or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| "Growing" ....... |
Erewhon |
04/25/06 |
Growing ... for those who did not believe that the criticism against Rummy was growing, here is proof:
Crisis building in White House over Iraq war
Apr. 25, 2006. 01:00 AM
RICHARD GWYN
A week ago, it was the generals. Now it's the colonels and majors and captains. Moreover, these officers are in uniform and have none of the security from retribution of the generals who had all already retired.
In a front-page story Sunday, The New York Times described an "extraordinary debate" now going on among younger American officers "in military academies, in the armed services staff colleges, and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq."
This debate is about the war in Iraq, about the tactics and prospects of the American forces there, and, most particularly, about Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, already the target of stinging criticism by a half dozen recently-retired senior generals, most of whom had served in Iraq.
The names of these junior officers have all been withheld by the Times. If ever identified, they would be court-martialed. So readers have to take it on faith that the paper has described their opinions accurately.
Richard Gwyn's column appears Tuesdays and Fridays. gwynR@sympatico.ca.
====
Growing ...
Monday, April 24, 2006
Younger army officers also want Rumsfeld to step down
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: The “dump Rumsfeld” movement is gathering steam, with younger officers in military academies, armed services’ staff colleges and even command posts and mess halls calling for the ouster of the defence secretary.
[...]
Simply put, the question is whether the focus should be, as Rumsfeld believes, on a lean high-tech force with an eye toward possible opponents like China, or on troop-heavy counterinsurgency missions more suited to hunting terrorists, with spies and boots on the ground.
Courtesy http://www.DailyTimes.com.pk
===
Growing ...
WASHINGTON The revolt by retired generals who publicly criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has opened an extraordinary debate among younger officers, in military academies, in the armed services' staff colleges and even in command posts and mess halls in Iraq.
Junior and midlevel officers are discussing whether the war plans for Iraq reflected unvarnished military advice, whether the retired generals should have spoken out, whether active-duty generals will feel free to state their views in private sessions with the civilian leaders and, most divisive of all, whether Rumsfeld should resign.
In recent weeks, military correspondents of The New York Times discussed these issues with dozens of younger officers and cadets in classrooms and with combat units in the field, as well as in informal conversations at the Pentagon and in e-mail exchanges and telephone calls.
To protect their careers, the officers were granted anonymity so they could speak frankly about the debates they have had and have heard. The stances that emerged are anything but uniform, although all seem colored by deep concern over the quality of civil-military relations and the way ahead in Iraq.
The discussions often flare with anger, particularly among many midlevel officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and face the prospect of additional tours of duty.
"This is about the moral bankruptcy of general officers who lived through the Vietnam era yet refused to advise our civilian leadership properly," said an army major in the Special Forces who has served two combat tours. "I can only hope that my generation does better someday."
An army major who is an intelligence specialist said: "The history I will take away from this is that the current crop of generals failed to stand up and say, 'We cannot do this mission.' They confused the cultural can-do attitude with their responsibilities as leaders to delay the start of the war until we had an adequate force. I think the backlash against the general officers will be seen in the resignation of officers" who might otherwise have stayed in uniform for more years.
An army colonel enrolled in a Defense Department university said that an informal poll among his classmates indicated that about 25 percent believed that Rumsfeld should resign, while 75 percent believed that he should remain.
But of the second group, two-thirds thought he should acknowledge errors that were made and "show that he is not the intolerant and inflexible person some paint him to be," the colonel said.
Many officers who blame Rumsfeld are not faulting President George W. Bush - in contrast to the situation in the 1960s, when both President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara drew criticism over Vietnam from the officer corps. (McNamara, like Rumsfeld, was also resented from the outset for his attempts to reshape the military.)
But some are criticizing both Bush and Rumsfeld, along with the military leadership, like the army major in the Special Forces.
"I believe that a large number of officers hate Rumsfeld as much as I do, and would like to see him go," he said.
"The army, however, went gently into that good night of Iraq without saying a word," he added, summarizing conversations with other officers. "For that reason, most of us know that we have to share the burden of responsibility for this tragedy. And at the end of the day, it wasn't Rumsfeld who sent us to war, it was the president.
"Officers know better than anyone else that the buck stops at the top. I think we are too deep into this for Rumsfeld's resignation to mean much."
He added: "But this is all academic. Most officers would acknowledge that we cannot leave Iraq, regardless of their thoughts on the invasion. We destroyed the internal security of that state, so now we have to restore it. Otherwise, we will just return later, when it is even more terrible."
The debates are fueled by the desire to mete out blame for the situation in Iraq, a drawn-out war that has taken many military lives and has no clear end in sight.
A midgrade officer who has served two tours in Iraq said that a number of his cohorts were angered last month when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that "tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure," had been made in Iraq.
"We have not lost a single tactical engagement on the ground in Iraq," the officer said, noting that the definition of tactical missions is specific movements against an enemy target. "The mistakes have all been at the strategic and political levels."
Many officers said that a crisis of leadership extended to serious questions about the top generals' commitment to sustain a seasoned officer corps that was being deployed on repeated tours to the long-term counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while the rest of the government did not appear to be on the same wartime footing.
Said one army officer with experience in Iraq, "We are forced to develop innovative ways to convince, coerce and cajole officers to stay in, to support a war effort of national-level importance that is being done without a defensewide, governmentwide or nationwide commitment of resources."
Another army major who served in Iraq said a fresh round of debates about the future of the U.S. military had also broken out. The question is whether the focus should be, as Rumsfeld believes, on a lean high-tech force with an eye toward possible opponents like China, or on troop-heavy counterinsurgency missions more suited to hunting terrorists, with spies and boots on the ground.
"I feel conflicted by this debate, and I think a lot of my colleagues are also conflicted," said an army colonel completing a year of work at one of the military's advanced schools. He expressed discomfort at the public airing of criticism of Rumsfeld and the Iraq war planning by retired generals. But he said his classmates were also aware of how the Rumsfeld Pentagon quashed dissenting views that many argued were proved correct.
====
GROWING ...
BILL JACOBS
ALARM bells were ringing at Whitehall today after it emerged that United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has drawn up plans to step up the fight against terrorism around the globe.
Pentagon leaks suggest he has approved an ambitious strategy to take the fight against dealers of death beyond recognised war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
A key element is a significantly expanded role for the military - in particular US special forces such as the American army's Green Berets, immortalised by the John Wayne film of that name.
At a time when British generals are already concerned about the Hollywood "shoulder holster" attitude to peace-keeping and tackling insurgents in Iraq, they could be forgiven for letting a shiver run down their spines.
The 200-odd groups of elite Special Operations Troops dotted at US embassies around the world will now be entitled to go into action without the approval of the relevant ambassadors in a manner reminiscent of the famous rugby dictum of "getting your retaliation in first".
The big fear is that the US will try to draw the British SAS into these clandestine activities putting UK citizens and soldiers at greater risk. And with Tony Blair increasingly gung-ho as his time in 10 Downing Street draws to a close, the less aggressive members of his Cabinet, such as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, must be worried.
Mr Rumsfeld is just one of a posse of US "hawks" on foreign policy and military action now on the inside track in the White House. He, Vice President Dick Cheney and former defence adviser Paul Wolfowitz were around the administration of George Bush's father when he took over as president from Ronald Reagan. They were considered peripheral and slightly mad figures, but George Bush junior brought them to the heart of US policy making and, since 9/11, they have played a considerable role in the military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The fear is that they have given the go-ahead for further expeditions. The biggest concern is that they have Iran in their sights. Now, there is an argument to say that it would be far easier to deal with the current extreme Iranian prime minister if Iraq had been left alone and Saddam Hussein was still in power. But, following the toppling of the Baghdad Butcher, any action to stop Tehran developing an atom bomb would set the Middle East alight.
With Hamas in charge of the Palestinian authority, the stakes are now fearsomely high. New Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is also in aggressive mood as he tries to prove his tough guy credentials against the Palestinian terrorists who regularly send suicide bombers into Israel's towns and cities.
Mr Blair in his monthly press conference yesterday was keen to stress that Iran was not Iraq - but then again neither was Iraq until President Bush got it into his head that ousting Saddam was the answer to international terrorism.
The Prime Minister was also keen to imply there were no divisions between him and Mr Straw, who described using nuclear-tipped or other such missiles to take out Iran's atomic plants as "nuts".
However, he was keen to stress that a tough message had to be sent out to the new regime and the ayatollahs that back them. The worrying thing is that we've been here before.
Over the Iraqi invasion Mr Blair was talking tough while Mr Straw desperately tried to stitch up a UN resolution to bring the rest of Europe and at least some of the Middle East on board for the invasion.
This was in the face of strong opposition from Mr Bush and guess who? Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld.
===
From: The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
A nonpartisan resource for information and analysis
Gelb: Rumsfeld’s Resignation Should Have Been Accepted a Year Ago
Interviewee: Leslie H. Gelb, President Emeritus and Board Senior Fellow
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor
April 19, 2006
Leslie H. GelbLeslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of CFR and a former Pentagon and State Department official in the Johnson and Carter administrations, says the public criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald M. Rumsfeld by some retired senior military officers is due to their unhappiness "that they didn't speak up earlier, while they were on the job."
"In good part, they were telling us the reason they didn't speak up, and the reason they think their colleagues didn't speak out against the Rumsfeld decisions, is that Rumsfeld was intimidating them and making it impossible for them to say their piece," Gelb, a senior board fellow, says. He says that it would have been better for the country if Rumsfeld's resignation had been accepted a year ago.
"He had become a serious lightning rod; it was hard both for Democrats and a number of Republicans to work with him; and, inside the Pentagon, the poisonous atmosphere had begun to develop. And here we are, in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you can't have a secretary of defense under so much fire [still] being able to do his job at the same time."
You and I have been observing developments in the political-military sphere for many years. I can't remember anything similar to this current "revolt of the retired generals" against Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Can you?
The history of anything like this is quite short. Back in the Truman administration there was something called the "revolt of the admirals" but that was essentially over the Navy budget. Then you have to jump forward many, many years to the Vietnam War. There was an enormous amount of grumbling and criticism by the military of the civilian leadership, particularly of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara [who served under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson].
What was the criticism about?
The criticism was over McNamara's strategy and the White House's strategy of how to fight the war. This is the exact same thing that's come up now with respect to Iraq. McNamara, McGeorge Bundy—who was national security adviser for Presidents Kennedy and Johnson [1961-66]—and others wanted to follow a gradual approach to the war, signaling to Hanoi with each new increment of American power that we could do more down the line. They said do it gradually, both as a punishment and a warning of more to come.
This was also, as I recall, to keep China out of the war. Right?
Well, the main thing to keep China out of the war was not to invade North Vietnam itself, or to bomb Haiphong Harbor, where a lot of Chinese equipment came into North Vietnam. The Air Force and the Navy were criticizing McNamara very harshly—but privately—over that strategy. They wanted a more all-out air bombing campaign that wouldn't allow the North Vietnamese time to adjust. As unhappy as they were—and they were extremely unhappy—they never went public with it by name, only by leak.
You mean they didn't publicly speak out, but they leaked their dissatisfaction to the press?
That's right. No serving or retired generals stood up to criticize McNamara's handling of the war, even though they were doing that privately. Essentially they made their unhappiness known through press leaks.
Now you were in the Pentagon in those days, among other things putting together what later became known as the "Pentagon Papers." Do you think the criticism was warranted? If there had been a heavier bombing would it have made much of a difference?
I don't know that it would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome of the war, because I think the North Vietnamese and their allies in the South, the Vietcong, were going to fight as long as necessary to drive out any foreign power. The force of nationalism was that strong. But I think it would have made a difference in the military campaign. I think what the military was saying was militarily correct—that we could have done much more damage and made it much more difficult for the North Vietnamese to adjust with a more all-out bombing campaign.
Now, of course we did mine Haiphong harbor, but that was in the Nixon administration when most of the U.S. troops had already left.
That's correct. The last incident I can think of took place in the Carter administration, where one of the senior army generals in Iraq, General John Singlaub, publicly attacked President Jimmy Carter while serving, over Carter's decision to withdraw some U.S. troops from South Korea. And Carter fired him. And as far as I can remember, that's it.
What do you think is the impetus driving these generals?
Well, all of them either served in the war in Iraq or were intimately involved in the planning of that war. So these were people who all knew what they were talking about. Now what's the motivation? I think, in part, they all are unhappy that they didn't speak up earlier while they were on the job. In good part, they were telling us the reason they didn't speak up, and the reason they think their colleagues didn't speak out against the Rumsfeld decisions, is that Rumsfeld was intimidating them and making it impossible for them to say their piece. And while none of them pointed directly to the fate of General Eric Shinseki, the chief of staff of the Army, they had that very much in mind. You'll remember, Shinseki is the one who told Congress in early 2003 it would take at least 300,000 troops to safely garrison Iraq after a military victory. But he got fired and nobody came to his defense.
And Secretary of the Army Thomas White was fired for backing him, right?
That's exactly right. People have forgotten that, but Army Secretary White did the same thing. So the others looked at it, and said, well, it just doesn't work, so they'd go along and try to adjust to the system. And additionally, as you know, these guys do not like to criticize the civilian sphere, because they believe it would have a terrible effect on the morale of the serving troops.
So now you have this incredible situation where active duty generals are being called on to back the secretary of defense against their former colleagues.
Yes. This is a very tricky situation, because people go to Iraq, like I did a year ago, governors and senators, and they talk to these people, these generals. And by and large, the generals say we're making progress, and you don't hear much criticism from them. But those of us who know many of them personally, over the years, hear two stories: the official story, and then a much more pessimistic one privately.
So it causes great confusion in the minds of the American people, because the generals are saying very positive things for publication, and a number of them are being much more cautious, and even critical, in private.
I was fascinated in reading Cobra II, the new book by Michael R. Gordon, the chief military correspondent of the New York Times, and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, where they quote a number of the generals or colonels who are critical of the planning for the war on the record, which is unusual, I thought.
Yes, very. It shows the degree of their frustration, because all the military planning over the course of a dozen years for Iraq—and that's how long the planning has been going on there—showed you need at least 300,000 troops on the ground in order to provide basic security. And almost all of it also showed that you needed to keep as much of the Baathist-dominated army intact, after military victory, to support those 300,000 troops. But what we had was about 125,000, and virtually no Iraqi army. So, you know, this was at least—at least—400,000 or 500,000 troops short of what the planning said was necessary.
Put yourself in the mind of Rumsfeld. Now, you've dealt with Rumsfeld for years.
Yes, decades.
Why was he so stubborn on keeping the troop level on such a minimum level?
You know, there are two explanations, a good one and a bad one. I don't know which is true, or if both are true. The good one is, he really believed he could do the job with 125,000 troops or so, and he could keep the necessary security thereafter, and essentially get out. He believed his own propaganda about Iraqis welcoming us with open arms, and that we wouldn't need to fight after we got rid of Saddam. So, you know, that's the benign, positive explanation.
The bad explanation is that he and [former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and others feared that if the American people were told that you needed 300,000 plus troops for an extended period in Iraq, in order to do the job, that there would be opposition to the war. And they were interested in making sure that opposition was de minimus, and they were willing to take the risk on the ground in Iraq.
It's ironic, because at the time the war was launched, I don't think the public knew the difference between 125,000 or 325,000, so long as the job got done.
Well, I'm not sure, and I don't think that was their opinion. They were worried about public reaction to a large-scale and extended troop involvement. The same thing on paying for the war. You'll remember that Wolfowitz said, so far as reconstruction was concerned, it would be paid for out of Iraqi oil revenues. Well, at that very time he was saying that, all of us who had been involved in post-war planning—and we had a study underway at the Council at the time—knew from the oil companies that that was inconceivable, and that oil production would go down below pre-war levels, and that it would be many years before production would come up to pre-war levels, let alone be able to pay for economic reconstruction. If you remember, Wolfowitz said it might cost us $1.5 billion. It's over $200 billion now.
Well, it's quite clear that the president is committed not to let Rumsfeld resign. Do you think he would have been better served with Rumsfeld out of there?
I think both politically and in terms of the decision-making process, it probably would have been best to accept his resignation a year ago. He had become a serious lightning rod; it was hard both for Democrats and a number of Republicans to work with him; and inside the Pentagon, the poisonous atmosphere had begun to develop. And here we are, we're in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you can't have a secretary of defense under so much fire [still] being able to do his job at the same time.
What is your opinion of him, putting aside the criticism? If you were writing an essay about Rumsfeld, what would you say? Has be been a lousy secretary of defense?
I think he did a pretty good job with the continuing process of reforming the military. That is, he was pushing them in the correct direction. It wasn't done in a very cooperative spirit, but he did push that process. I'm not sure if he correctly tackled the strategic problems that are facing the United States today. If you look at his statements that pertained to the budget, they tend to be more ideological than they are serious policy statements. And, you know, in terms of the handling of both the Iraq and Afghan wars, I think history will show—and the histories that have been written already show—that there were more minuses, far more minuses, than plusses.
Do you think, really in hindsight, if there had been, say, 350,000 troops in Iraq, that that would have made a difference?
I know it's very contentious, whether things would have worked out differently even if we had the proper number of troops. But I do believe that if we had had over 300,000 troops there, within the first two months after getting rid of Saddam, and had kept the Iraqi army intact except for the senior officer corps, that we would have been able to establish security, get economic projects underway and completed, and that we would have been able to pass that country on to the Iraqis, in relative peace, within two years or so. I do believe that.
Now in the book My Year in Iraq by L. Paul Bremer, who was head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), says the Iraqi army had already disintegrated and his decree disbanding it officially was just a formality.
He can state anything he wants. If the word had gone out that there were junior officers reconstituting the force, that they were going to get paid $200 a month, they would have been back there.
Well, in fact the book by Trainor and Gordon states the U.S. military was already recruiting Iraqi officers when they were ordered to stop by Bremer.
They didn't have a hard time getting volunteers.
Right. So how's this thing going to end?
I think the generals, on balance, did a courageous thing. They spoke up and they broke that wall of silence that had been protecting President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, who were making it look as if the military were really happy with their decisions. That had always been their defense. They said they gave the military whatever the military wanted. Well, that just wasn't correct. So that story has been largely shattered. And even though you haven't had more than six generals come forward to support it, and even though you haven't had resignations of active duty generals, I think the public understands that these people who have spoken out represent only the tip of the iceberg. It will make them think even harder and more critically about where the president is leading us in Iraq.
===
IRAQ: NEW HOPE, SAME VIOLENCE
After months of political infighting, Iraq has a democratically elected prime-minister designate. But it also has an unbowed insurgency, sectarian bloodshed, a moribund economy, and increasingly, a superpower-led [US led] occupying army that seems unsure of what to try next.
====
And so it grows ...While this will certainly be distasteful to some, it would be folly to ignore it!
|
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/25/06 2:16 pm:
what we need is a Napolean ......right ? Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/25/06 2:23 pm:
You already have a Napoleon. Napoleon spread his influence by putting his family members on all the thrones of Europe. An interesting comparison could be made between the ambitions of Bush and Bonaparte.
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 04/25/06 2:28 pm:
This is how it starts, and why Retired Generals should be smart enough to keep their mouths shut.
Now we have low-level operatives in our military questioning the civilian leadership. And if you removed Rumsfeld, it would simply encourage the military to attack any secretary of defense they didn't like.
If it could be shown that Rumsfeld overruled military commanders and as a result botched an operation, I would agree that he should be removed. But this is simply a "we don't like how things went, so lets can somebody".
Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/25/06 4:42 pm:
Napoleon was "The Little Corporal."
He had personal ambition. None of the retired generals have any such ambition.
Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 04/25/06 9:52 pm:
Have you no shame?
What do I have to be ashamed of Ronnie, not bowing to your feigned superior morality?
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/26/06 12:58 pm:
What a crock Ronnie. Captain Moses Scheinfeld, my friend from special forces (who is being promoted next month), is the first one to tell me the following:
A) The war is not going to "hell in a handbasket". The war is being successfully waged by the best and most powerful military on earth, and the progress is seen daily by those who are there doing the work.
B) The reason that soldiers must remain "nameless" is because they are afraid of being caught breaking military law during a time of war, which could land them in jail, at worst and stop them from being promoted at best. Which is exactly as it should be. Soldiers do not have the right to dispute orders from their superiors. Any other way of doing things would break discipline.
>>>who but a knave would remain silent when the war is going badly and sending your our troops to Hell in a hand basket<<<
How about all those who disagree with that sentiment, which even by the statement of this "unnamed source" who gives absolutely no details is over 75% of the active military... and is probably understated.
What I fail to understand is how you can so blithely dismiss everything that the US Military and the coalition forces have accomplished since entering Iraq.
1) Deposing and capturing Saddam Hussein.
2) Elimination of the Iraqi military as a threat to US interests and the interests of others in the region.
3) Cutting off the support for terrorism that SH was providing, both monetarily and in terms of training sites and equipment.
4) Creation of an interim government.
5) Creation and successeful vote of a new constitution.
6) Successful vote for a new, permanent government, which has finally chosen a new President and is forming a coalition leadership.
7) Getting the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to talk to each other instead of shooting each other for the most part.
8) Cutting the number of terrorists fighting the guerrila war down from 70,000 to about 17,000.
9) The capture of countless terrorists and terrorist leaders who are provding intelligence information on al Qaeda and its various cells and sister groups.
10) The capture of documentation (written, audio and video) confirming the existence of WMDs and SH's intent and attempts to hide them.
11) Rebuilding of over 700 schools, 240 hospitals and other necessary services.
12) Rebuilding of the Iraqi water and sewer system, including new water purification ande sewage processing plants (still ongoing).
13) Rebuilding of the electrical infrastructure to a capacity available before the start of the war, and the ongoing building of new power plants to increase capacity.
14) Rebuilding and upgrading of the oil production infrastructure (still ongoing).
15) Reduction of Iraqi unemployment by over 20% in the past two years, and a commensurate increase in average wages.
16) Opening of new economies and new economic opportunities to the Iraqi people and outside investors.
And much more.
But you can't see any of this... to you, the war is a failure, everything is going to "hell in a handbasket", and Bush and Rummy are at fault for all of it. Well if they are at fault for the errors, then they should also be responsible for the successes. When are you planning on acknowledging those successes and giving credit to Bush and company?
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/26/06 1:25 pm:
Oh, and I have been in the military. Just not the US military.
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/26/06 3:33 pm:
Elliot,
'Eliminating the Iraqi military" was a faux pas of the first order. That is one of Rummy's big ones.
Kathy Kelly
Voices in The Wilderness
Baghdad
Recently, George Capaccio sent me observations sent to him by “a friend of a friend.” I sent them on to Ahmed Kharrufa. Ahmed has been sending letters from Baghdad since the Occupation began. When I arrived in Baghdad last summer he and his family befriended Cathy Breen and I. Here is Ahmed’s response to the observations.
Dear George,
Kathy asked me to give some comments to the letter you’ve forwarded her. I feel flattered that Kathy trusted my judgment that much, and I hope that I am worthy of her trust. I’ll do my best to comment on each point as accurately as possible.
But let me tell you very little about myself so that you can better evaluate my comments. I work in a private company and not for the government. I don’t have financial problems. And I never personally had a problem with the old regime (which does not mean that I wanted it to stay, on the contrary, having the old regime gone is the only good thing that has happened). And I have no relation whatsoever to any of the old or the new parties. So my comments reflects the way as I see things, which is hopefully correct and unbiased.
So below are my comments for each point in the letter.
>> Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1st… The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty. Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens. nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning.
But yet, we’ve never felt more insecure. Though the security is improving by time (regardless of bombing and terrorists attacks. I am only referring to robbery and kidnapping), but still Baghdad is still far from being considered a safe city. I started using my (relatively new) car few weeks ago after having kept it in my garage for about 6 month. I still never go out alone though, and I know of many who have not returned to using their new cars yet. What counts is: it has been over 8 months now and it’s still far from being safe enough.
>> The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
We certainly hope so, but no one is sure about that yet. Only time can prove whether our Judiciary system is really independent and just or not. And even then, one must wait till Iraqis say that their judiciary system is independent or not and definitely not the Americans.
>> On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the pre-war average.
Unfortunately I am not sure of the number for the pre-war average but let me give you some facts.
- Iraq’s power generation was about 10,000 MW before the first gulf war in 91.
- Now, Iraq’s power need is about 20,000 MW, and the 4,518 MW is only about a quarter of what we need. So at best we’ll have is about 6 hours a day during peak seasons.
- Before the war, Baghdad used to have an average of 18-24 hours a day in mid-summer and mid-winter. And it was almost full time during autumn and spring. Now, as an average, we have electricity of about 8 hours a day, and the best we had (for very short periods) is 12 hours a day, and that probably occurs when the weather is good or when some places have problems in the power distribution system, so their share will go to others. We have a saying in Arabic, "the mishaps of some, are the fortunes of others".
- The construction of any major power generation plant (in the range of a thousand Megawatt) takes from 3 to 5 years. And till this moment, no such action is taken or even considered. So we are not to expect any noticeable improvement for some years to come.
>> All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
That’s true. But every now and then, a school gets a warning about a bomb, so many parents are afraid to send their kids to schools, and when they do so, they will be deeply worried. The laboratories of most of the universities were looted and new ones have not been prepared yet.
>> By October 1, Coalition forces had rehabbed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than their target.
As for schools, well Kathy replied to that very accurately in her reply and I quote
"Several articles have already been written about the poor quality of school rehabs. Loads of paint has been applied so that buildings look better from the outside, but inside there hasn’t been adequate rehab of plumbing systems, water systems, and insulation from rain."
Money were given to contractors without any form of monitoring. The contractors did some fixing, specially painting and stole the rest of the money. End of the story.
>> Teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.
True, but the extra money is being spent in ways that did not exist before. People are spending money to subscribe for few ampers to get some electricity from the large generators that can be found in many neighborhoods now. An Amper is sold for about $2-3 a month, so for the minimum useful amount of 5 Ampers, one will have to pay an amount of $10-15 a month (A teachers salary now ranges from $60-120 a month, maybe a little bit more). Those who are not willing to stand in the fuel queue will have to buy fuel in the black market for about 20 times its official price. The same for Kerosene. Many things like meat and vegetables are almost double their previous prices.
Only electrical equipment and cars got cheaper everything else got more expensive, eating the few extra bucks that were given.
>> All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open. Doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
Doctors used to get very very very very low salaries. Now they get very low salaries. My sister in law, who is a doctor, gets about as much as the cleaning man working in the same hospital and that’s about $120. There is a rumur that the salaries will be recalculated soon. Lets wait and see.
>> Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons. The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.
I don’t know about that. So I will not comment.
>> A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals. They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.
Same comment as above, that is, no comment.
>> We have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production. There are 4,900 full-service connections. We expect 50,000 by January first.
The telephone lines that are working now, are basically those that have not been damaged in the first place. From those damaged, and after about 8 months, only about 15% has been restored. No one expected fixing the telephone service to take that long.
As for water, well its too vital. You didn’t expect the US to leave us without water? Or did you?
>> The wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.
That’s something I’ve always wanted to comment on.
- Allowing tens of thousands of air-conditioners to come into the country (tax-free) when we have an extreme shortage in power generation is not a smart thing to do. (I don’t know if you know this or not, but a single air-conditioning unit consumes about 15 Ampers, while all our house consumes about 10 Ampers).
- Allowing about 500,000 cars to enter the country (tax free), when we have an extreme shortage of fuel is also not a smart thing to do. Picture this, - Shortage of fuel, - many main roads being blocked by the CPA for security reasons,
- Allowing about 500,000 cars to enter the country, 200,000 in Baghdad alone.
Is that something to be proud of? What happened is more shortage in fuel, more traffic jams because of the blocked roads, extra cars, and absence of electricity which means no traffic lights. I used to drive to work in about 20 minutes, now its takes from 40 to 90 minutes!
>> 95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses. The central bank is fully independent. Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws. Iraq (has) a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
Well we are definitely happy to finally have a decently printed currency.
>> Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1st… satellite dishes are legal.
Thank God, we needed something to spend our time with because no one dares to leave home after 9 PM.
>> Foreign journalists aren’t on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies. There is no Ministry of Information.
That’s something we are really grateful for. Really.
>> There are more than 170 newspapers.
Many newspapers, but not 170. Anyway, Iraqis are finally back to reading newspapers, because the majority of Iraqis had stopped doing so for a long time.
>> You can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
For the first few months after the occupation, all Iraqis were either selling satellite reception systems, or buying them. That was the only thing going.
>> Foreign journalists and everyone else are free to come and go.
But they are afraid to come. Baghdad is no more a safe place for foreigners.
>> A nation that had not one single element-legislative, judicial or executive–of a representative government, does. In Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman. Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.
Did it ever happen anywhere in the world, that the religion of the minister of each ministry, is determined before selecting the minister. Regardless of the ministers ability, the way they were chosen, arouse many question marks, let alone the exclamation marks. But something is definitely better than nothing.
The problem of each minister promoting those having the same religion as his or in his party over others, is a different story, and I don’t believe that the Americans are to be blamed for this.
>> The Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.
Thanks for giving us our very basic rights. Should we be grateful for that?
>> Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren’t. For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam. The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small as part of (a) strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to his zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq’s soccer players for losing games…murdering critics. Children aren’t imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.
We are definitely happy that Uday and Quesay are gone, but now the possibility of being blown up or getting caught in cross fire is much higher than getting into trouble with Uday and Quesay. Two terrorists are gone, but replaced by hundreds (note that I am not referring to the US army, but to those who kill innocent Iraqis and then claim to be the resistance)
>> Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1st… political opponents aren’t imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam. Millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
That’s one of the reasons that is easing our pain.
>> Saudis will hold municipal elections. Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents. Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian — a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.
AND LET ME ADD.
AND IRAQ NOW IS A COMPLETE MESS
To summarize:
Yes things are getting better, but very slowly. In fact it is so slow that we are not expecting things to get back to normal in months to come. We modified our hopes from few months, to few years and we are very sad to have reached this conclusion.
Till this moment, we are not even close to pre-war situation. Yes we can have satellite dishes, and we have many newspapers, but put all such stuff in on one side of a balance, and absence of electricity, security, and fuel on the other, and you tell me which side will go down.
The Coalition did a very lousy job. We are not asking them to admit it, but at least let them keep quite and not go bragging about it.
Some Iraqi said, and I quote “The Americans took the cotton out of our mouths and put it in their ears”. This is exactly what happened here.
I hope I’ve answered some of your questions, and excuse me if I sounded too sarcastic, but this is the way things are. The bare truth, unfortunately, is an ugly one. Sometimes I have a feeling of optimisms, but when I start writing, stating the facts, think about what I am writing, things change. If you know I what I mean.
PS: I wrote this message last Thursday, and was unable to send it till today (4 Jan 04). There is one update now. The fuel queues are decreasing and the problem is getting solved gradually. the number of cars reduced to the range of tens of cars instead of hundreds. Thank God
Finally, Happy new year. And may this year be better for all of us.
Sincerely yours,
Ahmed Kharrufa
===
Since then, the insurgency has got much worse with hundred of Iraqis being targetted daily by bombs and bullets, and the Iraqi Army and the US Army powerless to stop it or to shield the people.
Life is not back to normal and isn't gping to be for a very long time. Just look at your own history and tell me how long it took to 'tame' the wild west! Iraq is now the wild east.
This show will run and run. I might not live to see the end of it.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/26/06 3:40 pm:
Ronnie,
You missed what I said. I said ª) Elimination of the Iraqi military as a threat to US interests and the interests of others in the region." I didn't say anything about the elimination of the Iraqi military. But thanks for reminding me:
17) Training an Iraqi military force of nearly 150,000 combat-ready, self-reliant troops, capable of defending Iraq, and the continued training of additional military and police forces.
>>>This show will run and run. I might not live to see the end of it.<<<
Probably true. And so...?
We still have troops in Japan since WWII. We still have troops in Germany since WWII. We still have troops in Korea since the Korean war. And we will continue to have troops in Iraq for a long time as well. Yes, improvement is slow. But given the size of the task itself, the amount that has been accomplished is HUGE, and the Bush Administration doesn't get any credit for it.
The insurgency may have "gotten much worse" (though that is definitely arguable), but it has also grown a lot smaller... as in 53,000 smaller.
Now, to the economy of Iraq:
Overall GDP in 2005 was $94 billion, up from $54 billion in 2004.
Per capita GDP in 2005 was $3400, compared to $2100 in 2004.
Exporets in 2005 totaled $18 billion, up from $10 billion in 2004.
Electricity production is up to 33 kWh, compared to the 4.6 kWh at the time the letter referenced in your post.
Oil production is currently 2.2 bbl/day, up from 2.1 bbl/day BEFORE THE WAR. Additionally, due to high oil prices, Iraqi oil revenue is way up.
The infant mortality rate has dropped from 50.25 deaths per 1000 live births in 2004 to 48.64 deaths per 1000 live births in 2005, a significant improvement in so short a time.
In other words, things continue to improve significantly. But will Bush and Rummy get the credit? Probably not... at least not until long after they are out of office.
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/26/06 7:41 pm:
Since you do not believe anything I say, I will point out to you that US troops in Germany and Japan are no longer an occupying force. Japanese and Germans know the war is over. They accommodate the US forces because the USA is an ally and Japanese and Germans understand it and haven't fired a shot in anger at US interests since 1945.
Rumsfield would have been sensible (!) to have left the Iraqi army and police forces intact and employed them to maintain law and order. If he had had the wisdom and foresight to do that, it is likely that the insurgency would have been strangled at birth.
It would have made a great difference.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/26/06 8:26 pm:
>>>the USA is an ally and Japanese and Germans understand it and haven't fired a shot in anger at US interests since 1945.<<<
When did we stop being an "occupying force" and become an "ally"? It wasn't the day after the war was declared over, was it? In fact, troops were on high alert in Germany for decades after the war was over.
And don't you think that there is a greater need for US troops to be in a place where they are considered by the insurgents to be an occupying force than in a place where they are an ally?
What exactly are you trying to say there? Are you arguing in favor of the troops being there, or against? Because if you are arguing against our troops being in Iraq, then the fact that they are considered the enemy by the minority is not a very good argument for them to LEAVE, its a good argument for them to stay and maintain security for US interests in the area.
>>>Rumsfield would have been sensible (!) to have left the Iraqi army and police forces intact and employed them to maintain law and order.<<<
Really? And how would he have known which officers and troops were trustworthy, and which were dangerous? Should the USA have put former Nazi soldiers in charge of maintaining security and order in Berlin in the weeks and months after WWII, just because it was easier to do so? Absolutely rediculous. You heard some guy on the radio or TV say that it would have been better to keep the Iraqi soldiers around so that they could maintain peace, and you took it as gospel, without ever reviewing the simple question of how to prove loyalty, or even simple lack of loyalty to Saddam. If I was a US soldier in Iraq, the absolute last person I would trust to maintain security for me was the guy I was just shooting at a couple of weeks earlier.
And that doesn't even take into consideration that the old Iraqi Army was trained to KILL anyone who broke the law, not arrest them. They were poorly trained for the job of police force in an open society.
But by dismantling the Iraqi army and starting from scratch, the US soldiers in charge of training had the chance to screen the applicants, put them through their paces, and train them to the appropriate standards as a military and a police force. And as it turns out, the core of the officers corp of the current Iraqi military is made up of former officers and non-coms of Saddam's army who have now been screened and trained to something resembling US standards.
Thank G-d Rumsfeld had the wisdom and forsight NOT to keep the old Iraqi army intact. I can't imagine the nightmare that would have caused. Or actually, I can imagine it. It is you who seems to have trouble imagining the problems it would have caused.
And its not that I disbelieve anything you say. It's just that what you say is both outdated and wrong, as proven from the facts I posted above. They are directly from official sources, including the CIA Factbook, and UNAMI's monthly reports.
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/26/06 8:49 pm:
I don't know where you get your history from, but in the post-war years the German army underwent denazification.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/26/06 9:25 pm:
Ronnie,
The "de-Nazi-fication" process took years. Would you have trusted the German military to maintain security for you in the early days and months after the war BEFORE the de-nazi-fication process was "completed" (if it ever really was... just look at what proportion of the country's youth belong to various neo-Nazi groups or sympathize with their causes). I certainly would not have trusted them.
But you are again trying to change the subject to Germany and away from Iraq. Would YOU have been able to tell which soldiers were Saddam loyalists and which were not? Would you have been able to tell, without any sort of screening process, which Iraqi soldiers were trustworthy and which were not? If you were one of the coalition soldiers in the weeks and months after the invasion and after Saddam was taken down, would you have trusted the Iraqi regular military forces to provide security for you while you slept?
If you answer that question HONESTLY, you will realize that its a good thing that Rummy didn't allow that to happen.
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 04/26/06 10:00 pm:
Your grasp of history is called into question again. If you make statements, you ought to ensure that they contain at least a kernel of truth. In a good spirit I offer a brief lesson.
Denazification was not limited to the German military. Americans pushed for a complete denazification of German artistic life, through the removal from public performance of all those artists who had compromised with Hitler. They had sound reasons for desiring a cultural revolution. But it was naive of the occupation authorities to feel that culture should or could be completely "purified," and the radical denazifiers' drive to ostracize all those tainted by fascism was simplistic and bound to fail. In fact, their heavy-handed efforts at revolutionizing German music had the unfortunate effect of encouraging artists to obliterate their own past by lying about what they had done.
While this enabled German music to recover rapidly from the shock therapy of denazification, it also perpetuated myths concerning music's unpolitical nature, the innocence of the artist, and, worse, the fundamental incompatibility of Nazism and Kultur.
Only now, with the death of almost everyone who enjoyed a notable career in the Third Reich, are the myths being punctured. And this reversal, in so many ways, comes too late.
Understandably, for all its intrinsic interest and cultural significance, music control remained one of the least important elements in military government. For postwar planners in London and Washington, music paled in significance next to such administrative nightmares as feeding the German population, collecting reparations, demobilizing the army, rebuilding the education system, and reforming the economy. And yet, while considered unimportant within the broader context of occupation policy, music control dealt with moral issues of equal enormity to those confronted by decartelizers and educators. As a result, its career mirrored that of most of the U.S. administration's larger sections.
All the units involved in reorientation, whether they dealt with journalism, theatre, publishing, education, or film making, experienced a similar trajectory. All began by wiping clean the slate: closing schools, shutting down theatres and cinemas, and stopping presses. Operations were then resumed under new German management, using personnel whom the Americans had screened to ensure their political cleanliness.
At the same time, in the late summer of 1945, the Americans launched a major purge of cultural personnel and imposed blacklists of Nazis, militarists, and nationalists. During the winter of 1945-46, after the first wave of the purge was completed, American supervisors put specially chosen artists, educators, and journalists to work creating a democratic culture; domestic film producers were the last to be rehired, in early 1946. Then, in the spring, things began to come unstuck.
In March 1946, by order of the military governor, denazification was returned to German control, and many of those whom the Americans had blacklisted were cleared by the Spruchkammern, or local denazification courts.
The newly elected Land and municipal governments then moved to reappoint these recently cleared people to their former jobs and to shunt aside those whom the Americans had installed.
Briefly, in the fall of 1946, some of the cultural divisions fought back and a second purge followed, but it was short-lived.
By early 1947, military government had ordered a winding down of controls, and American influence was being sharply curtailed. In fact, the year saw a transition in policy from rule to role modeling as MG dictated that its remaining personnel should influence Germans by example and advise rather than control. The accelerating conflict with the Soviets over the latter half of 1947 only added a further dimension to the new task: that of convincing the Germans that the Americans and not the Russians were their friends.
The transition was gradual and uneven, but by 1948-49 all of the cultural divisions had been themselves reoriented to the task of winning German loyalty and support.
Denazification, which had been a diminishing concern of Military Government for , was quietly put to rest.
QED
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 04/27/06 1:25 pm:
Quod erat demonstrandum? You haven't demonstrated anything except your continued ability to change the subject.
The Denazification process continued for DECADES afterward. The only difference is that it took place (as the article you cited states clearly) through example rather than regulation. The only thing that ended after 2 years was the regulations regarding denazification of culture. The actual process continued for decades... as is also demonstrated by the article you cited. "Only now, with the death of almost everyone who enjoyed a notable career in the Third Reich, are the myths being punctured."
Furthermore, the article you cite concerns only the denazification of the German culture and society... music, art, film, journalism, etc. It doesn't discuss at all the military realities of post-war Germany and the role of the German military.
In actuality, the Wehrmacht (German military of 1935-1945) was completely disbanded in the post-war era. In fact, Germany was not allowed any sort of independant military force until May 1, 1956, when the Bundeswehr, the current German military, was formed and Germany joined NATO. In other words, the Allies did to Germany's military exactly what Rumsfeld did to Iraq's military... disbanded it until they could determine wh they could trust to form the new military. And in Germany's case it took over 10 years. In Iraq it only took 2 years.
Now QED.
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
