[Grovenet] Finally, it's about time - only about a trillion dollars too late . . . .

Fri Oct 5 20:32:26 PDT 2007

Thanks Bob:

Y'know, I wonder if it might not be in our (the USA's) best interests to
lose the Iraq war. It might be in the best interests of Iraq too.

If the USA leaves in ignominious defeat:

1) It would demonstrate clearly to Americans, especially those who think war
is the ultimate form of "diplomacy", that the USA is not invincible on the
battlefield. Indeed it would demonstrate that we are vulnerable, just as we
are vulnerable to the world's political changes and vulnerable to the
world's economic health. 

2) It would leave the pedestal we Americans have created of "the world's
greatest superpower" empty. The crazies who think life is about killing
themselves and others would be left to look for new targets, or "get a life"
of their own.

3) Along with 2, it would through the affairs of the nation back into the
hands of the people there. I don't have any utopian idea that they'd have an
ideal Democracy, just as we don't have an ideal Democracy. A power elite
would rise to take control, just as the USA is led by a power elite. But it
would make the problems those of the people who live there, and the
achievements theirs as well too. I'm reminded of the old saying about
catching someone a fish and we feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and
we feed him for a lifetime. In Iraq, the best we could ever do is catch a
few fish for the Iraqi people. 

4) It might cause a few Americans to look in the mirror and ask whether our
"greatness" is defined entirely by our ability to bully others into doing as
we say. I don't think so, but we'll never know as long as we continue to
bully other people around. 

The world fears the USA, now more than ever. One who is feared might be
obeyed for a while, but is never liked or trusted. 

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Bob Browning
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:16 PM
To: Grovenet
Subject: [Grovenet] Finally, it's about time - only about a trillion dollars
too late . . . .

By Nancy A. Youssef and Renee Schoof, McClatchy NewspapersThu Oct 4, 3:47 PM
ET 

WASHINGTON - Four and a half years after the nation's top military leaders
saluted and fell in behind President Bush 's pre-emptive invasion of Iraq ,
their replacements are beginning to question the mission and sound alarms
about the toll the war is taking on the Army and the Marine Corps .

The change at the Pentagon is striking but little-noticed, in part because
Defense Secretary Robert Gates , a longtime veteran of the CIA, is quiet
where his predecessor Donald H. Rumsfeld was not.

"It's part of a sea change," said Loren Thompson , a military analyst at the
Lexington Institute , a national-security research center in Washington .
"The ideologues have been replaced by managers who view Iraq not as a cause,
but a problem to be solved."

Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen , Deputy Defense
Secretary Gordon England , Undersecretary for Intelligence Gen. James
Clapper and other top officials also are concerned that the war may be
crippling the military's ability to respond to other crises. They have
allies in the congressional Democratic leadership- particularly House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri - who've been
speaking out about that for months.

"I'm convinced we are in serious trouble readiness-wise," Skelton said this
week in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers . "Am I worried? I'm worried
to death."

Although Democrats in Congress have been powerless to halt or even slow the
war, six developments have combined to produce growing resistance, even
within some parts of Bush's own administration, to the president's
unrelenting emphasis on staying the course in Iraq :

1. The Democratic takeover of the Senate and the House of Representatives
last January.

2. Bush's choice of Gates to replace Rumsfeld, one of the main architects of
the war. Gates was a member of the independent bipartisan Iraq Study Group ,
which called for the United States to reach out to Syria and Iran and
"strongly urged" a drawdown in Iraq .

3. A shift, completed this week, in the military's top uniformed leadership
from administration loyalists to officers who are more concerned about the
growing strains on the military.

4. Mounting evidence, in a variety of official reports in recent weeks, that
Iraqi forces won't be prepared to take over from American troops in
significant numbers until late next year at the earliest, and that Iraqis
have made little progress toward political reconciliation.

"Barring that, no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a
difference," Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen told the Senate Armed Services
Committee.

5. Mounting evidence, most recently in a United Nations report, that the war
against al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan is faltering, in part
because Iraq is tying down so many U.S. troops.

More forces are needed in Afghanistan , and "we can't send them because
we're bogged down" in an "intractable civil war" in Iraq , Sen. Russ
Feingold , D-Wis., said Wednesday.

6. Bush's low approval ratings and popular discontent with the Iraq war,
which have prompted some legislators to reconsider their support for the
president's policy as next year's elections approach.

It remains to be seen, however, whether Gates and like-minded allies can
curtail the U.S. commitment to Iraq , avoid a military confrontation with
Iran and direct more resources to Afghanistan and to rebuilding and
reequipping the Army and the Marines.

Still, the change in outlook among many senior officials is unmistakable.

The outgoing chairman of the joint chiefs, Marine Gen. Peter Pace , a loyal
advocate for administration policies, used the word "freedom" eight times in
his final remarks as chairman. Mullen didn't use it once in his first speech
Monday as the new chairman.

After Mullen was sworn in, he sent a letter to the military that spelled out
a vision of the Middle East markedly different from the one the
administration has hailed. Mullen didn't talk about how the two wars could
spread democracy and freedom in the region, as Pace did until the final
minutes of his two-year tenure as chairman. 

Instead, while Mullen called the wars vital, he cautioned that they might
not make the Middle East safer. He also told the troops that his job is to
prepare the military for what comes next. 

"To the degree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contribute to or detract
from a stable, secure Middle East , they bear a direct effect on the
security of the United States ," he wrote. "The demands of current
operations, however great, should not dominate our training exercises,
education, curricula and readiness programs." 

Such equivocation is a different tune for Defense Department leaders:
Rumsfeld and his civilian aides championed the war in Iraq and brooked no
dissent. 

Skelton, the House Armed Services Committee chairman, said that in the past
he felt as if no one was listening when he warned the administration about
the strain on the military. 

Now, he noted, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker in January
and the current chief, Gen. George Casey , testifying last week, have
expressed concerns about the Army's readiness. 

"The parallels are alarming," Skelton said. "We cannot risk breaking the
Army again. My real worry is that we have a choice between two losses or one
loss. We're not putting enough effort into Afghanistan , and I'm deeply
concerned about that." 

Mullen's letter to the U.S. military earlier this week is at
http://www.defenselink.mil/pdf/letter-to-troops.pdf