Political Frenzy

According to reports, veteran Navy SEALS and Army Green Berets are being offered up to $150,000 in bonuses to remain in uniform for a few extra years. This story has made its way up the importance ladder because of the recent Blackwater Security problems.

Recently Blackwater Security, who the US pays to protect diplomats in Iraq, killed 17 Iraqis and have had their license suspended. After this story broke most people were surprised to see that our soldiers were not the only ones with boots on the ground in Iraq.

Blackwater security members get paid significantly more than US commandos. According to Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, “Of the estimated 25,000 security personnel working in Iraq, only about 2,000 are Americans and they earn between $350 to $500 a day.”

The word ‘Blackwater’ has since had a “Watergate” ring to it and what they do is now under the microscope. Are Blackwater Security members mercenaries? Is what they do unethical?

Is getting paid to protect someone unethical?

No it isn’t. They are simply heavily armed bodyguards. Just because they tend to fire their weapons daily does not make what they do unethical. This may be why we are viewing Blackwater different than typical security guards. Typical security guards rarely draw their weapon, while Blackwater commandos have to use their weapons almost daily.

Blackwater is not in Iraq to fight insurgents, they are there to protect certain individuals. There is nothing wrong with that.

The thing that irks me a bit about this is the fact that Special Forces, who carry out much more dangerous assignments than Blackwater, get paid so little to do so. If you knew exactly what these guys do you wouldn’t be able to sleep tonight! Everyday these heroes have to kiss their families goodbye knowing that it may very well be the last time that they see them. And they do it for me and you. These guys should be getting paid a million dollars a year. They display more patriotism and courage than will ever come out of most Americans.

If you ever watch “The Unit” you will begin to understand.

Before President Bush’s speech announcing the troop surge last January I remember watching it in anticipation of the announcement of a new shift in the direction of the quagmire in Iraq. I left it wondering what 30,000 troops could possibly accomplish.

Tomorrow President Bush will deliver a prime time speech announcing that he may reduce our troop level in Iraq by 30,000 next summer, if certain benchmarks are met.

Man does this look bad…. Or does it?

This can be taken either way. On one side it can show that there has been success with the surge and the additional troops are no longer needed, on the other side it can show that the surge did nothing and the president will finally begin to withdrawal troops.

Let’s be honest here, I wish more than you that it did, but the troop surge did not work, it was not large enough. For the amount of sectarian violence happening in Iraq, 30,000 troops was a drop in the pan.

I’m no general but to me it feels like our troops have a lack of objective. They are playing defense, trying not to die. This is no way to fight a war. Think about it, what is their goal right now? To make the Iraq government strong enough to stand on it’s own. This is a great goal, and one that needs to be achieved. However it can’t be achieved without reasonable troop strength.

I can hear you from here, “130,000 troops are not enough?!!!” No it isn’t. Why? What are our troops accomplishing right now? They are defending themselves, thats pretty much it. In your mind what constitutes a successful day in Iraq when you watch the evening news? If nobody dies? That is no way to be at war.

If a group of your friends are outnumbered 4 to 1 and getting pummeled, are you going to go help them, or are you just going to sit back and hope the enemy just stops attacking?

There is strength in numbers.

Most lefties are crying for a complete withdrawal of troops. This would only lead to more hell in Iraq. By pulling out we would leave nothing but unorganized chaos behind us, with more and more people dying everyday. This new plan seems a bit of an ‘out’ by the president and will not change a thing. A new direction is needed…

As my sister once told me, “either crap or get off the pot.”

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, feeling heat from every corner of the political world, resigned today. Democrats were very happy saying that they have been calling for his resignation for months.

Gonzales is blamed for approving illegal wiretapping of Americans, the firing of US Attorneys, and approving torture on enemy combatants (among other things). President Bush said that Gonzales was being “dragged through mud for political reasons.”

It is very easy for any Attorney General to be criticized because the job, much like the presidency, entails making decisions that are so tough that they are brought up the ladder to him. When a decision reaches this place in the political system whatever decision is made is bound to make one group of people mad, and the other happy.

We never hear from the group of people who are happy, it doesn’t sell newspapers.

Today Cindy Sheehan, “war mom,” announced that because Speaker Pelosi didn’t file articles of impeachment against President Bush she will be running for Pelosi’s seat in the House.

Part of me likes this; the other part says…’ehh, what’s the point?’

Sheehan feels that our government is not doing its job and wants to do something about it, which is commendable. The Declaration of Independence says that we have the responsibility to challenge our government when we feel that it isn’t working. I also like that she will be running (if she makes it that far) as an independent.

I don’t like how Sheehan threatened Speaker Pelosi; it’s a bit cocky. As much as it would please a lot of people, impeaching President Bush is simply not realistic. Bush cannot be impeached for making questionable decisions. And, at the risk of sounding like a jerk, her son died while he was in the volunteer Army. President Bush didn’t pull Casey Sheehan out of bed in the middle of the night, give him a M-16, and force him to fight.

Sheehan said that Pelosi has lost touch with the people in her district. At least Pelosi lives in that district, Sheehan lives outside of Sacramento. Can she be more in touch with these people when she lives over an hour away?

Sheehan will run on the familiar platform of universal health care and making college more affordable. Does she even have a clue about how to take on these issues?

Should our politicians have actual experience in government before running for office? Or would they be more effective if they were a bunch of ordinary Joes? With the track record of our politicians it makes me wonder. I know that some people think a chimp could get more done than their congressman!

I live in Congressman Doolittle’s district…enough said.

At an “Ask Mitt Anything” forum today a woman asked presidential candidate Mitt Romney of his 5 sons, “If none of them are (in the military), how do they plan to support this war on terrorism by enlisting in our U.S. military?”

First of all this question is horribly phrased and backs Romney into a corner. But like a true politician he waltzed his way out by discussing how his niece’s husband, who is in the National Guard, was called up, how his sons chose different career paths and are supporting the military by campaigning for him to be president.

It is a dumb question, but I feel that it needs to be addressed. Must someone be enlisted (or an officer) in the military to be a supporter? What do you think?

The notion that you must be IN the military to be a supporter, is ridiculous. I support the military with all my heart, but I’m not heading off to basic training any time soon. However, if we ever have a draft I will be the first guy at MEPS with my head shaved. The United States is the greatest nation on earth because of sacrifices Americans have made while serving in the military. We would be nowhere without them today.

Military service is not for everybody, just like all careers. Some of the most successful people I know are in the military, but it is not for everybody. To support your country in a time of war you should be doing the things that you are best at, not what someone else is best at. The guy who makes M-16s might not be the best to shoot them, and vice versa.

It is naive for someone to think that to support the military you must be in it, and it is even stupider to try to trap a professional politician by asking such pointed questions.

Source: BarackObama.com

Barack Obama’s views on the use of military have been making headlines lately. He made a comment about how, as president there would be no use of nuclear weapons…on civilian targets. Which was criticized by the other candidates including John Edwards who said, “A candidate for president should, in general, avoid talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons.”

Now other campaigns are giving campaign advice?

Obama then made a comment about attacking al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, which caused everyone within a 10,000-mile radius to try to spin it to harm his campaign…ahh yes good old politics.

Obama’s comments also caused President Bush to call the President of Pakistan and discuss how the comments, “were unsavory and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering.” A presidential candidate has that much pull? I’m impressed.

The Obama campaign has been ratcheting up its display of a ‘tough’ Obama who will fight terrorism. An update email to supporters displayed the image above of an angry Obama and talked about the pressing need to deal with Taliban and al Qaeda and how the Bush Administration missed its chance to take them out. All other update emails have been about ending war, then highlighting his views on domestic issues…there must have been a poll that suggested he would gain points if he took a tough terrorism stance.

I like the move because every other Democratic candidate is preaching the same things. Obama realizes that he must beat the other candidates to get the nomination, to do so he must separate himself from them.

It is good to see the anti-war candidate talking about something other than a pullout. A pullout will only cause the strife in the Middle East to fester.

Senate Democrats continued the circus of making it appear that they want to end the war in Iraq. Last night amidst orchestrated photo ops of rolling out cots, and cold pizza Senate majority leader Harry Reid hosted an all night debate to block the Republican filibuster on an amendment to the defense bill.

The amendment would set a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, it fell 8 votes short or the necessary 60.

Numerous Senators took the podium and spoke for or against the amendment, or about nothing at all. Other Senators accused Reid of “playing politics.”

I would have to agree. According to a Capitol Police Officer, the rolling out of cots and pizza was simply a “photo op.”

Even if the vote succeeded what happens next? VETO…they need to figure out another way to solve this!

Senator McCain seemed to speak off sript when saying, “Nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq,” McCain said. “No battle will have been won or lost. No enemy will have been captured or killed. No ground will have been taken or surrendered. No soldier will have survived or been wounded or died or come home because we spent a whole night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning out sound bites or arguing with each other and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship.”

Well put Senator.

Despite the benchmarks, many of them political, to be met by September the Iraqi Parliament has decided to take the month of August off…good idea.

Facing tough questions from reporters White House spokesperson Tony Snow said that it is 130 degrees in Baghdad during the summer. OK, still waiting for a reason. As John Stewart put it, “we’re not asking them to play touch football, we’re asking them to stay inside and get sh*t done!”

Our troops are outside in sweltering heat dodging bullets sweating like Patrick Ewing, and these lawmakers can’t even sit inside of an air conditioned room and agree to easy legislation that will shape their country?

This just proves that the Iraqi “government” is relying on the US for absolutely everything and they know if they don’t meet the benchmarks nothing will happen. Can you think of a more blatant way for them to show the US that they know this?

Maybe the Army should take August off, we’ll see how Iraq runs without them.

Senator Clinton plans to introduce an amendment repealing the Congressional authorization for the war; it would require President Bush to seek Congressional authorization to extend the war past October 11, 2007.

One word: VETO

Why would President Bush even consider signing this? He seems hell bent on staying in Iraq, and will veto anything that comes within a 5-mile radius of his desk that has to do with pulling out of Iraq. Congress has tried the timetables and it didn’t work. They tried the timetables again, didn’t work. They are currently trying the timetables again (sneak preview…didn’t work).

Now Senator Clinton is trying to slip this in as if the president and will not realize it’s there and accidentally sign it. This isn’t a mortage application! Sorry Hillary, he WILL see it.

Barack Obama has even said that Clinton’s approach is ”a convoluted approach to the problem.” Obama went on to reiterate that he was against the war from the start and if elected he would meet with military leaders to determine an exit strategy.

Obama also said the he believes the U.S. has a ”humanitarian obligation and national security interest in ensuring there’s not a complete collapse in Iraq.”

This is the first time I have heard an anti-war candidate say something about Iraq other than PULL OUT. Obama realizes that our troops are currently needed in Iraq, he (like most people now) just disagrees with the reason why we invaded in 2003.

If we only had a crystal ball.

Today GOP Senators blocked an Amendment that would allow our troops to actually have breaks between tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Amendment, sponsored by Senator Webb, a Vietnam veteran who wore his son’s combat boots during his entire campaign, fell 4 votes shy of being voted on, you read that correctly. They had a vote to vote, very productive. As much as I love Congress sometimes they just makes me shake my head and say ‘what?’

The Amendment states, “No unit or member of the Armed Forces…be redeployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom unless the period between the deployment…is equal to or longer than the period of such previous deployment.”

The Amendment was supported by the Military Officers Association of America saying in a letter to Senator Jim Webb, “MOAA is very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military asset – the all-volunteer force – from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national wartime sacrifice.”

Seven Republicans voted for the Amendment, six of which are up for re-election in 2008… big surprise.

An editorial in the Army Times discussed how the current deployment strategy doesn’t work. “It means more mental health problems for soldiers, more stress on families and less support for the mission at home….This is a bad policy.” Longer tours, they discuss, threaten the very strength of the Army. It was found that, “…mental health issues increase in direct relation to the length and frequency of deployments and the amount of combat experience soldiers endure.” The Army Times realized that the Amendment would not pass but said it “would force a debate on how to answer the call in Iraq without destroying the Army in the process.”

The current re-deployment policy states that soldiers may have 12 months at home for every 15 months in a war zone. This is not true. I have friends who are currently in war zones in the Middle East. I can guarantee you that after their 15 month tours they got nowhere close to 12 months at home before they were sent back to the sand.

I always like to see Senators voting against their party, it shows that they are thinking for themselves. Re-evaluating the redeployment policy is a great idea. Our soldiers are needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we cannot overuse them.

“War Mom” Cindy Sheehan, who retired from the peace movement in May, has ‘threatened’ to run against Speaker Nancy Pelosi if Pelosi doesn’t file articles of impeachment against President Bush by July 23rd.

Sheehan feels betrayed by Democratic leadership saying, “We hired them to bring an end to the war.” and is encouraging others to “run against Congress members who aren’t doing their jobs, and are beholden to special interests.”

I respect that Sheehan is challenging the system but maybe she doesn’t realize that even if she found a way to run a campaign with no money it would just force the Speaker to go even further into debt with special interests. It is just the sad truth about our politics today.

Since the death of her son in Iraq Sheehan has had a bone to pick with President Bush, and now she is calling out Congress…she should take a number. Historically it is very rare if the public as a whole is satisfied with the presidency or Congress.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, Congress is listed as the least trusted in a list of 16 prominent institutions. The most trusted was the military with 69% of people having a high level of trust; the presidency garnered 25%, Congress checked in with an abysmal 14%. Lower than both big business and HMOs.

This Congress is now facing criticism for not getting much done. According to a recent CBS News poll 59% of people think that this Congress has accomplished less than previous Congresses did in their first 6 months. It is sad that a do-nothing Congress is expected when two parties are in power.

Congress isn’t the only one taking heat; President Bush is now seeing his Iraq surge plan being abandoned in the Senate. Congress members are facing pressure to pass a bill forcing a major change in Iraq policy before their August recess when they will have to “face constituents.” It seems a bit odd that they only want to get things done when they have to face their constituents, and we wonder why nobody trusts them.

Maybe President Bush should encourage the articles of impeachment; it did wonders for President Clinton’s approval ratings!

The Republican party is, as usual, inconsistent. Shashank Bengali of the Ledger-Enquirer reported today that plans for a wall in Baghdad, which troops have nicknamed the “Great Wall of Adhemiya”, is in jeopardy of falling to pieces now that Iraqis have come together to stop what some have called a “racist wall”. The wall would be constructed to section off Sunni areas from Shiia-controlled neighborhoods.

That this wall would even be considered is evidence that Baghdad is not safe. Unless, of course, Tim Walberg wants to propose plans to carve up Ann Arbor in Detroit’s West Side to keep the West Side Gang, Latin Kings, and West Willow Crips from each other. Obviously the rivalry between the Crips and Latin Kings, who are notorious for their violent shoot-outs, is still not as bad as the Sunni and Shiia problem in Iraq. I guess Baghdad isn’t as safe as Detroit, which Walberg assessed last month.

These assessments of “safety” are based on gut feelings and wishful thinking, not on empirical evidence. Last Wednesday a car bomb killed 82 people in Baghdad. Even if that had been an isolated incident, it is still staggering. But it is not an isolated event. People are dying by the dozens in Baghdad every day, to say nothing of the rest of the country. The death toll in Baghdad blows away anything we have here in the US.

Though I hate to jump on the bandwagon, it is totally insane that when McCain assessed that Baghdad was so safe, he was wearing a massive flak jacket and surrounded by dozens of troops. I have never needed a flak jacket, let alone armed escort, to walk through any US city.

As for the troop surge “working”, we have here the classic Socratic problem of definition. What does it mean for the troop surge to be working? Working at what?

*In March it was reported that for four straight months the US was suffering 80 fatalities per month.
*I also must reiterate the 82 deaths in Baghdad last week.
*Commander General David Petraeus said “We got down at the people level and are staying. Once the people know that we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen.” No word on what kind of things will start to happen.
*A military report last month contained this: “Iraq, USAF F-16s dropped GBU-12s and GBU-38s on enemy buildings near Baghdad. Large secondary explosions were noted after the initial strike, indicating the destruction of explosive material within the structure.” Blowing up stuff that was dangerous because it could blow up. Excellent.

Look, I have a good idea of how to stop an Iraqi civil war. Make them different countries. Iraq is a constructed entity anyway, carved up in the Middle East by British and American interests, incorporating Arabs, Persians, and Kurds. So give the Kurds their Kurdistan, the Persian Iraqis a Persistan, and the Arab Iraqis an Arabstan or something (just don’t put me on the naming committee)

There can’t be sectarian violence if there are no sects. They’re all pissed off because they don’t want people with conflicting interests running their country. So don’t let it happen! Give them separate nations and let them run themselves. It worked, for the most part, with India and Pakistan (with Kashmir being the exception), so why couldn’t it work here?

Americans desperately want a victory, but we wouldn’t know a victory in Iraq if it came up and bit us in the rear. We have no idea what victory in Iraq looks like, so how in the world do we expect to reach it? If we want a path to victory, we need to know where we’re going first.

If we want peace, let’s give the Iraqi partisans their piece.

The White House is now seeking a “war czar” to take over administration of the Iraqi and Afghani wars, in order to co-ordinate efforts between traditionally rival organizations in the United States war machine, such as the CIA, NSA, and Armed Forces.

First of all, the US should never have an anything “czar”. That’s just weird. But we do. (Google “drug czar”)

Second of all… good idea! If only we had had such a position earlier, we might have caught Osama!

When the CIA had Osama trapped, they didn’t receive the military back up they wanted because Donald Rumsfeld thought that the CIA was incompetent, and refused to endorse their action. When the military needed help and had Osama just in their grasp, the CIA failed them because Cheney thought that CIA efforts would be better placed elsewhere. If only we had, like, one guy running the whole thing.

Other than Bush, of course.

What a buttload of silliness.

For the first time in far too long, Congress is standing up to the White House, and flexing its legislative muscles - although the atrophy might make the first bits hurt.

What has annoyed this reporter for far too long is the de facto displacement of power from congress to the White House. Even though congress is the only arm of the government with the power to declare war, almost 100,000 American soldiers have died in combat initiated by Presidential authority alone - Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq have all been wars undeclared by congress. Our current President is completely determined to become a wartime leader, and will not let us forget that we are at war, but no declaration of war has been made by congress; Bush has abused his powers as Commander-In-Chief to wage a de facto war, while de jure he has no right to command them into conflict without authorization from Capitol Hill.

The acts of congress in the past few decades have been weak at best. They have been less than leaders, and little more than an assembly of grouchy old men and women shouting at each other and bringing new meaning to the term “filibuster” by bringing it to us on C-SPAN. But now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to assemble Democrats to cut off funding through the power of the purse.

Vice President Dick Cheney had this to say: “It’s time the self-appointed strategists on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept: You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy you’re going to quit”

Quite right, Mister Cheney. Only one problem. We’ve already lost. It’s time to give up. Sorry. I know, it’s hard to cope, but let’s face it. We can stay there and keep shooting things, but let’s face it, the insurgents, terrorists, guerrillas, and radicals just aren’t going to disappear before we actually do run out of money. It’s better to cut our losses and run. “Cut and runner!” Yes. Cut and run, dammit. We have enough problems at home. Shut up.

Like many times, Doonesbury says it best:

Congress, Power of the Purse, Harry Reid, Doonesbury