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

Sat Oct 6 12:28:52 PDT 2007

You may be right Ed. 

I still hold onto the idea that America can be a mature, wise nation who can
serve as a key architect of a better world without war. Something we can all
feel proud of. 

Perhaps what we must learn is that pride is the greatest sign of a lack of
maturity and wisdom. 

As I've written before, I would prefer we humbly ask the world for help with
Iraq in order to mitigate, as far as possible, the horrible damage we have
done there. 

It's clear to me that we're not going to do that. 

I'm reminded of the old saying, "Either lead, follow or get out of the way!"

It's clear we cannot lead and we refuse to follow.

Ron D'Eau Claire 

-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of Ed Davie
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 9:10 AM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Finally, it's about time - only about a trillion
dollars too late . . . .

I think you're beginning to get the picture, Ron.
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron D'Eau Claire
  To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
  Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Finally, it's about 
time - only about a trillion dollars too late . . 
. .

  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

  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet