PeterDavid.net

Peter,

I think it's unlikely that Iraq's Prime Minister would be killed but more likely for two future scenarios five years from now:

1. The Malaky(sp) government becomes a Shite version of Saddam's. Imposing its will on many factions to avoid civil war.

or

2. A Lebanon-style power-sharing government with fingers of influence from Middle Eastern states outside its borders.

--Captain Naraht

Mr. David,

You are correct regarding Gates' comment about losing in Iraq. Sometime after his statement that we were not winning in Iraq, he was asked by another senator whether if he agreed that we weren't losing in Iraq. He responded, "Yes, at this point."

There's a that mentions this specifically at slate.com, if you're interested.

http://www.slate.com/id/2154941/nav/tap1/

Oh, good night. Please, please, please tell me we didn't actually pay any money for that report...

Firstly: you can't win if there is no plan,
you can't win if there is no strategy,
you can't win if there is no achievable goal,
you can't win if you can never leave.

Secondly: The curent administration reminds me of a group of children playing Superheroes in a sandbox. Anytime the situation conflicts with thier adopted powers they just add new ones. i.e. "The monsters are made of metal ? Okay, then there is a blowtorch at the end of my finger." It's a civil war = it's sectarian violence. There is more death per day = mission accomplished. Neither side wants us there,Iraq police and military are deserting = we're working hand in hand with the people of Iraq to ensure a peaceful transition of power. Back end drafting = a dedicated, experienced military presence. An aproval rating in the 30's and a crushing defeat in a national election for your party = We're getting the job done and I am a uniter.

Don't forget Bush's win in 2004. A little more than half the people voted for you over some other guy = huge mandate.

Thanks. I also forgot, camel with indigestion = weapon of mass distruction.

The assasination of the democartically elected leader would obviously not be an indication of the situation being a civil war. Come on PAD!

During the Civil War in this country, was the democratically elected leader assisnated? Not until AFTER the Civil War. So *if* said leader is assainsted DURING the conflict, then it bears even less similarities to a civil war.

Bill Myers,

"Oh, good night. Please, please, please tell me we didn't actually pay any money for that report..."

Patience. This is only the first day so they can only touch on the "headlines" of the Report.

I'd be interested to see peoples reaction to statements in the Report like "a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will allow the United States to move forces out responsibly; prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly reconciliation; and new diplomatic actions in Iraq and in the region"

or

"Iraq's neighbors and key states in and outside the region should form a support group" to help Iraq achieve long-term security and political reconciliation -- "neither of which it can sustain on its own," (source CNN.com)

How redily will the Bush Administration heed these recommendations?

I'd also be interested in hearing your reaction to these statements, Bill. What do you think?

--Captain Naraht

What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations.

Of course, I fear no one at all is going to call him on that one...either.

Look Halliburton is having record profits. Isn't that what's really important? What's 3000 US soldiers, I don't know how many other "Coalition of the Willing" troops, and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties among oil company buddies?

We also got rid of all that annoying surplus of ordinance, guided missles, helecopters and Humvees. Now let the feeding frenzy of bidding contractors begin. On another note, we are now well over the 300 mark of murders for the year in my city. Add that in with the other major cities and we have proven, once again, that Americans are still better at killing Americans that any other country. Yeah, we're number 1. Oh...wait.

I like Andrew Olmsted's writings. He's somewhat conservative, but not dogmatic. And being military himself, he writes convincingly on military matters, particularly the logistical end, which almost all the politicians and all the pundits completely miss.

I would recommend that folks seek him out, either on his own blog, or on obsidianwings.blogs.com/ , where he occasionally writes. He brings up points that are interesting and nutritious for thought.

The report went on to observe that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woodlands.

What makes me roll my eyes is the phrasing: the global standing of the United States "could be" diminished. Um, guys? It HAS diminished. Could it diminish more? Possibly...you want to try and avoid that.

I'm holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, Dubya will believe this stuff now that it's coming out of the mouth of somebody he actually seems to respect (Baker) as opposed to somebody he doesn't care about (most other members of the human race, including Cindy Sheehan, everybody in the Democratic Party and everybody working for any media outlet not owned by Rupert Murdoch).

Gates doesn't think the U.S. is winning or losing in Iraq. I used a poker analogy in a post last month, comparing the current stubbornness to stay in Iraq "as long as it takes" to a guy who keeps on betting the maximum in a poker game, who refuses to fold when he doesn't have good cards, and who will keep on throwing away more and more money and losing hand after hand because he thinks that if he keeps at it long enough he'll finally get good cards and win a shitload of money. The fact that he might have to go into debt before that happens, or that the pot he finally does win might not make up for the huge sum of money he loses beforehand, are things he simply doesn't think about.

Now it seems more to me like a drinking contest. We have two people both taking shot after shot, both of whom can really hold their booze and can probably go on a very long time. Well, here's how it ends. By the end of the night, both of these guys are going to be hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, and IF they live, their health will be poor for the rest of their life/lives. So...is it worth it? How much self-destructive behaviour is acceptable to eventually "win"? Augh, I'm using quotation marks like Rumsfeld now...

I don't know that Dubya respect Baker all that much. He's one of Bush 41's cronies and 43 has spent most of his life trying some bizarre oedipal quest to show up daddy. That's why he hired Rummy, a guy 41 disliked in the first place.

That's why he hired Rummy, a guy 41 disliked in the first place.

Really? Didn't know that. Huh. Very odd considering that his parents have been known to stick up for him in the past. Like 41 saying the Hugo Chavez was "an ass" after he called 43 "the devil."

I give up then...is there anybody whose opinion this guy actually respects? Anybody at all?

During the Civil War in this country, was the democratically elected leader assisnated? Not until AFTER the Civil War.

Yes, but attempts were made. By both North & South on the opposing President.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "Iraq Surrender Group." They and the left have been invested in this country's defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism... all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.

DW

The report is a joke. Yes it states the obvious, Dubya failed. Even the far right can't deny that! But it's "solutions" are just as far out as Dubya's. Asking Iran and Syria to take a hand? That's like asking a rabid wolf into your house. They may come to the table, they may openly "agree" and they will do everything behind our backs to make it fail.

As I have said in other postings, we are still headed for either the reunification of Persia or the raise of a religious dictator.

What I think stands the best chance of success if people continue to insist that cutting and running is not an option is dividing the country further. The Kurds in the north 1 country. The middle 1 country and the southern third well I'd even concede leaving our troups there if Dubya continued to insist.

This civil war is about which stupid religious sect rules, so let them all rule!

As for Dubya's reaction I love his response that the report could open bipartisan discussions... Like the report wasn't bipartisan. What we are quickly approaching is the partianship is Dubya and cronies vs Dems and Repubs.

>They and the left have been invested in this country's defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism... all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.

Oh yah sure we just love watching this country be handed it's head for the second time in 30 years! Another person demonstrating why this country is so polarized, "the left wants us to loose". No the left wanted us to fight the right war, one where we could win, instead we get 2 wars and our butts kicked in both.

Heh heh, some of the comments crack me up.

How naïve can you be to even imagine the foreign policy of the United States should ever be determined by the public opinion of the world community? What a patently absurd treatise to base an argument around. In doing so you are presupposing all governments throughout the world operate on a level playing field which is hardly the case.

Wow, our standing throughout the world will be diminished? Excuse me while I go over and shed a few crocodile tears, I find myself terribly disaffected by the specter of such an event.

Our nation is not the bitch/whore of the world trying to sidle up to all the other nations in an attempt to be their friend or to be popular.

Admittedly the situation in Iraq is dire to put it mildly but, given the overall history of the region and what had gone on over the last three decades it certainly is better without Saddam than it ever was with him. The biggest mistake our nation ever made was in not letting Norman Schwarzkopf go straight into Baghdad to culminate the first Gulf War. At least the situation would then be resolved by now. People talk as if the Gulf War ended but it never really did. Instead, we lobbed cruise missiles into the place over the next decade and it didn’t make the situation any better.

I want to be sure I understand what is at stake if our standing in the global community lessens - what? Embassies won’t be burned down like they were in Pakistan, Libya and overtaken in Iran? Barracks won’t be bombed like they were in Lebanon or Saudi Arabia?

I will be the first to agree the situation needs to get better and a new approach is necessary to the situation but, what I will not agree with is the popular isolationist rant that runs the United States should never utilize military force as an adjunct to foreign policy. Sticking your head in the ground and hoping a problem will go away doesn’t work. The same people were running around in the late 30’s and that didn’t do anyone any good either.

Do things need to get better in Iraq? Definitely!

Are they better for certain segments of the population? Ask the Kurds or even the Shia.

There are a lot of conflicting goals for the players in the region. Turkey or Iran don’t really want to see an independent Kurdish state. Iran wouldn’t mind seeing a Shia dominated government which it could rule by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned about having a Shia dominated alliance along their northern borders. It’s not a simple situation and it won’t be solved with a simple solution.

If the EU would become more actively involved along with the Arab League things might improve but again, each group has an agenda of their own none of which may be in the best interests of the majority of people in Iraq (and I am not saying we don’t have an agenda of our own). Abandoning those people is an even bigger crime than leaving Saddam in power would have been.

Saddam is still alive, maybe he can just take back the country and everything will go back to the way it was. All the detractors out there, do you think that would be best?

"Oh yah sure we just love watching this country be handed it's head for the second time in 30 years! Another person demonstrating why this country is so polarized, "the left wants us to loose". No the left wanted us to fight the right war, one where we could win, instead we get 2 wars and our butts kicked in both."

No decision the President has made, nor any he could have made, would have satisfied the Left in this country when it came to this war. We know this from observing what took place in the months of his presidency prior to 9-11, during the attempt at the "New Tone." He lets Ted Kennedy write the education bill and passes it (I still recall the big smile on Kennedy's face and the hearty handshake and Kennedy's arm thrown around Bush's shoulder when the bill was passed) and the Left still couldn't say anything good about it.

DW

"What gets me is less that the report is stating the obvious that the President announced repeatedly he was eager to hear the input from the Iraq Study Group and that he would be carefully considering their recommendations."

Hearing does not equal listening to. And considering the reccomendations does not equal acting on them.

Mister_pj, the world is the world, this country is in it, and with so many countries so interdependent upon each other, other countries' opinions do matter. Disagree? How much are you paying to put gas in your car? And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing.

"And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing."

To not have started the war on terrorism/islamofacism after 9-11 would have been irresponsible. An arguement can be made as to whether it's been fought effectively, as with all wars (Battle for Kasserine Pass, the Tet Offensive, etc). But to say we should have never started the war (which is erroneous in and of itself because the US was the one that was attacked) is to admit that you do not understand this enemy.

Darin

"And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing."

Additionally, most of the leftist congress (who represent the Left in this country) voted for the war.

DW

Geez, is it possible for Americans to become *more* polarized?

Sure. We've been more polarized in the past. (145 years ago, for example) Not that we want to repeat that history, but it is possible.

>>"And there was one decision about this war that would've satisfied the "left." Don't START the damn thing."
>To not have started the war on terrorism/islamofacism after 9-11 would have been irresponsible.

You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror.

1 - Iraq is NOT an Islamic state.

2 - Iraq had NOTHING to do with the U.S. terrorist strikes. ALL the participants were Saudis, not Iraqis. Now, how many bombs did the U.S. lob at at Saudi Arabia in this "war on terror"? I forget ...

Now, Afghanistan, on the other paw ...

But, hey, that's not going as well as it might either, because the U.S. is inexplicably (note sarcasm here) tied up in Iraq, rather than concentrating on Afghanistan where they started this was on terror (and then mostly left with it unfinished) and where bin Laden (remember bin Laden) may well be hiding. Butm hey, Iraq is where it's at, right?

"You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror."

Actually, no. You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission, which was deemed infallible by the mainstream media.

DW

You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda

THis is absolutely false.

This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission

No, it wasn't.

Sure. We've been more polarized in the past. (145 years ago, for example) Not that we want to repeat that history, but it is possible.

I don't think you even have to go back that far. Read some TIME or NEWSWEEK fronm the 60s/early 70s and marvel at the fact that we made it out in one piece.

And Den...don't make the mistake of trying to fight terrorism soley by military might. The US Army is geared for high intensity conflict, which we do very well (so well, in fact, that we will not be threatened by that kind of conflict for decades to come).

What we do NOT do well is counterinsurgency and low level conflicts, which is where you must combine political and military solutions to eradicate terrorists. The mistake of this adminstration is using high intensity conflict tactics to pursue a low conflict strategy.

"I don't think you even have to go back that far. Read some TIME or NEWSWEEK fronm the 60s/early 70s and marvel at the fact that we made it out in one piece."

The problem there is that you would have been reading TIME or NEWSWEEK.

DW

mister_pj:

If you support the war so much, why are you still sitting here whining about it. Get your butt over there and help out our troops.

Darin:

The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops.

Mr. Scullion - I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in. You miss the point entirely in that the war never truly ended - perhaps you are unaware of Operation Desert Strike, Operation Desert Fox, Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch.

Further, the US is not behind the bombing of the Al-Askari shrine or other instances of sectarian violence. Where is all that high minded furor and rage when it comes to taking a stand to put a stop to events like this?

Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur. Maybe you think things were better for the Kurds when Saddam was going about the business of killing them in great numbers? Or even when he was doing his best to kill the Shia in the south?

I am not so naïve as to believe we don’t have a vested interest in the region but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions. I recall the chestnut: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the situation to continue to fester like a boil was not an option.

"You make the common mistake of confusing the invasion of Iraq with the war on terror."

Gotta disagree. There is no mistake made here. It is a willful ignoring of the truth. Typical of Bush's lapdogs.

Mr. Coil - First, I am not whining about anything. Second, how can you be so very certain I am not? Don’t let me stop you though, please do continue, always interesting to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

"Darin: The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops."

Now here's an example of a thoughtless statement. Without even knowing who I am or what my own personal history is, you throw out a comment like that... essentially suggesting that I "shut-up" (and in the same move attempt to classify what I've said as "whining"). It did give me a chuckle, I'll admit. Truth is, I've had my ass in the grass and I'm no longer elligible to re-enlist anyway due to age. I support the troops by donating time and money to programs designed to assist them and their families. But don't let that discourage you from making any more comments like these.

DW

mister_pj:

Oh, it's just so obvious that you are merely sitting around and whining. Reading between the lines of your posts, you are obviously a chicken-hawk.

Darin:

You don't have to be enlisted to be over there. If you truly believed so deeply in this cause, you would hire yourself out as a mercenary. I hear Halliburton would hire you as "Private Security".

C'mon now, guys... this is Peter David's message board! Surely we can do more than simply call each other names. It doesn't befit someone of his stature to have that kind of thing happen on a blog with his name on it.

DW

And does anyone think anything is really going to change with our Iraq policy?

Baker's report said to neither increase the number of soldiers nor start pulling out the troops.

Sounds to my like just another way to say
"Stay the course."

"Darin: You don't have to be enlisted to be over there. If you truly believed so deeply in this cause, you would hire yourself out as a mercenary. I hear Halliburton would hire you as "Private Security"."

So, in what way am I not supporting the troops? (I find this fascinating.)

DW

And nobody is too old to serve in Iraq. There have been men in their 50s killed there.

If you can't figure out what I am saying,
there are people who are older than 50 serving at this minute.

"Sounds to my like just another way to say
"Stay the course.""

That's the dirty little secret... now that the election is over. The anti-war Left isn't very happy with the folks who just took over the Legistlative Branch.

Another point:

Did anyone notice that NONE of the newly elected Republicans have ever served in the Armed Forces?

Reason?

Chicken-hawks!

"That's the dirty little secret... now that the election is over. The anti-war Left isn't very happy with the folks who just took over the Legistlative Branch."

Oh, you are SO funneeeee. This report was helmed by the Republicans. All the truth is being covered up. Just as has happened for the last 6 years.

And at this point, I must stop for the night.

I, at least, have a job and need to get to sleep.

Pleasant dreams.

Even to all the chicken-hawks in the world.

I've enjoyed stirring up the pot here. You've provided me with some outstanding entertainment. But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.

DW

I've enjoyed stirring up the pot here. You've provided me with some outstanding entertainment. But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word.

Oh, please. Oldest trick in the world.

Got your ass kicked from here to Baghdad and you try to save face in this lame way? Pfaugh.

>C'mon now, guys... this is Peter David's message board! Surely we can do more than simply call each other names. It doesn't befit someone of his stature to have that kind of thing happen on a blog with his name on it.

PAD can defend himself very well, after all he owns the delete button. The question is more if he will deem the clap and pj have been spewing worth a response. I doubt it.

>Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur.

LOL! That is so funny. Isolationists are at fault for Rwanda? ROTHLMAO! Yah, isolationists are so at fault that I never heard the neocons once start an arguement with a lefty to advocate an invasion to bring the tribal cleansing to an end. In fact the only people who begged for us to do something were the left leaning people who you are denigrating with your posts.

>I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.

Oh is that so, well how about a little history lesson. Who's mess are we dealing with now? George Bush 41! The idiot father instead of heading Saddam off BEFORE he invaded had our ambassador give Saddam the green light!

"September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signaling an American "green light" for the invasion."

We could have told Saddam he couldn't invade Kuwait without a response from the us. We could have moved troops into the area to scare him off. We could have called for the UN to speak out against an invasion in 1990. It's not like Saddam had made his intention known or that the Kuwaiti and Iraqis had been involved in multiple negotiations over territorial boundries and slant drilling for a long time. No Bush 41 was neutral on the subject until of course Saddam DID invade and then it's INVASION, INVASION! WE MUST DRIVE SADDAM OUT!

So I agree let's not gloss over history, let's discuss the complete incompetance of both father and son!

>acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions.

God, I feel like I'm watching Fox News! What benefits? Fox news is always yelling about "no one reports the good"... Bunny thing is even they don't have any good to report. Yawn. Typical repub empty claptrap.

>"Darin: The same for you. Stop whining and get over there and support the troops."
>Now here's an example of a thoughtless statement.

Right on the money in my opinion. Anyone who advocates war should also be the same person out fighting it. I don't care how old you are, put yourself into the same position as you do others. But then Bush didn't show up for duty, his daughters are to busy partying and getting kicked out of south american countries to fight in their father's war. Chaney avoided services, none of the newly elected repubs have ever served... Yet these are the same people who keep accusing the left of not supporting the troops. They can't even fight in the war they advocate and they have the audacity to accuse others of letting down the troops...

So if you think this war is so important, GET OVER THERE! NOW! I don't care how old you are, I don't care if you served years ago, if you are willing to put others in harms way then you should be willing to put yourself right next to them! There are plenty of things you can do and make far better money than our troops who are in the cross hairs do. Civilian support staff are being paid 6 figures just to drive trucks between bases. The silence of your inaction is deafening!

Mr Peter,

Nice of you to make this into a partisan rant. At no point in any of my posts will you note any indication of party policy or leanings.

Funny thing is, I have no great love for either 41 or 43 and can blessedly profess to having never voted for Bush outside of forays on a drunken Saturday night.

Since however, I have elicited your righteous indignation, lets pursue your avenue of reasoning further...

[sarcasm filter on] Besides, I have to take a break from sitting around with Bill Buckley, drinking martinis in front of the fire and dreaming up new ways to throw another couple of gen x'ers or y'ers (or whatever letter your using to identify yourself these days) on the fire so we can manage to keep the unemployment numbers articficially low and try and convince everyone we’re experiencing another boom. Cluck, cluck, cluck. [sarcasm filter off]

Acknowledged, our foreign policy has been botched for a very long time. Also, acknowledged there is no great coalition of the willing springing forth to unify together in the defense of Iraq and freedom.

Damnit, I was sure I closed that tag!

I think the Otto analogy is a good one. I made a compilation video to see if we could take that analogy any further.

You can see that here.

Mister_pj:

(God, where to begin?)

Wow, our standing throughout the world will be diminished? Excuse me while I go over and shed a few crocodile tears, I find myself terribly disaffected by the specter of such an event. Our nation is not the bitch/whore of the world trying to sidle up to all the other nations in an attempt to be their friend or to be popular.

Nobody wants to see the U.S. as the world's bitch, despite the desires of SOME people that the U.S. act like the world is ITS bitch.

But you don't seem to realize that even a "superpower" has limited resources!

This particular superpower is, as even Bush realizes, addicted to oil and has no oil, and is dependent on other nations for its oil.

This particular superpower has also, under Bush, gone into DEBT. It's dependent on other nations for money. Once I heard Dennis Miller ask what this deficit thing was. "Do we owe something this money? If we do, fuck 'em!" That's stupid. You know what happens if you don't pay your debts? People won't lend you any more money. So, what then? What happens when China, or whoever, calls in the debt and we say "fuck you"? Nobody in the world will be willing to help pull us out of the financial quicksand we stumbled into again...ever! So it's in our best interest to keep the nations we owe money to HAPPY. If they dislike us, they can call in the debt and we'll be pretty well screwed.

I am not so naïve as to believe we don’t have a vested interest in the region but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions. I recall the chestnut: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Allowing the situation to continue to fester like a boil was not an option.

Yes...but "good" men cannot be everywhere at once! Look, evil is going to triumph somewhere, like it or not. The U.S. simply does not have the manpower or resources to go around the world stamping it out wherever it lurks, which is all over the place. Anybody who thinks that Saddam Hussein's government was the only one that treated its people with extreme cruelty is woefully ignorant.

And maybe if so many troops weren't tied up in Iraq, and if we hadn't made the U.N. reluctant to work with us by pissing them off, we could form a U.N. peacekeeping force to go into Darfur and *do something*.

Winning and losing become random terms when there are no clear cut definitions of the success or failure criteria.

Leave aside that we austensibly invaded Iraq for a set of reasons that with benefit of 20 seconds analysis turn out to be spurious, there turns out to have been no post victory plan other than 'these guys will welcome us as liberators and embrace democracy'.

It would actually be arguably better if we'd acted as an occupying force and crushed resistance by meeting force with extreme force. (Go look up 'pax romana, pax britannica and pax roxelana')

As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;

1) You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don't like you, or your country, or your country's actions.

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Cheers.

As a Brit I've worked with a number of Americans over the years and I will offer two very generalised observations;

1) You always seem to be genuinely surprised when people don't like you, or your country, or your country's actions.

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Well, to be fair, you did say they were generalized observations. I would, however, point out that (A)- at the very least, everyone I know who didn't vote for Bush (which translates to about half the voters) would have no problem at all accepting the idea that there are people who don't like us; (B)- plenty of those on the conservative side freely aknowledge that as well, though they may be more likely to consider the source and not take such attitudes to heart; and (C)- if your co-workers actually resort to "violence" when confronted with someone who states a simple difference of opinion, you may want to consider a different line of work. They seem to be hiring some rather unstable people.

My own experience with British people is that they are, by and large, lovely folks with a great sense of silly humor, though perhaps with a tendency for overgeneralizations.

"if your co-workers actually resort to "violence" when confronted with someone who states a simple difference of opinion, you may want to consider a different line of work. They seem to be hiring some rather unstable people."

Indeed they were.. the individual I had in mind was an ex-CIA security consultant we had in while setting up a datacentre in Newcastle. He went to the local police station to try and arrange armed guards for the site, and used to relax by going round the docks looking to start bar-room brawls... He was pretty far out on the probability curve, regardless of nationality, especially if he thought anyone was slagging off the 'US of A'.

Cheers.

"But I do have to get on with my life away from the blogosphere, so this will be my final post on this thread. You all have the last word."

Cutting and running? I'm shocked. What would George W. Bush say? I'm asking because, y'know, if you parroted his words any more than you are now, you'd be perched on his shoulder shouting, "Pieces of Eight! Pieces of Eight!" So I figure if anyone could say what he would say, it's you.

PAD

Truth is, I've had my ass in the grass

All the more reason to re-enlist. The government has stop-lossed thousands of soldiers because they say need to keep experienced people. So your experience would likely be welcomed to help keep the newer soldiers alive.

Here's where you can start.

http://www.goarmy.com/ArmyCareerExplorer.do?page=applyOnline

http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp?hmref=cs

A ex-CIA security consultant who starts bar fights for fun? Yeah, I'd say he's pretty out there. Did they ever think that maybe they wouldn't NEED so much security if they didn't have this clown going out and making enemies?

(And how tough WAS this guy? He goes to a foreign country and picks fights with strangers? I know the English are fabled for politeness but wouldn't the odds favor him ending up dead in a ditch somewhere before too long?)

Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 7, 2006 06:46 AM

2) You frequently follow up the surprise with outrage, insults and/or violence instead of considering that maybe you are at fault in some areas.

Violent crime has sharply risen in the U.K. in recent years. And football "hooliganism" in Britain has resulted in riots where numerous people have been killed. The latter problem doesn't occur with anything close to the same frequency or severity in the U.S.

You are not helping your case by making gross overgeneralizations about the U.S., nor by attempting to overlook flaws in British culture. No society is perfect, but that's no excuse for stereotyping.

There are many, many people in the U.S. who are upset about our loss of stature as a result of the Iraq war. Many of us didn't want to our government to invade Iraq in the first place; many more now recognize too late that it was a mistake. Rather than witnessing the behavior of one American and making wild generalizations, you would be better served to learn about the world around you and THEN form your opinions.

Oh -- Captain Naraht, I saw your post and I do intend to respond. I just haven't had time. Your inquiry deserves a thoughtful answer and I'd like to make sure I give it one. I have the day off tomorrow -- that should help. :)

And Den...don't make the mistake of trying to fight terrorism soley by military might.

Okay, I'm confused. When did I make this mistake?

Looks like I missed all the fun last night while I was teaching. I don't really know that I have much all to add, other than the fact that I find it astounding that people still believe that WMDs were found in Iraq, a claim even Bush has given up on. I guess that's where the fightin' 30-percenters come from.

As for the report itself, what struck me is that they included language warning Bush that their suggestions need to be implemented all or nothing and told him that he shouldn't try to take their advice and try to implement them piecemeal.

I think that's the one piece of advice will take and he decides to eventually ignore everything and just continue to "stay the course."

Additionally, most of the leftist congress (who represent the Left in this country) voted for the war.

No, most of congress voted for the war, but most of the democrats voted against it.

You make the common mistake of not recognizing that Iraq was a sponser of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. This was even verified by the 9-11 Commission, which was deemed infallible by the mainstream media.

No, the 9-11 commission established Iraq did not support Al Qaeda. This isn't the first time you've been corrected on your factual inaccuracy.

But, yes, Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism, paying out $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers from the same oil-for-food kick-backs he paid Dick Cheney $73 million with. When do we declare war on Wyoming?

I wouldn't put too much stock in the "Iraq Surrender Group." They and the left have been invested in this country's defeat ever since we began the war on terrorism/islamofacism... all in a mad effort to get political power back in the United States.

Yeah, those pesky WWII-generation-Bush republicans are just so sick of being political outsiders of those Vietnam-dodging-Bush republicans.

Why do you keep mispelling fascism? Do you have some kind of problem with faces? Is that your real problem with weapons inspections -- too tolerant of faces?

Gotta love the Gov't. It does a heackuva job of spending millions of $ on a report that...pretty much confirms what the rest of the world has known for the past 18 months.

And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

"I've enjoyed stirring up the pot here."

Begs the question--believer in what he says or just saying things for a reaction?

I was going to make some cattle-mutilation/Wyoming joke, but right now I can't think of a coherent one that would be funny to anybody outside my head(they that live in it, though, are currently doubled over in hysterics) so insert your own HERE.

And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

Most definitely. I think he's realized that the idiot son has so badly tranished the family name that it's doubtful that even his smart son's children will have a political career now.

And that's why he got so teary eyed about the 1994 governors race in Florida. Remember in 1994, both Dubya and Jeb ran for governor of their respective states. Dubya won and Jeb lost. That gave the idiot son the headstart to work on a presidential bid. Bush 41 was probably thinking that if only Jeb had won in '94 instead, he'd be the one in the White House and wouldn't have needed Baker to pull his ass out of the fire again.

NBC Nightly News last night asked some people their opinions about the report. One woman called it "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".

Quite frankly, I think that woman needs some sense knocked into her.

Many people, myself included, predicted before this bs war started that it would be likened to Vietnam, that it would be a quagmire, that it would be a colossal failure that would only spread terrorism in the world.

But now it's Monday morning QB'ing? What a crock, what an utter joke some Americans have become.

mister_pj -
I love how you can totally gloss over all the foreign policy decisions the US made concerning Iraq between the years 1992 and 2000 as if they didn’t exist and have nothing to do with the situation we are currently in.

Let's see... Saddam didn't have WMD and he wasn't invading his neighbors.

Seems like those foreign policy decisions were working.

Emperor Bush unilaterally decided otherwise, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Where is all that high minded furor and rage when it comes to taking a stand to put a stop to events like this?

See below.

Seems to me that when the isolationists win, events like what happened in Rwanda occur.

Darfur.

And guess what? I see no furor there, just like there was non with Rwanda. Embarassing.

We are no more isolationist now than we were 10-15 years ago. Our leaders just ignore these places because they have no oil.

If you're going to make such claims about isolationism, you should at least be truthful about them.

but, acknowledge there is some ancillary benefit to our actions.

And what would that benefit be? It certainly hasnt't been a benefit to the Iraqi people, who may be dying in even greater numbers now than they were under Hussein.

It certainly hasn't been beneficial to Americans, who have to pay for this ridiculous war while the real war-mongers like Bush and Cheney have profited.

The whole lot of them should be hung for war-profiteering.

Bill Myers said: "Oh -- Captain Naraht, I saw your post and I do intend to respond. I just haven't had time. Your inquiry deserves a thoughtful answer and I'd like to make sure I give it one. I have the day off tomorrow -- that should help. :)"

Thanks Bill.

Most of the posters here still arguing about Iraq itself and not the report. I like the discussion, but I'd like to hear people's opinions on how the thing can work or what the challeges are to the report. I come to this blog because it keeps the name-calling to a minimum and the thoughtful discussion flowing.

As much as I historically disagree with Mister P, I can't fault his reasoning when he states: "There are a lot of conflicting goals for the players in the region. Turkey or Iran don’t really want to see an independent Kurdish state. Iran wouldn’t mind seeing a Shia dominated government which it could rule by proxy. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are concerned about having a Shia dominated alliance along their northern borders. It’s not a simple situation and it won’t be solved with a simple solution.

If the EU would become more actively involved along with the Arab League things might improve but again, each group has an agenda of their own none of which may be in the best interests of the majority of people in Iraq (and I am not saying we don’t have an agenda of our own). Abandoning those people is an even bigger crime than leaving Saddam in power would have been."

That's the sort of thoughtful comment (whether you agree with it or not) that keeps me coming back to Peter's blog. My response would be "How do we get the Arab Legue and the EU together? By a comprehensive diplomatic strategy that accounts for all agendas." Not something being done there for a while. At least since Yitzak Rabin was murdered.

If we all are responding to the report with a collective "well, duh" what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?

--Captain Naraht

"... but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world..."
- Dick Cheney, 1996

Apparently 9/11 addled his mind so much that, even when the result were the same has he predicted 5 years earlier, he still went forward with them.

what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?

I'm not sure I have any. I have no confidence whatsoever that Bush will do anything other than "stay the course" (a phrase he has used several dozen times, then outright lied and said he never used it before).

We are holding the Iraqi government's hand right now, and I think the only way to get them to have a chance of succeeded is to tell them that we're not going to stay there forever, and show them that we're going to follow through with leaving.

So far, the Iraqis have shown no initative, their militia is in shambles, and I wouldn't trust their police either.

Bush has created a situation where, imo, we cannot win. At this point, there is only "how long before we leave?" and "who's heads should roll for this fiasco?"

"... but the idea of going into Baghdad, for example, or trying to topple the regime wasn't anything I was enthusiastic about. I felt there was a real danger here that you would get bogged down in a long drawn-out conflict, that this was a dangerous, difficult part of the world..."
- Dick Cheney, 1996

You know what amazes me about this comment? The bushapologists will throw out every quote they can find that Clinton made about Saddam in order to justify an invasion he never initiated, but develop a strange case of collective amnesia when it comes to Cheney's statements from the same time period about why we shouldn't invade Iraq.

The only possible solution now that seems to me to have a chance to bring peace to the Iraqi people is a massive training of a viable police and military force from within.

This is not impossible--there is nothing genetically deficiant with Iraqis and great soldiers have been made out of less promising material. The greater problem I'd fear would be infiltration by Al Qeada and other forces.

There should be a crash course in training americans to learn the languages needed. Massive infiltration of the insurgency. Use of the kurds in large part for the police force--in exchange for a promise of virtual independence of Kurdistan (Turkey can be told that their acceptance of this is a requirement for any chance of entrance into the EU, though I think that is probably a dead issue and I don't blame the Europeans for feeling that way.)

Might be too late--we should never have dissolved the Iraqi army--but it's better than the frighteningly large number of people I've seen who seriously suggest that it's too bad we can't put Saddam or someone equally totalitarian back on the throne.

The only possible solution now that seems to me to have a chance to bring peace to the Iraqi people is a massive training of a viable police and military force from within.

Yeah, but isn't that what we were supposed to have been doing for the past three years? I agree that there isn't anything genetically wrong with the Iraqis, so the problem then has to be on us. I just heard that our embassay in Baghdad has 1,000 employees, but only 33 of them speak Arabic.

You'd think teaching our personnel how to speak Arabic would have been a priority sometime since 9/11.

You'd think. Weren't a bunch of arab speaking military men kicked out under the "don't ask don't tell" policy? Good to have our priorities, er, straight.

Here, let me make this easy for some of you. You’re right, about everything... about Bush, about the WMD, the mistakes our government has made, the incredible waste of money and lives, it’s made people the world over hate us and we are a horrible, horrible, misguided society for doing what we did - it’s all true - you win!

Now, what is the solution for this country that is royally f**ked if we just pick up all our toys and go home? Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away? Does anyone ask the question about the aftermath? Is it a fixable situation? What are our options?

Far be it for me to be an apologist for an administration I find barely tolerable (and that’s putting it mildly) but, that aside how do we move forward? If the problem is dealt with see my earlier comment about letting the situation fester and then no matter who wins a race in 2008 they will spend much of their energy trying to figure out a solution.

Oh and regarding Mr. Alfred’s comment: And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

Way to give a guy douche chills first thing in the morning, I could feel the ol’ sphincter tightening up at the prospect (Jeb successful). We can only hope the damage is so severe.

In regard to Mr. Brown’s comment And maybe if so many troops weren't tied up in Iraq, and if we hadn't made the U.N. reluctant to work with us by pissing them off, we could form a U.N. peacekeeping force to go into Darfur and *do something*. Hell man! Don’t you know that‘s in a continent we’ve already raped and pillaged?! If there is nothing in it for us why be so damn high minded!? (again, sarcasm through the cold characters of the interenet may fail to come through but I would agree heartily with you on that)

mister_pj -
it’s all true - you win!

Yeah, you'll really see all of us who were right jumping up and down for joy.

I've said it before: sometimes, it doesn't pay to be right.

But we're certainly paying for Bush being wrong.

Is it a fixable situation?

Imo, no.

Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away?

Going by Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule, yes, we do a responsibility to Iraq. But we also have a responsibility to our troops not to send them on any missions that are doomed from the start.

Does anyone ask the question about the aftermath?

Every day.

Is it a fixable situation?

Magic 8-Ball says: Highly Doubtful.

What are our options?

And there is the rub. Leaving is a bad option. Staying is a bad option. Trying to get Iran and Syria to play ball with us is a bad option. There really aren't any good options, at least in the short term. That's really the central conclusion of the study group. Can we fix it? I don't know. I hope so.

Like Craig said, I take no pleasure in being right about this mess.

Now, what is the solution for this country that is royally f**ked if we just pick up all our toys and go home? Do we have any responsibility to put things right or do we just run away?

What would it take to do a presidential recall election? It isn't like Gray Davis did anything as severe as invade Utah.

"what are some of your thoughtful suggestions to make it work?"

The big question is just how far Bush is going to act on the suggestions made in the report. Even now, Jack Crouch II is supposedly putting together "options" for the president that will "borrow" from the panel. This isn't an apple barrel. You can't pick the good ones and leave the not so good ones for other people.

One thing that struck me is what Farouq al-Sharaa said. "The entire international community may not be able to solve it. But let them be a little bit modest and accept whoever has the capability to help." That might be the best course I've heard. We made the mess, but instead of just walking around spreading it around like broccoli we don't want to eat, maybe we should turn to other countries and say, "Hey, give us a hand here, will ya?" Might even restore some of the standing we lost with people.

One bad thing about staying: it continues to degrade our military capability.

One, personnel are being worn out (post traumatic stress syndrome) and worn down---this is outside the deaths and injuries. We're maintaining re-enlistment rates, but I suspect that a great deal of it is because the soldiers do not want to leave their comrades back in Iraq in the lurch.

Two, our equipment is being degraded, worn out and broken, and I believe it is NOT being rebuilt and replaced as quickly as it is being gone through. This includes ordinance and weaponry, but more importantly, heavy equipment, construction equipment, etc., some of which has been drawn from the National Guard here in the states. That, of course, is their purpose, but if it's not being maintained and replaced, this is stretching our capabilities for response overall.

No good solutions here at all.

Captain Naraht's Horta Junta Presents:
The Comprehensive Summit for the Middle East:

The Players: USA, Syria, Turkey, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel. the EU, Russia.

The Broad Agenda:
1. The Kurdish Opportunity
2. The Palestinian Opportunity
3. The Sunni and Shite Opportunity
only then...
4. The Future of Iraq

The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Mission Statement: "The World won't get no better, if we just let it be...(insert na-na-na's). The World won't get no better...we got change it girl, just you and me..."

--The Captain

Posted by: Mike at December 7, 2006 11:47 AM

What would it take to do a presidential recall election?

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Some of you may be thinking, "Uh-oh, Bill responding to Mike equals trouble..."

Worry not. Going forward, anyone who wants to cause trouble will have to do so without my assistance. I am going to ignore future attempts to provoke my anger, because, well... I can.

This isn't an apple barrel. You can't pick the good ones and leave the not so good ones for other people.

That assumes that the recommendations are all good. The fact that this was a bipartisan group in no way ensures that it was a wise one. It could be argued that they were so eager to reach unanimous consent on every suggestion that they compromised when they should have recommended something more specific.

I'm not overly encouraged by what I've read thus far--the idea that Iran and Syria could possibly help the situation seems amazingly naive and removed from reality. Adding "the right of return" to issues the Israelis must negotiate also seems a non-starter. We might convince the Israelis to give their enemies a knife but I don't expect we will persuade them to press it against their throat.

The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Condi acting as the stenographer, right?

The Dream team of US Diplomats: James Baker III, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, James Earl Carter, Senator Richard Lugar (R)IN, Madeline Albright, and of course, Condi Rice.

Replace Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson with someone serious.

I'm not overly encouraged by what I've read thus far

I think you may be right there, Bill. From the looks of it, it gives Bush just enough cover to get him through the remainder of his term, yet also gives the obligatory "mistakes were made" acknowledgement to appease the democrats.

Replace Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson with someone serious.

How about letting Carter stay and replacing Jackson with Clinton?

Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.

If diplomacy skills are needed, you reach out to proven diplomats.

Communique from the Horta Junta:

In defense of Jesse Jackson: While I don't agree with everthing he says, he HAS negotiated the release of prisoners no one thought would see the light of day. He is an out-of-the-box thinker the Team would need.

Considering the roster of the rest of the Dream Team he is a nice addition who if he says or does something nuts, the more pragmatic members (Lugar, Albright, Baker) will keep him grounded.

--Captain Naraht

Comminique from the Horta Hunta:

First Summit Meeting: January 31st 2007, Sponsored by Egypt and held in Cairo, to take up agenda issues 1-3.

Second Summit Meeting: September 1st 2007, Sponsored by Jordan and held in Amman, to take up agenda issue 4.

--The Captain

And on a related topic...has anyone else gotten the impression that the real reason why Bush 41 broke down crying last week wasn't beause he was so proud of Jeb...but because he was thinking about how Bush 43 has pretty much ruined Jeb's shots at a successful bid for the White House?

Not quite. When 41 broke down, he was talking about Jeb's maintenance of "honor." Contrast that to how utterly dishonorably his eldest son has acted and I could easily understand why Bush Sr. broke into tears.

Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.

And in further defense of Carter, while he wasn't a great president by any stretch of the imagination, he is greatly respected by many of the players from whom we'd need cooperation in such an effort, which is something this administration sorely lacks.

If diplomacy skills are needed, you reach out to proven diplomats.

So again, I'll ask: Why Condi? When has she ever demonstrated any proven diplomatic skills? What great agreements has she brokered? Yeah, yeah, she was appointed Secretary of State - by the same administration that appointed a guy with no real experience in emergency management to run FEMA, so that really proves nothing.

Condi Rice is still the duly appointed Secretary of State of the United States of America and whether you or I or Joe Six-pack agree or disagree with her, she MUST be involved in the process. Period.

--Captain Naraht

BTW, if you haven't seen today's NY Post, you'll see a nice example of that "fair and balanced" reporting Murdoch's organization is so famous for:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072006/frontback.htm

Condi Rice is still the duly appointed Secretary of State of the United States of America and whether you or I or Joe Six-pack agree or disagree with her, she MUST be involved in the process. Period.

But what if you want the effort to succeed?

"But what if you want the effort to succeed?"

The same could be said of including ANY of the players. For three years the plkayers have been saying we won't include thus-and-so. Well, were has it gotten us? I say include people in the process who disagree. You have to start somwhere. Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don't think she would sabotage the thing. Even Nixon went to China.

---Captain Naraht

What would it take to do a presidential recall election?

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Next best thing: Impeachment.

Mr. Sasha, I just want to be sure of one thing - you really want Dick Cheney to be president?

Bill Mulligan wrote:
"Adding "the right of return" to issues the Israelis must negotiate also seems a non-starter. We might convince the Israelis to give their enemies a knife but I don't expect we will persuade them to press it against their throat."

Israel must negotiate about the right of return. Ut has to be discussed, there is no way to avoid it. But it must be clear that Israel could never agree to a complete implementation of the right of return. Some Palestinians understand that, although not all are willing to concede it prior to solving the other issues. Others do not. If the majority of Palestinians and Arabs i general do not accept it, than there will be no peace, even if all the other problems on both sides are solved, which is not very likely right now anyway.

In any case, it is less important that the US actually make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If we and they are not willing, nobody can do it for us. What's important for the US -- in order to gain the good will of moderates and improve the atmosphere and standing of the US, but not not in order to appease the extremists -- is to have a semblance of a peace process with itself appearibng to pressure Israel to negotiate and make concessions.

Regardless of your critisism of Rice, I don't think she would sabotage the thing.

It's not a matter of sabotage. It's a matter of competence.

Even Nixon went to China.

Yeah well, Nixon may have been a corrupt and paranoid SOB, but he understood foreign policy and a good foreign policy includes diplomacy. It's a lesson no one in this administration has learned.

I agree with Bill Mulligan, one of the most important considerations is the training of Iraqi troops. Currently we have 3-4000 trainers, I believe the ISG recommended increasing that number to around twenty thousand.
I also seem to recall that several European nations initially offered to help with the training, and that Bush turned them down. If that's true, it might be useful to find out if that offer still holds.

Insert joke about France training the Iraqi army here....

Bill Mulligan, I know you have a strong point-of-view about Carter, but he IS a skilled diplomat. He proved it when he helped broker peace between Israel and Egypt.

His latest book (Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid) indicates to me a man who is simply too far removed from reality to be of much use. Though his anti-Israel bias might buy some legitimacy among the enemies of Israel.

Jackson has been good in small time things like hostage situations but this is several orders of magnitude more complicated. Shmoozing and telling people an action will make them look good and get them on TV will not solve any of the longstanding issues of the middle east.

Carter and Jackson are more interested (IMHO) in looking good. That is useful in small things but not in world wide negotiations. They would cut and run when the negotiation hit rough patches or try to negotiate their own deals to hog the credit. They aren't team players.

Obviously, I freely admit that my dislike for the two men may color my perception. I'm serious though that if I had a choice between Jimmy Carter or a random person picked out of the phone book to hold my chldren's lives in his hands I would let my fingers do the walking.

Insert joke about France training the Iraqi army here....

With all the cops being injured in France during the recent Muslim riots, the Iraqis may need to train them.

Posted by: Bill mulligan at December 7, 2006 02:23 PM

I freely admit that my dislike for the two men may color my perception.

In the case of Carter, I do believe your emotions are getting the better of you. Carter failed as president in many, many respects. But I suspect that on the balance, historians will rightly regard Carter more highly than you do. The Camp David Accords alone should assure that.

I have urged perspective about George W. Bush and the relative worth (or lack thereof) he will have in the eyes of historians. With Iraq falling apart, however, it's becoming harder and harder to imagine that he'll end up on anything but the scrap heap of history. His greatest initiative -- the Iraq War -- has been a disaster for this nation. While he does have two years left to play out, it's hard to imagine that he'll be able to salvage this.

Carter, at least, had a success. I can't think of a single true success W. has had. Tax cut package? Contributed to a massive deficit that has hurt our ability to wage the wars he has engaged us in. Prescription drug package? Lied to Congress about the cost and saddled us with a boondoggle. The War on Terror? W. took inconclusive intelligence, and by cherry-picking through it and silencing critics, created a fictitious basis for going to war against Iraq rather than marshalling further resources against our real enemy: Al Qaeda.

George W. Bush? Can't think of a single thing he's accomplished of lasting value. Carter? Yeah, he contributed something of lasting value.

Sorry, my friend. I know this is a sore spot for you, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest not to call this one like I see it. And I believe our mutual commitment to intellectual honesty is one of the foundations of our friendship.

Mr. Sasha, I just want to be sure of one thing - you really want Dick Cheney to be president?

a. If W. goes down, Cheney would almost certainly have warmed the path already.

b. Even if Cheney didn't get impeached, the amount of time he'd spend in office would be a year at most and he'd probably be the most scrutinized chief executive in history.

c. His ticker would probably give out the moment he realized he had completely inherited W.'s mess.

I'm not fan of Carter, but I have to agree with Bill Myers here. The Camp David negotiations had no shortage of rough patches, but getting Israel and Egypt to sign a peace treaty, given that many other Arab and Moslim nations to this day still don't even recognize Israel's existance was a major accomplishment. If opening up China to trade was the one bright spot of Nixon's administration, than the Camp David Accords was Carter's.

I haven't read his new book, but I have heard that he's getting slammed in some quarters for being too critical of Israel. But even if he is too sympathetic to the Palestinian side, that doesn't negate his experience in diplomacy. Certainly, most of the other proposed members of this diplomatic mission are more pro-Israel, so they'd likely balance him out anyway.

I agree with Bill Mulligan, one of the most important considerations is the training of Iraqi troops. Currently we have 3-4000 trainers, I believe the ISG recommended increasing that number to around twenty thousand.

Are these trainers? Or are these trainers WHO CAN SPEAK TO IRAQUI SOLDIERS?

There are substantial differences; there are far too many reports of failures in the training of Iraquis because they could not do simple communication, let alone some of the more complex concepts needed to do security (cue standard complaint about the Army getting rid of qualified translators because they were gay).

This is another matter of nitty gritty logistics...doing the day-to-day detail stuff that has escaped this administration, who are head-in-the-clouds ideologically driven incompetents.

I think the initiation of a Peace Process is a positive step in and of itself.

Since 2001 the US has been engaged for good or ill in a "war process". Maybe its time to remind the world just who has the diplomatic gravitas to broker a peace deal.

We ARE really good at brokering peace. With only a 230 year history we don't have NEARLY the grudge matches that other countries have with their neighbors. Sure, our relations with Cuba are shrill, but we aren't lobbing anything at each other but press releases.

We helped the Palestinians and Israelis.
We helped the Balkans. (In beautiful downtown Dayton Ohio no less.)
We helped the Egyptians and Israelis.
And we tried with a lot of other countries

Besides that I would pay real money to see Jesse Jackson, Richard Lugar and Jimmy Carter having lunch together in Amman Jordan bistro.

--Captain Naraht

I think the initiation of a Peace Process is a positive step in and of itself.

Think that means we're trying to deal with the situation with ALL our tools.

Military power is a rather gross tool; it does certain things well. You need to use it WITH political prowess to be most effective, however. I think alot of the more rabid Free Republic types forget that (aren't the type of states that rely solely on force tend to be dictatorships?).

roger tang:

Even out lighter weight vehicles are wearing out at an alarming rate. Of the SUVs that were outfitted with armor plating, many are now breaking down from the strain of all the extra weight. They weren't designed to carry that much weight. Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in.

From www.cbsnews.com

Bush Spokesman On Implementing Iraq Report: "Jim Baker Can Go Back To His Day Job”…
---------------
Sounds like more Stay The Course.

Even out lighter weight vehicles are wearing out at an alarming rate. Of the SUVs that were outfitted with armor plating, many are now breaking down from the strain of all the extra weight. They weren't designed to carry that much weight. Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in

Well, apparently having the "will to win" is more important than paying attention to the everyday details and logistics for the military.

So...when did we get ahold of some Green Lantern rings?

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

"Some reports are issued and just gather dust. And truth of the matter is, a lot of reports in Washington are never read by anybody. To show you how important this one is, I read it," - George W. Bush today.

Does he have to make Jon Stewart's job that easy?

"Does he have to make Jon Stewart's job that easy?"

Oh, like he can help it.

>Nice of you to make this into a partisan rant. At no point in any of my posts will you >note any indication of party policy or leanings.

You want to parrot Bush, I’ll label you a Bushie. Just like Liberman supposedly is a Democrat. NOT.

>gen x'ers or y'ers

Sorry, no letters here and off topic.

>Instead of typing all in caps (the keyboard equivalent of screaming), I have yet to see >you offer up any solutions for the quagmire Iraq has become.

How about a nursery rhyme for you. All the kings men, couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. And your reading comprehension is severely lacking, I offered a solution in my post. Split the country into thirds and have a Kurd, Sunni and Shie ruler over their respective country.

Otherwise you find another non secular despot and put him in control. No democracy is going to survive there, period. My real solution which no one likes but is the most logical is gather up the remaining Bathests, arm them and put Saddam in control of them and let them quell the area. Oh I know most egos both lib and con can’t stomach that one.

I could really care less if he was killing his people, because that is the red herring that everyone likes to insert as an excuse. If we REALLY CARED what governments did to their people we wouldn’t be whores for China, we would have moved into Dafur and Rowanda would never have had a movie made about it, among dozens of other regions on the globe. We only care where we have some sort of vested interest and even then, only if we can be the bully and think we can win.

>It remains the decision was made, it’s history, there is no going back. You can be as >angry as you want to be, scream as loud as you want to the moon or to anyone who will >listen but, what is confronting our nation now Is coming up with a solution.

Solution? LOL I’ve outlined our solution, turn them into occupied territory and disband the failed government. The real solution (but one our government will never accept or most of it’s populace) lies with the men and women of Iraq and what they want. The report, the whineing, the whole mess can be summed up with one analogy. “You can lead a horse to water, you can’t make it drink.” The people of Iraq will ultimately decide their fate and right now as they have shown, they really don’t care what you want for them. So you are once again left with the solutions I have stated. A non secular dictator that will do the same things that Saddam did to quell the people or split it into 3 autonomous states and hope for the best. Or carpet bomb the population till they have no desire to fight.

>Do you honestly believe a complete pullout of all Americans in Iraq is in the best interest of anyone or are you willing to let the situation fester for another two years so it is the primary focus of the next executive to hold the office of president? Neither option seems palatable.

I have no desire to keep killing our men in a hopeless quagmire. Do you NOT learn from history? I’d suggest ancient Roman history and their control of outlying regions. This isn’t about our interests, it’s about the people of Iraq and they don’t care about our interests.

>Also, no one wants to seem to acknowledge all the other agendas in the region. Turkey’s agenda, Iran’s agenda, Syria’s agenda - everybody has a chip in the game right now - a total abdication of an American presence in the region sounds good to you?

LOL! The same attitude that got us in there in the first place. Let’s put this in a an easy anology for you to understand. 3 doors down from you the neighbors fight on a nightly basis, it’s the men vs the women. They scream throw things, the cops show up, they won’t file charges, they get hauled off for disrupting the peace and they return afterwards to pick up where they left off. They don’t listen to anybody and don’t care what people think. Now you insert yourself into the argument… What happens? The solution comes from within, they have to want to find a solution. You, the only real thing you can do is lock them up, tie them up or gag them. And they could just as easily turn around and shoot you dead. Get it? Not I didn’t think so.

>Better still, let’s raise the price of gasoline up over $6.00 a gallon, works for me. I just can’t wait to see what the heating bills on all the McMansions are. I want to see you have a choice between filling up your obese gas guzzling turd and feeding your family, or maybe a choice between heating your home and feeding your family.

I own a gas guzzling SUV? Wow I didn’t know that! Let’s see I drive a sub compact. I was hauling recyclables to the recycling plants years before it became a government dictate in most areas. When it comes to gas, I have long been a proponent of ethanol in fact I don’t believe we are going far enough we don’t need the 80/20 we have now we need the flex engines that run on 100% distilled spirits like Brazil.

>Maybe you don’t live somewhere where you drive so your attitude is such you could give a rat‘s ass about the price of gasoline. Well, let’s just jack those fuel prices way, way up so the cost of your groceries (which are mainly trucked around the country) goes through the roof and leaves your wallet full of dust and not much else.

And you wonder why I call you a Bushie. You sure you aren’t living in the 1800’s? You sound like a whaler having a fit over the fact that whale oil is being replaced with crude. Guess what, the oil is going to run out and it’s going to happen anyways. There is nothing that propels innovation faster than need and maybe it’s just what we need to force the switch to bio fuels. I’d suggest the movie “who killed the electric car” besides reading up on all the public “think tanks” big oil employees to promote our continued addiction to oil! 6 months ago some idiot was on one of the Sunday political shows from something like the Association of Oil Producers telling everyone just how it would cost $250,000 a station to switch a pump from oil to ethanol. Even in the face of an actual station owner who called in and said he’d just converted two tanks to 80/20 for a total of $10,000 each Big Oil just kept lying and lying. The Sisters spend millions to assure that what your paranoid ranting is reality and alternative fuel sources don’t gain an upper hand. But keep it up, you’re the problem, not the solution.
Or maybe, just maybe, you’re still suckling at the teat of mommy and daddy, so paying bills isn’t high on your list of priorities (that’s the old rub about the net folks).

Yah, you’re an idiot Bushie.

>War isn’t important so much as a necessary part of how humanity goes about settling its differences.

Hey it’s ranting Rambo! You’ve watched too many John Wayne movies dude.

I think it’s unfortunate, I wish the world were a better place but all the wishing I have won’t change the reality of the world.

The reality of the world is that yahoos like you prefer to use their fists instead of their brains. War is not a natural part of humanity, it’s the easiest for weak minded people. Most ancient tribal societies didn’t go to war, they’d choose 1 warrior from each side who would meet in combat. Sometimes they fought to the death at other times they just fought till one could fight no more. War of mass slaughter is a “modern” addition to humanity’s stupidity.

>I will have to use the ‘nyah, nyah’ defense the next time I attempt to get into an balanced discussion of issues.

Yep, Bushie. Don’t forget to put your fingers in your ears!

>Also, if you can point me to one of those six figure jobbies, I’ll tell you right now I’ll take my chances. I’d drive a truck for six figures.

I doubt you have the spine. Here copy and paste: “job search iraq” into Google.

But I suspect that on the balance, historians will rightly regard Carter more highly than you do. The Camp David Accords alone should assure that.

I'd give more credit to Sadat than Carter but it's true that he did a very good job with the accords. But without the power of the presidency he only has his moral authority, which for me is sorely lacking. With Sadat and Begin we had two men who had a goal they wanted to reach. The current situation is quite different. But if Carter has to be a member I'll take it...distract him with some side issue that will let him get on TV and let the others do the heavy lifting.

I wish I could see a positive outcome in these negotiations...but when you have the Iranians and Palestinians convinced that the Israelis can be exterminated and the Israelis convinced that they won't be...kind of an impasse. Israel's enemies feel no need to compromise--they plan to win the whole enchilada. And Israel can't exactly compromise with a death wish.

"I wish I could see a positive outcome in these negotiations...but when you have the Iranians and Palestinians convinced that the Israelis can be exterminated and the Israelis convinced that they won't be...kind of an impasse. Israel's enemies feel no need to compromise--they plan to win the whole enchilada. And Israel can't exactly compromise with a death wish."

That's a bit of an over-simlification, although I'm also pessimistic about the outcome of negotiations at the moment. Still, if it could reduce the flames temporarily that would be nice.

On a more general note:
Don't be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Don't be anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinians. don't demonize either. Understand that both sides act wrongly on many occasions. Understand that sometimes their are reasons but not excuses for their (our) behavior. Understand the desires, fears and complains of both sides but don't let them become excuses to destroy each other. Understand the complexity of the situation as much as you can. Understand that there are gradients in the attitudes on both sides. Don't allow yourself to be cauht up by the propaganda of either side, even of some of the moderates.

I don't know what Carter's opinions are, but from what I've heard of his book he has shown poor deplomatic judgement similar to that shown by neocons in their attitude to Islam and Muslims, although of course with less dangerous consequences.

I don't want to offend my American friends on this board, and my understanding of the situation in Iraq is very limited, so feel free to tell me I'm talking nonsense. But it seems to that part of the problem is that the US was not willing to risk its soldiers and provide the numbers necessary to defend the Iraqis from the various secterian factions slaughtering them. As a result more and more of them came to rely on their own secterian groups to protect them, thus increasing the numbers of insurgents. Even those who were happy to see Sadam fall and are pro-American are likely to loose confidence in the US and rely more on secterian armed groups if it seems that he Americans are not able or wiling to protect them from the armed forces of the other sect.
I'm not trying to absolve the Iraqi from all responsibility, after all they are the ones killing each other for nothing, but perhaps the US could have done more to protect the Iraqis from secterian violence.

Mr. Peter,

The level of your discourse reveals the level or your intellect. The fact that you can surf over to Wikipedia and cut and paste some text you found there makes you neither insightful nor intelligent. Please, by all means continue with your name calling, it only persists in lowering my opinion of you.

In the interim I’ll choose to ignore your spurious rants and focus on the more intelligent and thoughtful observations I find here (which is usually the case). In the meantime, you might want to invest in a spell checker? Maybe?

Also, anything about ethanol in this country is currently a joke and far, far away from what is happening in some countries in the southern hemisphere where they truly use bio-fuels.

Hey? You wouldn’t happen to be a fan of John Byrne, would you?

I don't think the USA is willing to take heavy losses in any war that does not represent clear and specific dangers to people here. Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point. I think any future president has to take taht into account--any use of the military has to reach whatever objectives can be reached in a matter of months.

Micha, I agree that it's easy to oversimplify things in teh middle east and I realize that Israel is far from blameless...but very very little that I've seen from the Palestinian side gives me any reason to think that the Israelis have much reason to expect anything to come from negotiations. And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies. I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish...but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.

I don't think the USA is willing to take heavy losses in any war that does not represent clear and specific dangers to people here.

I remember a pre-war poll that pretty much nailed the point. Basically, it showed that most Americans were for the war. However, when asked if it meant significant American casualties, they were then overwhelmingly against war.

To which I have to ask, did these people truly believe their wouldn't be significant casualties in this endevour?

What if...

What if Nixon went to China?

What if Anwar Sadat told Walter Cronkite that he was willing to meet with Menachem Begin within the week?

What if Ferdinand Marcos told Ted Coppell he would be more than happy to hold elections in the Philipines?

What if when Cheklosovakia(sp) opened its borders with the West and with East Germany and Mikail Gorbachev issued the Sinatra Doctrine? (Eastern Europian countries could do it "their way")

What if the most intractable US President in modern history invited the major players of the Middle East to a Comprehensive Summit?

What if...
What if...

Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream...and hope.

--Captain Naraht

Carter and Jackson are more interested (IMHO) in looking good. That is useful in small things but not in world wide negotiations. They would cut and run when the negotiation hit rough patches or try to negotiate their own deals to hog the credit. They aren't team players.

The deal Carter shuttled between Begin and Sadat -- who refused to even meet with each other -- survived the political fall of Carter, the fall of Begin's party, and the assassination of Sadat, and continues to this day.

If lasting peace in the Middle East can be established by a fop like Jimmy Carter, what does that say of the stupidity of the republican administrations following him, leading us to the mess in Iraq today? Why this persistent devotion to nincompoops?

Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point.

Except that WMDs are how Bush sold the invasion to the American people.

The first consideration in the Art of War is moral righteousness. Your first priority is building the resolve of your soldiers and breaking the resolve of your enemies. Our invasion would not be feeding the insurgency it's feeding now if WMDs were found. Your lack of understanding of this basic principle is typical of republican chickenhawks.

And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies.

Did it bother you enough to vote against George HW Bush once or twice for selling stinger missiles to Arab terrorists? I feel the same way about those who weigh a penny of democratic lapses the same as a dollar of republican corruption.

Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream...and hope.

And you're right to do so. It makes you much better than...well, so many, as we see.

"but very very little that I've seen from the Palestinian side gives me any reason to think that the Israelis have much reason to expect anything to come from negotiations."

I'm afraid that at present neither side has much hope that the other side will come to negotiations with acceptable offers or the ability to implement them.

"And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies."
Many Israelis who were or would have been willing to come out and criticize many of Israel's actions were alienated by the one sided, exagerated, out of context, phony, hypocritical, self rightuous and sometimes false criticism, myself included.
However, it is very important for me not to err in the other direction, if for no other reason than to maintain my credibility.

"I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish...but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking."
I have seen cases when criticism of Israel lapsed into antisemitism. It is very unfortunate, since criticism is necessary.
In any case, why should anti-Israeli approch be acceptable? It's like saying someone is not anti-christian, only anti-American, not anti-asian just anti-China and so on.

"Stranger things have happened and this American has a right to dream...and hope."
Yes. But as Bush showed, dreamers who do not understand how to handle reality can be dangerous. For me Sharon's unexpected withdrawl from Gaza was a dream come true, but unfortunatly reality came crashing down on us (from both sides) soon after.

In any case, why should anti-Israeli approch be acceptable? It's like saying someone is not anti-christian, only anti-American, not anti-asian just anti-China and so on.

Good point. I was meaning being being critical of Israel but that's not clear.

"And it angers me to see so much of the rest of the world so quick to condemn anything the Israelis do when they ignore far worse things from Israel's enemies."

Part of the reason for that, personally speaking, is the same reason I was so angry when the U.S. invaded Iraq: I believed it was wrong and I did not think the U.S. capable to doing such a thing.

Similarly, I used to believe there were certain things Israel just would not do. I've since, to my dismay, been proven wrong.

That's why I hate it so much. I mean, I expect people who've been labeled the "bad guys" to kill civilians and things like that. So when I hear about that happening, it doesn't surprise me. But when a nation composed of "good guys" does it, it's surprising to me...and a very nasty surprise, too!

If Israel, and the U.S., are held to a higher standard of behaviour than the rest of the world it's because in the past they HAVE behaved better than the rest of the world, and they have been admired for doing so. When they say "screw it, we're gonna sink down to their level, kill civilians, torture people, etc.", all the people who previously admired them for sticking to the moral high ground become disgusted with them for abandoning it.

There's a lot of truth in that, Rob, but I think the world is way too quick to draw moral equivilance between the combabtants. There is, I believe, world of difference between actions that result in civilians dying as a consequence and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a means to an end.

Weird, I got called "Mr. Alfred..."

I heard on the radio the other day that the Pentagon/military has recently...just recently...intiated an intense training program that will embed American troops into Iraqi forces. These American units consist of 11 soldiers that have received intense...something like 60 days...training in Iraqi culture, traditions, and language, with the idea being that they'll work with units of 100 Iraqi soldiers/police in an attempt to train the Iraqi unit to effectively fight the insurgency.

Which prompted me to ask...what the hell was the plan to train the Iraqi forces in the first place? Years after we launched the Mission...whatever that is today...in Iraq, we're just NOW providing some of our troops with any training in the local customs and language? I know it takes some time for the government to get around to doing things, but the military was preparing for actions in Iraq at least a year before setting foot on a tranport overseas.

1Posted by Bill Myers at December 7, 2006 08:12 AM
Posted by: Peter J Poole at December 7, 2006 06:46 AM

Bill, taking one quote out of context and then replying with a number of statements - of variable accuracy - that do not relate to what I said, either in or out of context, is doing a lot more to validate my observation than prove whatever point you're aiming for...

Cheers.

There is, I believe, world of difference between actions that result in civilians dying as a consequence and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a means to an end.

That isn't inherent in US law. If you kill someone committing a robbery, the severity of your prosecution is upgraded to murder.

If there really were a world of difference between unintended fatalities and deliberate fatalities, George W Bush would have justified the invasion of Iraq to the American people as simple regime-change. Instead he had to lie about the imminent threat to the US.

You don't let the republican administrations' support of Arab terrorists stop you from voting for them, but when it comes to minimizing the damage our invasion of Iraq has done to us, the region, and our standing in the world, well, you just can't be too pro-Israel, can you?

Okay, lots of things I want to touch on, so bear with me:

Roger: Military power is a rather gross tool; it does certain things well. You need to use it WITH political prowess to be most effective, however.

Absolutely, you need to use all the tools available to you and that's the biggest problem with this administration. Military power should be the tool of last resort, to back up issues when all else has failed. The Bushite view doesn't just view military action as the first options, in many cases, they view it as the only option. This is evident in their contemptuous view of diplomacy. The purpose of diplomatic talks is to try and induce others to give give you something you want or to alter their behavior. That means you don't just talk to governments that are already friendly towards you. You have to negotiate with your enemies. The Bush doctrine, however, treat talks as a reward for altering one's behavior in advance. This cart-before-the-horse approach dooms virtually all talks before (or even if) they begin. It sends the message of "give me everything I want for nothing and then we'll talk."

Alan:Another sad comment on not being prepared before going in.

Which reminds me of Rummy's "you go with the army you have" retort. Another prime example of the Bush infallibility doctrine: Everything is some else's fault.

Alan: Bush Spokesman On Implementing Iraq Report: "Jim Baker Can Go Back To His Day Job”…

Gee, what a shocker. Bush completes his usual cycle: Try to show up daddy, discover it's hard work, create a huge mess, let daddy's friends bail him out, and then treat them with contempt. A whole team of psychologists could spend their entire careers studying the pathology of his oedipal complex.

Bill Mulligan: And Israel can't exactly compromise with a death wish.

Tragic, but true. I believe that the Israeli people are perfectly capable of living in peace with the Palestinians, but too many on the Palestinian side of the still view them as colonizers at best and invading infidels at worst. To the extremists, the only compromise is whether Isreal should be given time to dismantle itself before they rush in to drive their nation into the sea.

Micha: But it seems to that part of the problem is that the US was not willing to risk its soldiers and provide the numbers necessary to defend the Iraqis from the various secterian factions slaughtering them.

To a large extent, that is true. The American people have no stomach for a prolonged engagement in which the goals do not seem to be clear, the factions are constantly shifting, and our leadership does not have any plan for resolving the situation. I think the American people would be more tolerant of some casualties if there was at least the appearance of progress going on. Part of it stems from our experience in Vietnam. Our greatest fear is finding ourselves sucked into another military quagmire where our primary goal appears to be just propping up a falling government.

Bill Mulligan: Even if WMDs had been found there would be very little support for the war at this point. I think any future president has to take taht into account--any use of the military has to reach whatever objectives can be reached in a matter of months.

Blame the limited attention span of our modern society. People walk around thinking, "Damn, I wish we could do something about Darfur - Hey, Brittney and K-Fed broke up!). On the other hand, we're still doing peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, so I think if we could have shown some success in Iraq, the support would be a lot higher than it is today.

Bill Mulligan: I know one can be anti-Israel without necessarily being anti-Jewish...but alternate explanations seem sometimes lacking.

I'm pro-Israel in principle, but I can't say that I agree with every action their government has taken. Maybe I'd feel different if I lived less than 30 miles from people who want to blow me up, but I do feel some of their actions have not be helpful to the long term goal of peace. So, I think you can be critical of the Israeli government and not be anti-Jewish.

That said, I think it's a symptom of our identity politics that some people equate any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Just as any criticism of black political leaders sometimes leads to charges of racism.

Micha: Many Israelis who were or would have been willing to come out and criticize many of Israel's actions were alienated by the one sid