sense has been that the work and projects of the contractors in Iraq
have fallen far short of their promise, and that, while they continue
to be there to line their pockets, the day-to-day lives of Iraqis
have not been much improved by civil engineering projects for which
we are paying.
Iraq has oil revenues, and Iraq can hire engineering and construction
firms from anywhere in the world, if they want outside help. From
our point of view, we should be telling contractors that the money
pipeline is about to dry up, and that they are on notice that we will
not continue to sacrifice American soldiers' lives to protect their
contracting work.
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Edward Hochman <whovian7_2000@...>
wrote:
>
> We will have some troops there enough to protect the contractors
and other american personnel. neither candidate will be able to do
too much more than that due to the fact that they can't unilaterally
cancel promises made by bush. bush did that and our word means
little in the world right now and that is what the new pres is going
to have to deal with.
>
> ed
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: sailoret <sailoret_2000@...>
> To: Dems2008@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 10:28:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dems2008] Obama and Hillary Spin a 'Big Lie' About
Iraq - Wrong!!!
>
>
> It's not a lie, that's why they haven't been called on it.
>
> Hillary and Obama have not said they would completey withdraw every
troop forever out of there. They are too conscieneness of the people
left in Iraq. That is nothing new. However, they will reduce our
task force, making the Iraq govn't more repsonsible, unlike the
conservatives that want to stay there until it is "won", whatever
that is.
>
> It even states the facts in this article; they will start
diminishing the number of troops in Iraq by a certain time and they
will have less troops in Iraq than what is currently there.
>
> Headlines like this are spins that they are lieing, not true...
Just read the article and it proves Hillary & Obama will reduce the
troops and not have America be the big "keeper" of Iraq. That's what
America wants. It's understanable if we, and hopefully we can get
America to be respected again so we can get our old ally's back to
help us, have some left over help but make it clear, Iraq is the
number one "Keeper" and fighter if necessessary.
>
>
> Edward Hochman <whovian7_2000@...> wrote:
>
> Home
> Archive
> Columnists
> Video
> Blogs
> Discuss
> About
> Search
> Donate
> Advertise
>
> Get AlterNet in your mailbox!
>
>
>
> Advertisement
> Hate in America Racism is a serious problem in America.
>
> Stand strong against the hate and racism infecting our nation.
>
> You can make a difference.
>
> Take a Stand Against Hate.
>
> Read more...
> A New Grassroots - Netroots Blog
> The New Republic: Labor's Love Lost: Will Andy Stern save unions,
or destroy them?
> UHW local members picket parent union SEIU in Washington, D.C.
> Benson's Union Democracy Blog: Stern¢s threat to trustee west coast
SEIU local poses danger to democracy in labor movement
> UHW unity inspires member to fight for union democracy
> KPFK Radio: Hundreds of UHW members rally in Los Angeles for union
democracy
> Counterpunch: A Purple Uprising in Oakland
> San Francisco Bay Guardian: SEIU skullduggery: top staffers at SEIU
seeking to undermine dissidents
> SF Weekly: Nursing Home Lobbyist Quits After He Predicts SEIU
Powerplay
> Labor Notes: Members Decry Loyalty Oaths, Cozy Deals: Reform
Movement Forms in SEIU
> 1000 Health Care Workers Join UHW despite the boss campaign and
interference by SEIU
> Read more...
> Reserve the Premium Ad Spot!
> Advertisement
> New from Glenn Greenwald A takedown of the GOP¢s deceitful
propaganda machine from the hugely popular blogger of Salon.com¢s
Unclaimed Territory and the author of the New York Times bestsellers
How Would a Patriot Act? and A Tragic Legacy.
>
> Available April 15. Pre-order now.
> Read more...
> Away With All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the
World
> By Bob Avakian
>
> In Bookstores Now!
>
> "...may just spearhead a return to the Age of Reason."
> Harry Lennix, actor, instructor
> Read more...
> Reserve the Silver AlterNetYour turn
> Support AlterNet
> Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please
show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
>
>
> Feedback
> Tell us how we're doing.
> Search:
>
>
> Obama and Hillary Spin a 'Big Lie' About Iraq
> By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted April 5, 2008.
>
>
> The two Dems lie, blatantly, every time they discuss Iraq on the
campaign trail, but the media refuse to call them on it.
> Tools
> EMAIL
> PRINT
> 19 COMMENTS
>
> Share and save this post:
>
> Also in War on Iraq
> How the U.S. Just Got Schooled by a 'Rag-Tag' Neighborhood Army in
Iraq
> Gary Brecher
> Maliki to Launch More Attacks in South as Sadr Calls for Massive
Protests
>
> Bush Administration Wastes Trillions in Worthless Weapons
> Robert Scheer
> 'Handed Over' to a Government Called Sadr
> Dahr Jamail, Ali Al-Fadhily
> Progressive Dems Unveil Plan to End Iraq Occupation
> Christopher Hayes
> Rapists in the Ranks
> Jane Harman
> More stories by Joshua Holland
> War on Iraq RSS Feed
> Main AlterNet RSS Feed
>
> Get AlterNet in
> your mailbox!
>
>
>
> Advertisement
> The cable news networks are happy to spend hours on the latest
silly campaign squabble but can't bring themselves to point out the
plain fact that the two Democratic nominees are lying, blatantly, to
the American people about one of the most important issues facing the
country today.
>
> On the stump, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are crystal clear in
their rhetoric about Iraq. In a statement released on the occasion of
the 4,000th U.S. combat death in Iraq, Clinton said, "I have made [a]
promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to
this war, and bringing our troops home safely." Not to be outdone,
the Obama campaign piped in with an even more definitive
statement: "It is past time to end this war that should never have
been waged by bringing our troops home."
>
> On the campaign trail, the two candidates often speak of bringing
the troops home and ending the war, and Democratic primary voters, 80
percent of whom want U.S. troops out of Iraq within 12 months, reward
them with boisterous applause.
>
> It's a Big Lie, and everyone who follows the debates over U.S.
policy towards Iraq knows it, but refuses to call the candidates on
it. Both Clinton and Obama (PDF) have been very clear -- in the fine
print -- about the fact that they will leave a significant number
of "residual forces" in Iraq, albeit with a more limited mission than
the Bush administration has pursued. They would protect U.S.
infrastructure and personnel -- Obama says "the U.S. embassy" --
train Iraqi forces and retain a rapid-response force to
conduct "limited counter-terrorism" missions.
>
> Although the candidates refuse to specify the exact scope and
length of that mission, independent analysts say that it would
require at least 40,000 and as many as 75,000 soldiers and marines.
When one looks at the big picture, the end game appears to be a
significant draw-down of troops -- with as many as 100,000 sent home
or redeployed to Afghanistan, where thin NATO troops are struggling
to contain a re-emergent Taliban -- calling a halt to most combat
operations and patrols, and dismantling most or all U.S. bases
outside of Baghdad.
> They would, however, maintain the infrastructure of the U.S.
occupation and provide the forces necessary to do so. As the Nation's
Jeremy Scahill told Amy Goodman,
>
> Both [candidates] intend to keep the Green Zone intact. Both of
them intend to keep the current U.S. embassy project, which is slated
to be the largest embassy in the history of the world ... And they're
also going to keep open the Baghdad airport indefinitely.
> Calling the massive campus the United States is building in Baghdad
an "embassy" is somewhat misleading. The Associated Press described
it as a "fortresslike compound rising beside the Tigris River ... the
largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the
population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained
power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's
turbulent future."
> Obama and Clinton have co-sponsored legislation that would increase
accountability for the 180,000 security contractors -- some
authorized to carry weapons and use deadly force -- that have run
around Iraq largely unaccountable under U.S. and Iraqi laws and the
military justice system (Clinton only did so after coming under
pressure from human rights and other activists). Creating
accountability is a positive step, but neither Clinton nor Obama have
said that they would discontinue the use of mercenaries and other
private contractors in Iraq.
>
> There is a mile-wide gap between the Democrats' analysis of the war
and that of John McCain, and that's evident in the candidates'
rhetoric. Those differences are significant, in that they would lead
to very different political climates in which the issue would be
debated after the election.
>
> But all three candidates have embraced the Catch-22 that assures
our enduring presence in Iraq. It can be summed up like this: U.S.
forces must remain in Iraq as long as an active insurgency
contributes to its instability, and an active insurgency will
continue to create instability until the United States makes a
commitment to a full withdrawal.
>
> Having accepted that narrative, the sad reality is that the
Democratic candidates' Iraq policies differ only incrementally from
that of John McCain, or from the long-term "cooperation agreement"
Bush is attempting to negotiate with the Iraqi government his
administration installed in Baghdad.
>
> McCain, like Bush, speaks only in the vaguest terms about drawing
down troops "as the Iraqis stand up," but, short of implementing a
draft, a president McCain would have little choice but to make
significant cuts to our current troop levels. So, the difference
between the Democratic and Republican candidates is one of numbers,
rather than approaches. John McCain will likely draw down fewer
troops than the Democrats would, and would have them continue to
patrol the streets of Iraq. But all of the presidential candidates
share similar assumptions about the United States playing a central
role in Iraqi affairs moving forward -- all will retain the
infrastructure of the occupation for the foreseeable future.
>
> U.S. troop levels will decrease regardless of who enters the White
House in 2009 because of military (and political) necessity, rather
than principled opposition to the occupation of Iraq. Defense experts
from across the political spectrum agree that the current scope of
the U.S. commitment in Iraq is unsustainable over the long run. In
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 13,
Gen. Richard Cody, U.S. Army vice chief of staff, made that point
quite clearly:
> The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds
the sustainable supply ... Given the current theater demand for Army
forces, we are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments
for our soldiers and families ... Equipment used repeatedly in harsh
environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed. Army
support systems, designed for the pre-9/11 peacetime Army, are
straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war.
Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it.
> The United States has already decreased its military footprint in
the streets of Iraq -- surrendering large swaths of territory to
local authorities and Iraqi security forces in an effort to reduce
U.S. casualties. Spun as a spontaneous Sunni (and, later,
Shiite) "Awakening," much of that territory is being turned over to
whichever armed group holds the most sway in a designated area. Small
fiefdoms have been built in communities across Iraq with weapons and
cash provided by U.S. taxpayers -- there are currently as many as
100,000 militiamen in American employ.
>
> What's your favorite part of the last five years?
>
> If there were truth in advertising, the Democratic candidates would
simply argue that their approach would significantly reduce the costs
of the occupation (we're spending $275 million every single day right
now), result in far fewer American casualties and, if executed well,
might significantly improve the United States' image in the world.
They could argue, convincingly, that a Democratic president and
Congress would improve oversight of the contracting practices that
have proven so disastrous in the "reconstruction" of Iraq.
>
> All of that is true, but one can also rest assured that whatever
feature one has liked best about the last five years will continue
under a U.S occupation with a lighter footprint, even if, in some
cases, it would continue to a lesser degree.
>
> Anti-U.S. insurgency
>
> The McCain campaign is quite touchy about his now-infamous remark
that staying in Iraq for 100 years would be fine with him. They keep
pointing out that he was simply comparing Iraq with places like Japan
and South Korea, where U.S. troops have been stationed for decades.
Their defense is perhaps more frightening than the original
statement; it reveals a man hopelessly out of touch with the
situation on the ground.
>
> Unlike Japan or South Korea, there is an active and effective anti-
U.S. insurgency in Iraq. It is popular; in a poll conducted last
August, almost 6 in 10 Iraqis said that attacks on U.S. troops
were "acceptable. " Steven Kull, director of the Program on
International Policy Attitudes, told me last fall that more than
three-quarters of those he'd polled thought the United States plans
to establish permanent bases in Iraq, and "that view is closely
related to support for attacks on U.S. troops." In fact, he
said, "among those who believe the U.S. will withdraw, just 34
percent favor attacks against U.S. troops, but among those who
believe the U.S. will not withdraw, 68 percent favor attacking
coalition forces."
>
> By overwhelmingly large margins, Iraqis believe the United States
makes the final decisions in the Green Zone, not their
nominal "sovereign government"; in late 2006, more than seven of ten
Iraqis said that if their government demanded that the U.S. leave
their country, we would refuse to do so.
>
> Last June, when Bush first spoke of a "Korea Model" for Iraq, Raed
Jarrar, my frequent writing partner, spoke with several Iraqi
lawmakers from across the political spectrum, including Nassar al-
Rubaie, the head of the Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's parliament, who told
us: "There is no Iraqi who will agree to keep permanent U.S. bases.
Even the ones who are against the timetable for withdrawal oppose a
long-term U.S. presence."
>
> As long as there is a walled city-within- a-city in the heart of
Baghdad, where Westerners eat Kentucky Fried Chicken and dictate --
or are perceived to dictate -- the terms of Iraq's future, the
insurgency will continue. Whether that "Emerald City" is guarded by
40,000 U.S. troops or 140,000 is irrelevant to that reality.
>
> Propping up an unpopular government
>
> Under a lighter occupation, the United States would continue to
prop up, by force when necessary, an Iraqi government with little
legitimacy and an agenda that is deeply unpopular with a majority of
the Iraqi population.
>
> The U.S.-backed regime favors an extended American presence; 70
percent of Iraqis want a complete withdrawal of foreign troops within
12 months (PDF). Maliki and his supporters favor a loose federal
system in which powerful regional governments oversee most domestic
issues; 66 percent of Iraqis favor "one unified Iraq with a strong
central government" (PDF). The Maliki regime favors the wholesale
privatization of Iraq's oil sector; two out of three Iraqis want
their country's oil wealth to be controlled by the state (the norm
throughout the Middle East).
>
> This explains, to a large degree, why "victory," as defined by the
American foreign policy elite, is structurally impossible -- if the
United States and the Iraqi minority it supports "win," then most
Iraqis will lose by definition.
>
> Cutting the number of combat troops by half -- or by two-thirds --
won't change this dynamic in the slightest bit.
>
> Marginalizing indigenous efforts towards political reconciliation
>
> The flip side of backing an unpopular government is that inevitably
it will be challenged by populists with an agenda that is supported
by a broad swath of the population, and an occupying power must work
to marginalize them, which has been the case over the past five
years. As Jarrar and I wrote last May, Iraqi nationalists "have
proposed a series of comprehensive peace deals that might unite the
country's ethnic and sectarian groups, and result in an outcome
American officials of all stripes say they want to achieve: a stable,
self-governing Iraq that is strong enough to keep groups like al
Qaeda from establishing training camps and other infrastructure
within its borders."
> But these plans are unacceptable to the coalition because they (a)
affirm the legitimacy of Iraq's armed resistance groups and
acknowledge that the U.S.-led coalition is, in fact, an occupying
army, and (b) return Iraq to the Iraqis, which means no permanent
bases, no oil law that gives foreign firms supersweet deals and no
radical restructuring of the Iraqi economy.
> The United States and its allies in the Maliki government have
marginalized, rejected or ignored these indigenous efforts towards
reconciliation, and at times attacked or imprisoned their authors.
That dynamic won't change as long as the United States maintains the
infrastructure of the occupation and continues to back the regime
with air power; on the ground, the strength of the pro-government
militias -- aka the "Iraqi army" -- means that the exact number of
U.S. troops is essentially irrelevant to this issue.
>
> Violence in the streets
>
> Last week, these dynamics were thrown into sharp relief as
politically divided Shiite parties battled it out throughout southern
Iraq.
> Lacking a central government with broad legitimacy among different
Iraqi constituencies, Iraq's political conflicts are not a matter of
academic debate. Every influential political party in Iraq has an
armed wing -- a militia -- and decreasing the number of combat troops
in Iraq will not help bring those parties to the table to come to a
real accommodation.
>
> In fact, Iraqis believe the opposite to be true; last December, the
Washington Post reported on a series of Iraqi focus groups conducted
by coalition officials, which concluded that "Iraqis of all sectarian
and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the
primary root of the violent differences among them and see the
departure of 'occupying forces' as the key to national
reconciliation. " It's safe to say that they didn't have a partial
withdrawal in mind.
>
> Chilean-style economic experiments
>
> One might find the devastating economic "shock therapy" imposed on
the Iraqi people the most appealing aspect of the Iraq occupation. As
I've written before, Iraqis have been brutalized not only by bombs
and bullets; they've also been the victims of economic violence in
the form of the "free market reforms" cooked up by a firm in Virginia
on a $250 million no-bid contract before the U.S. invasion.
>
> The economic policies we imposed on Iraq were not some generic form
of "capitalism" ; they included the most radical business-state rules
imaginable -- policies that developing countries have vehemently
resisted for over a decade. Transforming Iraq's economy overnight was
a matter of ideology trumping common sense, and it's shattered a way
of life for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and fanned the flames of
the anti-U.S. insurgency.
>
> A good example of that ideological rigidity is Iraq's new flat tax,
established by Order No. 37 (now Law No. 37). As the Washington Post
reported: "It took L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Baghdad,
no more than a stroke of the pen ... to accomplish what eluded
[Republicans] over the course of a decade and two presidential
campaigns."
>
> Former Reagan and Bush 41 official Bruce Bartlett said, with no
small amount of envy, that an occupation government doesn't have
to "worry about all the political and transition problems that have
made adoption of fundamental tax reform here so difficult," and
Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, called the
move "extremely good news." Meanwhile, one Middle East expert briefed
on the plan told the Post, "A piece of social engineering is being
done on Iraq, but it has almost no support from other members of the"
Iraqi elite.
>
> The economic model favored by the Bush administration is deeply
unpopular with the Iraqi people, and many of its most destructive
features would likely be undone following a U.S. withdrawal. The
business community certainly wants to maintain a U.S. force in Iraq
to prevent that from happening, and Obama and Clinton appear willing
to comply. That dynamic won't change as long as U.S. forces protect
the infrastructure of the occupation, regardless of how many are used
to do so.
>
> Perceptions
>
> A cross-country study of political attitudes in several
predominantly Muslim countries found that 8 in 10 respondents believe
that the American "War on Terror" -- symbolized by its invasion of
Iraq -- is intended to "weaken and divide the Islamic world." This
helps explain why most U.S. foreign policy experts -- more than nine
in ten in a survey conducted last summer -- believe the Iraq war has
made America less safe.
>
> It's reasonable to expect that a lighter footprint, with fewer
Iraqis killed and dismissed as "collateral damage" -- and especially
a reduction of aerial bombardments of civilian centers -- would
improve the United States' standing in the eyes of the world, but
nothing short of a commitment to end the occupation of Iraq by a date
certain will rehabilitate it.
>
> Relieving political pressure
>
> Again, a significantly reduced U.S. presence, as envisioned by the
Democratic candidates, would have a positive impact. Troop deaths --
now averaging about nine per week -- would be significantly reduced,
as would the sky-high costs of the occupation. The pressure on the
military caused by repeated troop rotations would ease as well.
> But those improvements, while real, will come with an enormous
cost: the end of all political pressure for a more constructive and
less militaristic foreign policy in the United States.
>
> Media coverage of just those things -- American casualties, the
exorbitant costs of maintaining the occupation and the stress it's
placing on the military -- are responsible for the lion's share of
anti-war sentiment here at home, not the struggles of the Iraqi
people. Since last summer, when a ceasefire by Muqtada al-Sadr and a
U.S. policy of paying Iraqi insurgents to stop shooting at our troops
resulted in a sharp decline in the number of U.S. military
fatalities, Americans' interest in the conflict has waned. A Pew
study released last month found that just "3 percent of news stories
in February were devoted to the Iraq war, compared with around 15
percent in July last year, and the U.S. public has not perceived the
war, which began nearly five years ago, as a top news story since
October."
>
> If Clinton or Obama is elected, he or she will maintain a cheaper,
smaller and wholly bipartisan occupation of Iraq, and that will
essentially render the conflict out of sight and out of mind.
>
> Don't be hoodwinked
>
> Just before the Texas primaries, Hillary Clinton told a crowd in
Austin that the United States had given Iraqis "the gift of freedom,
the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them
to determine whether they will take that gift." That's as far from
reality as Baquba is from Georgetown; we gave Iraqis the gift of
freedom from a brutal dictatorship and replaced it with the curse of
a widely loathed and often brutal foreign military occupation. And,
since then, we have systematically prevented Iraqis from realizing
the "gift" of self-governance.
>
> If it were "really up to them" -- to the Iraqi people -- to take
that gift, the United States would already be long gone from Iraq.
> It's impossible to "win" an occupation; the question now is whether
we will end it on negotiated terms before a Tet Offensive, or whether
we'll help fuel a long, drawn-out civil conflict until the situation
finally becomes untenable and we're forced to pull American personnel
off the roofs of Baghdad as we did in Saigon. Those are our choices,
and, tragically, all three presidential candidates appear to favor
the latter option.
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder