Thursday Thirteen

My TT13 post begins a little further down the page but first please read this story:

Yesterday I visited Fort Totten with my friend who was renewing her military ID. As we were leaving headquarters we overheard voices:

"When are you leaving?"

"48 hours."

I saw the soldier who had answered and I called out "I hope you're leaving for home and not...?" but he shook his head slowly. He's going to Iraq. The men and women on this base are reservists and I was under the impression that they weren't being sent overseas.

My friend and I went over to the young man (very young-looking, African American) and he said "I just found out last night. I have two little girls." His face was sad and pained. He said his name was Michael.

It was then that I grabbed him and hugged him and said in his ear "Michael, don't worry, you'll be back, I know you will." He told me this was his second tour. "How long are you going for this time," I asked and he said about a year. I wanted to shake his hand but my hands were wet from wiping my tears. I saw that I was beginning to upset him. "Michael you're going to be fine." I said as I backed away and he got into a van.

Our most excellent young men facing such danger in war. And while I would never say this to Michael, facing danger for an unneccessary war, a war that we should have never gotten into. ~theteach

So for Thursday Thirteen I post 13+1 anti-war quotes:

Military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy...
~Abraham Lincoln

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
~Abraham Lincoln

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

~Albert Einstein

In war, truth is the first casualty.
~Aeschylus

One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one.

~Agatha Christie

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
~Albert Camus

When a war breaks out, people say: "It's too stupid, it can't last long." But though a war may be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting.
~Albert Camus

Never has there been a good war or a bad peace.
~Benjamin Franklin

War is as much a punishment to the punisher as it is to the sufferer.
~Thomas Jefferson



Who can sum up all the ills the women of a nation suffer from war? They have all of the misery and none of the glory; nothing to mitigate their weary waiting and watching for the loved ones who return no more."
~Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More

The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure.
~Lyndon B Johnson

Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
~Albert Einstein



It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
~Albert Einstein

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Anti-war quotes
More anti-war quotes


Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!

The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others' comments. It’s easy, and fun! Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!

View More Thursday Thirteen Participants

theteach

Bush Administration and pre-war intelligence

~SCROLL DOWN FOR RUBY TUESDAY~

Via The Huffington Post:

The Big Story You May Have Missed During the Obama v. Clinton Finale

AFP/Jewel Samad

Arianna Huffington: The Senate Intelligence Committee's 200-page "Phase II" report on how the White House used -- and abused -- pre-war intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq is a stinging rebuke. The report doesn't use the word, but we all know what it's called when someone presents something as fact that's directly contradicted by the evidence. A lie. Not a mistake. A lie. Click here to read more.

theteach

Marines want out of Iraq

Marines Press to Remove their Forces From Iraq

By THOM SHANKER

Published: October 11, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.

The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.

The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.

______________________________________________________________

So out of Iraq into Afghanistan...out of the frying pan into the fire.

theteach

Bush plays loose with the facts...

Via FactCheck.org:

Operation Iraqi Gloss-Over

September 14, 2007

The president cites shaky facts as he makes a case for keeping high levels of troops in Iraq.

Summary

President Bush played loose with the facts in his address to the nation Thursday night as he tried to convince the American public that the surge in U.S. troops in Iraq has made the country more stable.

• He said "36 nations ... have troops on the ground in Iraq." In fact, his own State Department puts the number at 25.
• He said “ordinary life” was returning to Baghdad. Perhaps. In fact, news reports describe the city as starkly segregated with Shiites and Sunnis living in separate neighborhoods, which are walled off from one another with huge concrete barricades.
• He said Baqubah in Diyala province was "cleared." But the Washington Post quotes a State Department official as saying the security situation there was not stable.
  
• He said that “the Iraqi Army is becoming more capable,” which may be true. But the Iraqi defense minister says it’ll be 2012 before the army will be even 60 percent capable of protecting the nation from external threats.
  

Analysis

The president argued that the pumped-up level of U.S. forces has been a success and things are improving in Iraq. At times he overreached.

Read more

Bush's speech on Iraq

Via BBC:

US President George W Bush is expected to back a limited withdrawal of troops in an address on his Iraq war strategy.

The gradual pull-out would take troop numbers back to their level before Mr Bush ordered a build-up this year. The Democrats say more must be withdrawn.

Mr Bush's televised speech is expected to follow the advice of US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, who gave a progress report to Congress this week.

In his primetime televised address Mr Bush was expected to announce that he plans to reduce US troops by roughly 30,000 by next summer, if certain conditions are met.

At a White House briefing ahead of the speech, senior officials said the aim is to reduce the US force from 20 combat brigades to 15 by the middle of next year.

Senior Democrats have said the proposed reductions in US troop numbers are "insufficient" and do not represent a change in course.

Top Democrats say they will try to pass new legislation on Iraq

Senator Jack Reed is expected to give the party's response shortly after Mr Bush's address.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has accused the president of effectively signing-off on an "open-ended" commitment that could keep US troops in Iraq for 10 years.

Read more.

theteach

What Petraeus really means...

Via reasononline:

Be Angry—but Patient

President Bush's "surge" isn't solving Iraq's political problem. But what's the Democrats' hurry to end it?

Jonathan Rauch | September 10, 2007

Pity Gen. David Petraeus, the military commander in Iraq. Before Memorial Day, his September progress report from Baghdad was expected to be a turning point in the Iraq war. By Labor Day, it looked like most of the other turning points in this strange war: one where nothing turned.

Partisans worked through the summer to show that nothing as trivial as the field commander's assessment would influence their views. In July, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean announced, "We do not need to wait until September" to know that President Bush's "surge" strategy had failed. In August, Bush's allies shot back that the strategy was plainly succeeding.

People who knew better than to listen to partisans paid more attention to a raft of August progress reports: a partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate; a leaked draft report [PDF] from the Government Accountability Office; early accounts of a congressionally commissioned study of Iraqi security forces; and reports from members of Congress and think-tank experts who traveled to Iraq.

The assessments disagreed on some details, such as how much Iraq's security forces are improving, if at all. Taken together, however, they painted a coherent picture, which Petraeus's report seemed unlikely to change.

• Tactically, which is to say militarily, the troop surge is making headway. Partly thanks to Sunni tribes joining with U.S. forces against Al Qaeda, and partly because the Pentagon is devoting more resources to a better plan of attack, security has improved in Iraq's contested central regions. But:

• Iraq is still a dangerous and volatile place, far from stable. Sectarian militias, foreign terrorists, and domestic insurgents remain potent; violence remains unacceptably high. And:

• Strategically, which is to say politically, the surge is working much less well. As the National Intelligence Estimate summarized, "Broadly accepted political compromises required for sustained security, long-term political progress, and economic development are unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments."

• Absent a political settlement, Iraq's government and security forces are too incompetent, sectarian, and corrupt to stabilize the country without continued large-scale U.S. intervention.

• The troop surge is not sustainable much beyond next spring unless combat tours are extended, which would strain the Army to or near the breaking point. Pre-surge forces could be maintained a while longer but not indefinitely.

In sum: The surge has temporarily stabilized what had become a downward spiral and, by doing so, has bought some time. But not much time, and the Iraqis have done little with it.

Petraeus yesterday recommended pulling out about 30,000 troops by next summer and 1000-2000 Marines this month.

Read more.

theteach

Petraeus on the surge

Via BBC:

US surge plan in Iraq 'working'

The military objectives of the US troop surge in Iraq "are largely being met", the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said.

He told a Congressional panel that although improvements were "uneven", violence had declined significantly since the surge began in February.

In his testimony before the joint hearing by the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, Gen Petraeus said:

• "security incidents", including sectarian violence, had declined since the start of the surge
• he envisioned the withdrawal of some 30,000 US troops by the middle of 2008, beginning with 2,000 marines this September
• he expected a decision on further troop cuts next March

• the situation in Iraq remained "difficult"

__________________________________________________________________________________
An Iraqi poll reported by the BBC suggests about 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months.

theteach
_________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE September 11, 2007

Via BBC:

The two leading US figures in Iraq are facing criticism at a hearing in Congress from Democratic presidential candidates opposed to the war.

Senators Joe Biden and Barack Obama told military commander David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker the troop build-up had failed to achieve peace.

Gen Petraeus and Mr Crocker have been testifying for a second day.

Both repeated their contention that the military "surge" in Iraq was working, and warned against a rapid withdrawal.

White House officials said President Bush would this week announce plans to reduce US troops in Iraq by about 30,000 by next summer - in line with the recommendations of Gen Petraeus and Mr Crocker.

The BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says the president's move is an attempt to seize the initiative and to give the impression - whether true or not - that he is driving events.

Voice of America denies Petraeus's statements

Voice of America is the only news source stating that General Petraeus has NOT made any definitive statements regarding troop withdrawals from Iraq.

A senior U.S. military officer is disputing reports in two major U.S. newspapers, which said Friday that the U.S. commander in Iraq may be willing to send several thousands of his troops home by January. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.

However, the VOA report says

During a brief visit to Iraq on Monday, President Bush said General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker told him if current trends continue it will be possible to reduce the U.S. troop level in Iraq, but he did not say when that might happen.

The Petraeus and Crocker reports are just two of several assessments being made public this week and next week.

A retired General James Jones who heads up a commission of retired military and police officers favors a change in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as possible, away from daily combat to a support role.

"The force footprint should be adjusted, in our view, to represent an expeditionary capability, and to combat the permanent force image of today's presence," he said. Pressed by a senator, General Jones said that change could include consolidations, realignments and reductions.

Also this week, the Congress' Government Accountability Office issued a highly critical report, questioning military claims of reduced violence in Iraq following the surge of U.S. forces earlier this year.

_________________________________________________________________

While I would like to believe that The New York Times and The Washington Post are right in reporting that Petraeus has indeed said he'd like to reduce troops by a brigade (4,000 troops) by January, I realize I'll have to take a wait and see attitude. :(

Bush suggests a reduction in troops

In Iraq, Bush Cites Gains

By Michael A. Fletcher and Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; Page A01

AL-ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq, Sept. 3 -- President Bush, making an unannounced visit to this isolated and well-fortified air base in Anbar province, said Monday that continued gains in security in Iraq could allow for a reduction in U.S. troops and called on the Iraqi government to follow up with progress toward rebuilding and

political reconciliation.

Via Washington Post

theteach

_________________________________________________________________

It's the only thing we should care about -- that Bush SAID it. He said he could "allow for reduction in troops." Now we have to hold him to it. The Democrats have to hold him to it. No more guys going over there to begin, all the guys over there coming back home.

Obama, Clinton, Edwards and all the rest of the candidates have to speak up and DEMAND that we begin the reduction process. No ifs, ands, or buts, get it started. It's over...there's no more that can be done...

And here's something else, if the surge has been a failure, the troops should come home. If the surge has been a success, the troops should come home. Either way...

Photo: US troops are pictured during a foot patrol along the Tigris river south of Baghdad, 03 September 2007. Bush offered the tantalizing prospect of US force cuts during a dramatic one-day visit to Iraq but he is not saying when or how many troops might come home.

theteach

Bush Gets It Wrong

You know people who talk as experts (not that Bush is an expert on anything) and use history to show what might happen in Iraq if we pull out, should, at least get their facts straight.

Via Crooks and Liars:

Bush to connect Iraq, Vietnam

By: Steve Benen on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 AM - PDT

With the president’s upcoming report to Congress on “progress” in Iraq just a few weeks away, the White House is, once again, preparing a new public-relations offensive to bolster support for Bush’s war policy. It starts today with a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ annual convention, followed by another address next week to the American Legion, which will reportedly offer a “broader context” to discouraging news out of Iraq.

Apparently, this context includes an odd comparison between the wars in Iraq and Vietnam.

As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.

On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that “then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America’s presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end,” according to speech excerpts released Tuesday by the White House.

But this is an obvious misread of history. Supporters of the war in Vietnam said a withdrawal would lead to Communists dominating Southeast Asia., just as supporters of the war in Iraq argue that a withdrawal now would lead to some kind of al Qaeda caliphate.

That, of course, is probably one of the least persuasive arguments the White House could offer. Predictions predicated on an Asian “domino theory” turned out to be wrong. As Josh Marshall explains why.

Also Bush will mention the "killing fields" stating what happened in Vietnam would happen in Iraq if we pulled out. The "killing fields" refers to what happened in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge not Vietnam.

theteach

Why the White House Keeps Hiding Behind General Petraeus

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted July 30, 2007.

The White House has done everything possible to create the appearance that Gen. David Petraeus has all the responsibility for the occupation of Iraq -- but it's really an attempt to shield Bush from the failure in Iraq.

Read full post.

Immediate American troop pullout?

What will happen in Iraq if American troops are pulled out immediately? Austin Bay, who has spent a bit of time in combat zones, envisions seven potential scenarios. (via Opinionator)

1. Three countries -- Kurdistan, a Shia state, Sunni state.

2. Regional Shia-Sunni war.

3. Turkey expands.

4. Shia dictatorship.

5. Chaos.

6. Gang-up -- Shias and Kurds gang-up against the Sunnis.

7. Surprise --The Iraqi center holds.

Read the entire post on Austin Bay blog.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about bringing in lots and lots of UN peacekeepers?

theteach

Big Offensive Against Iraq

From New York Times:

G.I. Open Big Offensive Against Iraq

By THOM SHANKER and MICHAEL R. GORDON

Published: June 17, 2007

With the influx of tens of thousands of additional combat troops into Iraq now complete, American forces have begun a wide offensive against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia on the outskirts of Baghdad, the top American commander in Iraq said Saturday.

The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, in a news conference in Baghdad along with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, said the operation was intended to take the fight to Al Qaeda’s hide-outs in order to cut down the group’s devastating campaign of car bombings.

The comments by General Petraeus were a signal that the United States military had yet again entered a new phase in Iraq, four months after the start of the so-called troop surge and a security plan focused on dampening sectarian violence within Baghdad. They reflected an acknowledgment that more has to be done beyond the city’s bounds to halt a relentless wave of insurgent attacks that have undercut attempts at political reconciliation.

The offensive also comes at a time in the war when there are increasing American casualties and rising domestic pressure to show results or begin troop withdrawals, and just three months before a formal assessment of the military buildup President Bush ordered.

Robert M. Gates said that we are beginning to see some dividends. Gen. Petraeus isn't so sure: the results of the Baghdad security push has been mixed so far.

Tens of thousands of additional combat troops in Iraq, my god, when will it end?

theteach

Hillary wants troops in Iraq for HOW long?

From Alternet:

This post, written by David Swanson, originally appeared on After Downing Street

On Monday, Ted Koppel offered a report / commentary on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" which can be found online with this headline: "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War," and this introductory text: "Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senior military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty."

Well, someone is trying to force dishonesty. I'm not sure it's politics.

Read the rest here.

theteach

P.S. Read the questions David Swanson would ask a candidate to find out if he/she is a peace candidate.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs is replaced

General Pace to Retire as Joint Chiefs Chairman

Win McNamee/Getty Images

General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, touring the "Faces of the Fallen" exhibit at Arlington National Cemetery on Thursday.

General Pace will be replaced by Admiral Michael G. Mullen, as Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, "a move that reflects a feeling among top civilian officials at the Pentagon and in the White House that the American military needs new leadership after years of being strained by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Adm. Michael G. Mullen has been chief of naval operations since the summer of 2005.

Defense secretary Robert M. Gates said that he came to the realization after talking to Senate and House Democrats and Republicans that the confirmation hearing for a 2nd term for General Pace "would have focused 'on the past, rather than the future, and further, that there was the very real prospect the process would be quite contentious.'"

____________________________________________________________________

Damn right!

"General Pace, why are we STILL in Iraq?"

"General Pace, do you believe we should STILL BE in Iraq?"

"General Pace, how many times did you tell President Bush we should GET OUT of Iraq?"

Torture changes who we are.

From the Village Voice:

Dark Secrets at the Front

Prisoners and interrogators are both brutalized in a war that changes who we are.

by Nat Hentoff

May 30th, 2007 11:27 AM

In February 2006, then–Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned that our wars against terrorism "could last for decades." Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, he said of the multiplying enemy: "Compelled by a militant ideology that celebrates murder and suicide with no territory to defend, with little to lose, they will either succeed in changing our way of life, or we will succeed in changing theirs."

With a seemingly endless supply of suicide bombers in Iraq, the enemy certainly hasn't changed its way of life. However—as the world has witnessed—there's plenty of evidence that we've changed ours—namely, in America's professed values about how we treat our prisoners, euphemistically marginalized as "detainees."

On May 7 of this year, General David Petraeus—now commanding our "surge" in Iraq, emphasized: "It's time to adhere to American values. We must not sink to the level of our enemies."

Does General Petraeus think we're sinking to the level of our enemies with regard to interrogation of prisoners? Are there more than just a 'few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib?

What caused the new alarm by General Petraeus about sinking to the level of the enemy is a startling official report from the Office of the Surgeon General, United States Army Medical Command:

Less than half of other soldiers and Marines (in Iraq) believed that non- combatants should be treated with dignity and respect and well over a third believed that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow team member .

About ten percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating an Iraqi non-combatant when it wasn't necessary . . . Less than half of the soldiers and Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior . . .

You can read Nat Hentoff's full report here.

Abu Ghraib: Not just a case of bad apples over there.
photo: US Army Sgt. Sara Wood defenselink.mil

No Deadline for Troop Withdrawal...

Democrats Pull Troop Deadline From Iraq Bill

Doug Mills/The New York Times

In the face of strong criticism from antiwar Democrats, Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, defended the compromise as “great progress.”

By CARL HULSE

Published: May 23, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.

The decision to back down was a wrenching reversal for leading Democrats, who saw their election triumph in November as a call to force an end to the war. It was the first time since taking power in Congress that the Democrats had publicly agreed to allow a vote on war financing without a timetable for troop withdrawal.

But even so, many Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, indicated that they would not support the war money, meaning that a significant number of Republicans would have to sign on to ensure the plan’s approval.

I'm sorry Senator Reid this is not progress!!

theteach

President open to benchmarks for Iraq

From

After a briefing at the Pentagon, Mr. Bush said he had instructed Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff, to reach “common ground” with lawmakers of both parties over setting firm goals, or benchmarks, to measure progress in Iraq.

“It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward,” Mr. Bush said, even as he threatened to veto the House plan, approved on a 221-to-205 vote Thursday night, which would require him to seek approval in two months for the balance of the war money.

The bill approved by the House would provide $42.8 billion total, with about $30 billion directed to the war effort for the next two months. It requires the president to report by July 13 on how the Iraqi government is performing in building its military and moving toward achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time on whether to give the administration the remainder of the money — about $50 billion — to maintain operations in Iraq through Sept. 30 or to restrict that money to deployment.

“No more,” said Steny H. Hoyer, who backed the plan. “No more blank checks.”

Who knows if this will work or anything will work to get Bush to start removing our soldiers from Iraq but I remain hopeful...

theteach

Bill Moyers on the Media and the Iraq War

From Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel:

"Buying the War"

Moyers documentary exposes media culpability in Iraq War

SOURCE: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

The pundits who got everything wrong on Iraq have seen their careers thrive.

4/27/07—If you missed the April 25 airing of the Bill Moyers documentary "Buying the War," there's good news: the full program and transcript are available online:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

I'm watching the program right now on PBS Channel 13 New York. You must watch it. It's the history of the run -up to the Iraq War and how the media failed the American people vis-a-vis the Bush Administration's desire for preemptive war with Iraq.

theteach

Photo: No War for Oil

Rita Crane

A beautiful old fountain in Geneva....with Pan (or Dionysus) statue ..... photo shot during the US invasion of Iraq, March 2003. The graffitti was shocking of course, seeing it desecrating a venerable old fountain, and it consisted only of the black spray painted writing.

I added the RED in Photoshop - to this iconic fountain in Old Town Geneva where I was visiting my cousin..... Rita Crane

The photo speaks for itself.

theteach