remember the warriors.

To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve. Without honestly enunciated goals, how can we be sure we are making progress? If we look at the situation on the ground, the results of the war could lead us to believe that our goals were (a) to destroy infrastructure and create profitable rebuilding contracts for American multi-national corporations; (b) to establish a pro-western government; (c) to renew access to oil reserves; (d) to distract the American public from the fact that their own freedoms were being abridged as their government sought to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and their benefactors.
If these were the goals, then success is still only partially won. We have shoveled tons of tax dollars into multi-nationals like Halliburton, and we have been distracted from all sorts of domestic trickery. But we certainly don’t have better access to oil, at least not in any way that affects the consumer. And the new Iraqi Constitution is hardly a document that embraces the West. But I don’t remember hearing any of this used as rationale for war. I do remember talk of imminent danger from WMD’s. I recall claims of collaboration with the terrorists who actually did attack America on multiple occasions. I even think I heard “spreading democracy” as a justification for war, an opportunity to help release an oppressed people from the iron grip of a dictator. So how are we doing there? Well, still no real evidence of WMD’s, no solid ties between the government of Saddam and al-Qaeda, and not quite the democracy we’d hoped for. Democracy based in Islamic law? That will be interesting to see.

If there were ever any noble purpose attached to this war, it would be that we went to remove a sadistic dictator from power in the hopes of freeing a pleading people and giving them a chance at self-determination. Even if our objectives for starting this war were far darker than this, even if our government lied and stole from us to get and fund their war, the only acceptable way to end the conflict is to give the people of Iraq a chance to live safely amongst themselves and their neighbors, with a government of their making, and a relationship with other nations, including America, that is mutually beneficial to the people of those countries and not just their leadership.

We need our government to stand up and tell the people of Iraq, “ We were wrong to bring the war to your doorstep, but we hated Saddam as much as you did and found a convenient time to take him out. We thought we were being helpful. We now realize that sometimes our helpfulness is a bit overdone, so we’ll try to make some amends. We really do want to get to your oil too, but it’s your oil and we’re going to have to do this the fair way, through trade agreements. We hoped you’d take to our system of governing, at least the system we like to talk about, but if you want an Islamic government, so be it. We’ll have to figure out how to peacefully coexist. And we’d really like to be able to help you out with your security problem so that your people can have normal lives again, but you need to really step up to the plate and take the lead. Our folks are getting anxious back home. They don’t want us here any more than you seem to. So here’s our plan and we think it will help end this conflict.”

Step one is the rotation of all National Guard troops back to the United States and to release them from active duty status. The National Guard was designed to protect the homeland and assist in times of disaster or unrest. Their absence from home was all too evident in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Furthermore, these citizen-soldiers occupy an important place in our communities in their jobs as teachers and firemen and nurses and restaurant chefs and every other walk of life. They are not trained to be full time warriors, and their lack of comprehensive training results in higher numbers of casualties on all sides of the conflict. Without significantly reducing the numbers initially, Guard troops can be replaced with active duty personnel at a slowly diminishing rate. The impact of this move would be to assure American citizens that the pull out has begun. It would also serve to let Iraqi’s know that they would soon be responsible for their own security, but would be trained and assisted by professional soldiers who could be expected to adhere to the highest standards.

Step two is to establish a firm time line of no more than one year for the final withdrawal of American battle forces. The administration and its hawks have rejected this idea out of hand, saying that the terrorists and insurgents would simply bide their time until we left to unleash full terror on the Iraqi public. In reality, they may do that, but in the meantime, it could also reduce the number of senseless deaths that occur in the continuing daily warfare as insurgents continue the fight with American troops, killing many more civilians than they do soldiers. In that time span, we would need to stress the importance to Iraqi’s that the security of their country would soon be in their hands, and that responsibility for putting down the violence would soon be theirs too. We should be willing to provide logistical, material, and human support if they continue to request it, but only in a support role once our official withdrawal has occurred. Our withdrawal should be total, except for those requested as support.

Step three is to officially recognize whatever form of government the general public of Iraq elects to install without trying to mold it into an American clone. If that government develops and appears to include provisions which support oppression of certain citizens because of religion or gender, we should insist on a period of expatriation for those citizens who choose not to live under such a government, and provide them with opportunities to relocate to a country of their choosing. If a majority of Iraqi citizens then elect to subject themselves to strict religious doctrine, who are we to say they can’t? If we don’t like it that much, we can always politely refuse to do business with them.

Step four would be to remove all American corporations from Iraq and turn over the reconstruction to the Iraqi people. While accepting the blame for the massive destruction, we will still need to continue to pay a large percentage of the costs for this, but the money is already being funneled to our greedy corporations. We could probably rebuild the place for a fraction of the cost if locals were doing the work. Their investment in time and materials would also prove to be an incentive for them to combat the destructive insurgents in their midst. Such cooperation would reinforce the notion that the future of Iraq lay in the hands of Iraqi people, not just a bunch of greedy capitalist conquerors. Further, this would save untold billions of taxpayer dollars that should be returned to domestic issues for the American people.

Step five would be to return to the actual business of hunting down terrorists instead of wrecking societies at random, which coincidentally, is what the terrorists do. We should lead the way in the formation of an international anti-terrorist force that is comprised of troops and resources from all nations that support the fight against radical religious terror. The war on terror, though greater in scope than other violent acts, is still primarily a task of hunting down small groups and removing them much as a doctor excises a tumor. In the rare case where another government actively harbors and supports terrorist activities, this force could be increased in size and scope to marginalize and isolate that country until the threat was removed. Such a force could only be successful if a consistent definition of terrorist is agreed upon, say one that focuses on the actions rather than the ideology behind them. For starters, any act that targets a large group of civilians for no reason other than to make a political point would be an obvious act to include in that definition.

This plan is by no means perfect, but it has the effect of ending this war in Iraq while providing Iraqi’s with the responsibility to reshape their own country in their own way. It offers a way for America to regain her integrity among the world’s nations by ending an increasingly ugly situation and returning to a stance of multilateral cooperation. It would not be tantamount to surrender in any sense of the word. Indeed, ending the war in Iraq is essential if we are ever to truly confront the radical terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. It frees up our resources to narrow the battle to those areas and people who want to fight while leaving out those who would be caught in the middle. It reduces the financial strain on the American economy, a measure that would greatly be appreciated here at home, but around the world as well. It is even likely that by giving Iraqi’s the responsibility for themselves, with a little help if they want it, we may actually gain a true ally, albeit one with a decidedly different world view, but an ally all the same.

It’s time for the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to really mean something.

Most people view war with disdain. The average human being does not relish the thought of armed conflict or widespread destruction for the simple reason that they do not want to be killed, nor do they want to see their families, friends, and neighbors killed either. Conversely, most people do not long to be killers, especially not to advance a cause that in itself furthers the aims of a corrupt government. The number of armed conflicts, seemingly teeming with faithful warriors, may seem to invalidate the idea of man as peaceful, but the truth could possibly be different than the picture that is presented by a world at war.

To defend the concept of armed conflict is to accept the notion that humanity is incapable of solving its differences through compromise and honesty. Indeed, there are times when rational discussion cannot occur, simply because the intransigence of one or more of the arguing parties forbids them from even coming to the bargaining table. Sometimes this reluctance is based on humanitarian principals, such as the Allies refusal to accept anything less than unconditional surrender from the Axis powers at the conclusion of WWII. Sometimes religion is the catalyst for fighting to the last man, such as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and their quest to eradicate “infidels” from traditional sacred lands. Whatever the reason, the failure to avoid armed conflict always marks the beginning of dark times for all parties involved. At best, the only defense for armed conflict between nations is that of the nation (or by treaty, another nation or group of nations who are sworn to each others mutual defense) who is defending herself from the aggression of another, that aggression itself being of a military nature. So while it takes two to argue, the real blame for armed conflict lies with the one who strikes first.

It is easy to justify to a general public the validity of fighting an enemy who has attacked you first. Not only is the average person angered by an offensive assault on their country and countrymen, they are often eager to exact retribution to those who attacked them. What is less easy to do is justify an armed conflict that began not as defensive actions, but rather as an offensive or preventive action. To satisfy a reticent public about the need to fight, government must paint a picture that illustrates the cause of the tensions between nations as well as providing details of the efforts taken to mitigate the problems. They must then establish that the conflict is one of national importance, with our very way of life at stake in the outcome. They must demonstrate that the government has bent over backwards to reach some kind of equitable solution, and that the only way to protect ourselves now is through a first strike military action. And then they must back up their claims with irrefutable evidence of their veracity.

Unfortunately, the information government’s offer for war justification (other than clear cut defensive reasons) is anything but clear and reasoned and often inconsistent with other governmental claims or policies. Shifting reasoning for military action is a sure sign that something is amiss, for if the fight is indeed a just and right cause, there should never be a change in the rationale for the war. Any change in rationale belies the fact that either the public was not told the truth initially, or that the real reasons for the war are in no way acceptable to the public. People may be willing to die for their freedom. They may be willing to die for someone else’s right to freedom. But how many are willing to die over a political sleight, or to enrich multinational corporations who always maximize their profits during wartime? How many are willing to die for half-truths or outright lies?

The onus of telling the truth is on the government, but to get honest information, we first need leaders with integrity and who trust the American people to support whatever action is needed. The burden of making sure the public learns the truth lies with the media. They exist for one thing, and despite their insistence that they are just here to make a profit, media has a responsibility to find the truth and share the truth with the public. Sadly, the ability to separate truth from propaganda has become difficult at best.

If defending war with another nation is an arduous task, justifying a war against an ideology is even more difficult to do, especially without reverting to baseless racial or religious claims as moral authority for conflict. The fact that an army of ideologues could be scattered around the world is itself an impediment to warfare as usual, meaning a near infinite front, a constantly shifting battlefield, and a continually targeted civilian population. Ideological warfare tends to create an arena where surrender is impossible, simply because to do so would be to admit that ones beliefs were less viable than another cultures beliefs. But success is often impossible too, for the exact same reason.

Clearly, there are a few valid reasons for engaging in military conflict, among them the defense of ones own national lands, resources, and people from an armed invasion force; as part of a coalition of national militaries mutually bound to defend another under attack or invasion for no cause; or, in a limited attempt to quell genocidal conflicts and restore civil order. Outside of these reasons, precipitous armed actions should be avoided at all times. The cost of committing ones troops to armed conflict is too high to pay.

The War on Terror began with some semblance of clarity, at least among the general public. We had a good idea who attacked us, where they were, and we went after them. With near unanimous support among the citizenry and around the world, our act of war in Afghanistan was as justified as war ever can be. Sadly, this conflict came at a time when the leadership in place had not the temerity to finish the initial task and end the conflict. Instead, the current crop of political leaders chose to deflect the momentum and turn their sights towards another foe, one that was despicable, but at best only tangentially connected with the other, ongoing war. Iraq presented a diplomatic problem, a humanitarian problem, and a political problem that threatened the reputation of the mighty U.S. of A. For reasons best described as greed, revenge, and control of resources, Iraq was portrayed as a player in the attack on the U.S. They were portrayed as an imminent military threat, not only eager but capable of sending heinous weapons to our shores. We now know that these rationales are false, were false, and will always be false. That Iraq was in need of a new form of government, for the benefit of its citizens and its neighbors, is of no real dispute. Tyrannies are never acceptable to those who love freedom and long for peace. But just as war in Afghanistan was fought for a declared purpose, and almost achieved its stated goal before ramping down efforts, the war in Iraq is just the opposite. The goal is ever changing, the reasons ever morphing, the evidence increasingly underwhelming and even fabricated. The truth is starting to show through, and the reasons offered aren’t holding up so well anymore.

Fighting a foe that subscribes to a fanatical worldview is indeed a life and death struggle, especially when those doing the killing are elusive, eager, and relentless. It requires a level of honest assessment when developing a plan of action and a clear enunciation of what the aims are, what the measure of success will be, and how the conflict will end if your side is the victor. It requires a leadership that is more concerned with ending the menace of terrorism and extremism than it is with lining the pockets of favored national corporations. It requires a stronger vision than that of the religious ideologues who fight against us, a vision that comes not from an opposing version of God but rather from a human wisdom of compromise or disengagement. And it requires an acknowledgment that the act of war is itself a horrible thing, not an end in itself, not even a means to an end, just a continuation of humanity’s inability to live with itself in peace.

In government, there is also a chain of command structure, with new politicians falling in behind their more senior legislators. But unlike the private sector, where one person usually has the final say in matters, in government, when a problem reaches the top of the chain of command without getting solved, there is a final arbiter in the people themselves, who have the power to change their leadership with a vote, and as such, the power to fix the problem. If those at the top of the political ladder fail to keep faith and fortune flowing to those at the bottom of the ladder, they lose their jobs and have to go back to running private companies into the ground.

The military has a chain of command too, but for them, the top of the ladder does not end with the highest-ranking general. For many matters military, the final authority rests with the politicians. Whereas a business leader can decide where to invest his resources, a military leader has no such option. And whereas an employee may take her employer to task for wasting her time or talents, there is no such recourse for the military. Decisions regarding everything from wages to deployments to post-service benefits rest in the hands of elected officials, leaving the military at the whim of those sitting in the chairs of power. Sometimes, the leaders are wise, just, deliberative, and fair when setting policy for the military. Other times, they are arrogant, unrealistic, uncaring, or just plain out of touch. In the civilian world, if our bosses or leaders are no good, we find a new job or join a new club. In the military world, one just grins and bears it. And hopes not to get too screwed over in the process.

The chain of command concept is only as effective as those at the top of the ladder. At some point, those sitting at rungs below the top must get the impression that those above them are making good, informed decisions or else they will want to leave that particular ladder. For the military, effective leadership boils down to a few basic things: being properly outfitted and prepared; having a solid objective, strategy, and exit plan; and following through on certain promises like health benefits, education assistance, and home loan programs. Yet failure of the civilian leadership to provide these things to our military is rarely met with criticism from those directly affected. Instead, the military’s strict adherence to the chain of command precludes members of the military from bringing these issues up with anyone but their contemporaries and immediate superiors. In such a tightly controlled chain of command, it takes longer for problems to be recognized and it becomes easier to pull a fast one on the troops.

Sadly, our military today is faced with an administration and Congress that is not only inept, but two-faced as well. It can’t help that so many of those in elected office have never served in a military unit. They have never seen the reality of war that is the result of their proclamations and policies. They have never been shot at or wounded on the battlefield, nor have they been to a veteran’s hospital for post conflict treatment. In fact, so many of our politicians come from a privileged background themselves, they have no idea what sacrifice even means. They sit perched in the halls of power making deals to decrease veteran’s benefits while declaring support for the fighting forces of this country. They make statements about standing behind the mission of the troops without ever defining what that mission is. They send soldiers into battle, but neglect to properly arm them. Instead of solving problems, politicians create them for the troops, and as the stink rolls downhill to the grunts in the field, the chain of command loses meaning, and the troops lose their sense of purpose and hope.

And though America may still have the most technologically advanced military in the modern world, the effects of our politicians and their policies are taking a toll on the military’s ability to attract and retain good soldiers and officers. The United States government, through its people, recognizes the sacrifice that soldiers make for our country, especially in times of war. As such, we make a pact with our fighting men and women that we will take care of them when they have come home from the fight. We promise medical care, educational assistance, loans to buy homes or start businesses, and assistance in transitioning from the military world to the civilian world with job placement programs. Imagine then how a returning serviceman feels when he applies to a community college in his home state, only to be denied resident tuition because he spent the last year deployed. Imagine how a returning veteran of war feels when he hears that the veteran’s hospital that used to be only an hour away has been closed due to budget cuts and that he now has to travel 4 hours for his treatments, treatments made necessary because of injuries earned in battle for his country. Imagine the aging veteran who lives on the street, without a job or a hope in the world, after having spent his youth in a foreign land fighting a political war with no real plan or purpose. You don’t have to imagine very hard to see these things. They are real, and they are happening.

It’s time to put an end to the empty lip service paid by our politicians to our service men and women. It’s time to fix the broken chain. Our politicians need to be held responsible for making rational decisions regarding our military. No longer should politicians be able to send soldiers into battle without the proper gear for protection and offensive actions. To do so should be an act of treason, for it is no different than sending a toddler into a tiger den. No longer should troops be committed to any action unless an honest and verifiable rationale is enunciated and a cohesive plan is in place, a plan that enunciates a specific mission, a definition for success of that mission, and a realistic method for withdrawal that places control of the war zone back into the hands of the natural citizenry as soon as possible. To send troops into battle without such a plan or purpose should be grounds for impeachment. No longer should resolutions be passed that profess support for the soldiers while legislation passes that decimates the funding for veteran’s affairs. All funding for veteran’s benefits should be legally secure before new military adventures are undertaken. And its time to turn out from office those hypocrites who pretend to love the military, when in fact their only love is the turmoil caused by war and the profits it reaps for their benefactor corporations.

In the chain of command structure, we may not have that much power in our jobs or in our churches. But when it comes to our government, we ARE the chain of command. And it is our duty, to all of those who put their lives on the line through their military service, to make sure that their sacrifice is not wasted, forgotten, or swept away.