Bill Arnold wrote:
Here's 3 articles from this week that I'd ask anyone who is interested
in what's going on in Iraq to read. Two are from The Nation, the third
is from the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/howl
"Among the many secrets the American government cannot keep, one of its
biggest (104 acres) and most expensive ($592 million) is the American
Embassy being built in Baghdad. Surrounded by fifteen-foot-thick walls,
almost as large as the Vatican on a scale comparable to the Mall of
America, to which it seems to have a certain spiritual affinity, this is
no simple object to hide."
Gosh, I could have sworn I herd Donald Rumsfelt or President Bush
respond to a reporter's question the other day about whether we were
building permanent facilities in Iraq, in which the response was "no we
are not".
This sounds like the Bush Administration has been talking to the French
for instruction as to how the French Foreign Legions worked. Anybody
want to join the American Foreign Legions?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/howl
"Is the badly outnumbered American expeditionary force in Iraq introuble? Is it
in danger of being trapped? With all our firepower, are
we looking at the possibility of some kind of a military defeat?"
Over the last year or so, the war, or occupation, of Iraq has grown
steadily more unpopular with the American people. I think the Bush
Administration is going to be forced to make a substantial withdrawal of
American troop prior to the coming mid-term election, or face a
Republican rout at the ballot boxes. Of course, the Bush
Administration's policy has long been that no date certain can be set
for withdrawal; because, it would provide a time table in which the
enemy could hunker down and wait the occupation out, but a troop
reduction is coming, and it will be sooner than later.
http://pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-209.htm
"A Camp Divided. As U.S. tries to give Iraqi troops more responsibility,
clash of two American colonels shows tough road ahead"
This reminds me a bit of my stay in Vietnam. I live about a mile off
base in quarter originally built by the French. The French Quarters
housed about 200 troops. The French Quarters were built right up
against the Mekong River at a point where another river "T" into it, so
the French Quarters were up against rivers on two sides. My room, which
I shared with a roommate, had running water for showers, and I equipped
it with a small refrigerator. Cigarette, beer and other products were
cheep at the base commissary, which made it easy to keep the room stock
up, and still be able to send most of the paycheck back home. The rooms
came complete with momma-sans to keep thing tidy and to polish the
second pair of boots left under the bed each day.
The French Quarter came complete with an NCO club that served drinks and
beer, and had a number of slot machine, which never interested me much.
A patio of the NCO club provide a place to sit, drink and visit after
work, and sometime movie entertainment would be shown with an old 8mm
projector out on the open patio. If I was sitting at a table by the
edge of the Mekong River, I could pick up a small twig, toss it in the
river, and watch as the twig hurry downstream in the powerful current of
the Mekong, which steached miles wide.
Regards,
LelandJ
--------------
The 1st article reveals the depth of the ongoing determination to
establish (at least) one permanent base in Iraq. There is no mention on
how this base will be defended against a population determined to oust
the occupier.
The 2nd article talks about being outnumbered and raises the specter of
a modern day Dunkirk. This much is not disputed: there aren't enough
troops to control the situation. Bringing back the draft would supply
the troops, but it would also bring back the massive protests of the
60's. What does that leave? Firepower. That means jet strikes and
artillery, which means large numbers of civilian casualties, which fuels
hatred and opens the gates for 'volunteers' from surrounding countries.
The 3rd examines the relationship between American forces and their
Iraqi counterparts. Save for 'modern touches' such as the Taco Bell on
the American side of the base, much of this account is hauntingly
similar to the failure we called Vietnamization.
Why aren't we making any real progress?
Here's what I believe: that we're busy debating everything under the sun
- except the real reasons for the invasion. We refuse to acknowledge
even the existence of "powerful interests" behind that invasion, so much
so that we're still picking the bones of the wmd turkey, as if
continuing to fool ourselves will somehow solve our problems. Where I
come from, you can't solve a problem you don't understand. Yet, here we
are, years after the invasion was launched, still unable or unwilling to
face the truth.
We think we're the "home of the brave", yet we behave like cowards when
it comes to a simple little thing like the truth.
Are we unable to put our military machine in it's place? Why didn't our
so-called representatives stand up to Big Oil years ago when everyone
knew oil was a finite and dwindling resource? Why has there been zero
debate on AIPAC's influence over our foreign policies?
How did these forces become so powerful that nobody will even talk about
them? How can most reasonable people see that we were sold on a fake
list of reasons for war, yet not even consider there was a real list
behind the fake list? Isn't there one soul in Congress with the guts to
stand up and speak "truth to power"? Is bravery only permitted for
grunts on the streets of Iraq?
We were going to win this war with one hand (the truth) behind our back.
We were sold on the neocon-chickenhawk belief that nobody could stand up
to our giant military machine, only to discover that was just another
lie.
We're not winning! What we're looking at is an irresistible force being
applied to an unmovable object. Who sees a winning formula there?
We can't unring bells, but we can - and must - turn away from the abyss.
The best - and perhaps only - way to do that is to confront our own
demons, and in this case it's the interests that have become so powerful
they have usurped our cherished gov't of/by/for the people.
Seriously compounding our plight is that this war is in motion. It's
taken a life of it's own, and we likely wouldn't be able to stop another
attack here. We may stop 99, but the 100th will get through. I trust we
are aware that another attack will trigger a clamp-down on the kind of
free speech we exercise here, to say the least.
There are 2 forces on the side of people who want to end this madness.
One is the vote. If there emerges a candidate for Congress with the
courage to bite the hands that feeds Congress, give him or her your
vote.
The other force we have is the Internet. Without it all we'd have is the
"news" and more doses of programming. As such, the Internet is under
attack, for reasons that don't appear related, but are. Congress is
debating "net neutrality", and some of our Big Money players are
actually helping China secure the net from contrarian political dialog.
These seemingly unrelated activities have one thing in common: they both
seek to divide and conquer the Internet. Once the Chinese model is
worked out, it will be only a switch to turn it on here.
Bill
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
