Iraq

On March 20, 2003, coalition forces, led by the United States, initiated a preemptive strike against Iraq, under the presumption that Iraq was actively pursuing and developing weapons of mass destruction. The coaliton forces swiftly moved across the country, ousting President Saddam Hussein's government with relative ease. On May 1, 2003, in front of a banner declaring "Mission Accomplished," President George W. Bush annouced "The United States and our allies have prevailed." Later that year, on December 13, Hussein was captured by American forces, signaling the end of his regime. It appeared that, in the span of just nine short months, coaltion forces had wrapped up a quick and successful ousting of the Iraqi government.

Yet, here we sit, November 2009, and the war in Iraq is still raging. Soon after the capture of Hussein, an insurgency led by Al Qaeda forces began making life dificult for coalition forces. In addition, civil war broke out following the formation of a new, American-backed government. At this point in time, occupation forces are strongly resented by the Iraqi people, and the government is ignored by many. Instead, local councils, influenced by Al Qaeda, hold the real power. Yet, many in this country continue to insist that Iraq is a successful, and justified, war. However, the facts tell a different story.

The beginning of America's second war in Iraq actually dates back to January 2001, soon after George W. Bush was sworn in as president of the United States. Just ten days after the Inauguration, President Bush ordered his aides to begin searching for a reason to overthrow the Iraqi government. A memo titled "Plan for post-Saddam Iraq" also began circulating in the White Hosue around this same time. In March '01, a Pentagon memo titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" was produced, showing a map of areas in Iraq prime for petroleum production.

After Spetember 11th, President Bush began calling for Iraq to stop the production of weapons of mass destruction, and to comply with UN resolutions calling for weapons inspections. The Iraqi government insisted numreous times that they had no WMDs, and in late 2002, allowed UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, into the country. Blix informed the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating fully with inspections, and that he would be able to work quickly to complete his inspections in he had no outside interference.

The Bush Administration, however, had no intention of allowing Blix the chance to prove that Saddam had no WMDs. Bush wouldn't even listen to his own advisors. George Tenet, head of the CIA, was at the time telling Bush repeatedly that the CIA's own probes had shown that Saddam had no weapons. In fact, the CIA had interviewed a member of Saddam's cabinet, who said that not only did Saddam not have WMDs, he didn't even have the ability to produce them. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worked to marginalize Tenet and the CIA report, and soon produced their own report, written by the newly formed Office of Special Plans. The OSP report used new, "secret" intelligence known only to Cheney and the Rumsfeld Defense Department. This report said that the CIA intelligence was faulty, and that Iraq did in fact possess WMDs. Cheney's office proceeded to leak this information to the New York Times, which Cheney then cited to make his information seem more legit.

At this same time, the Administration sent former Ambassador Jospeh Wilson to investigate claims that Iraq was purchasing yellowcake Uranium from Niger. Wilson returned and informed Bush that Iraq was not attempting to buy yellowcake from Niger. But once again, the Administration chose to ignore the facts, and in his 2003 State of the Union, Bush said that British Intelligence had informed him that Iraq was acquiring Uranium from African nations. In June 2003, Wilson wrote a New York Times op-ed laying out his investigation, and exposing the White House for ignoring him. Soon after, his wife, Valerie Plame, was exposed as a CIA agent, leading to a Justice Department investigation that led to the eventual proscution of Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

In 2005, the Downing Street Memo showed a greater extent of the fraud committed by the Bush Administration. The memo details a meeting between the White House and British leadership that took place on July 23, 2002. In it, British intelligence states that Bush had clearly made up his mind to attack Iraq regardless of what else happened, and was fixing facts around policy, instead of basing policy on facts and information obtained.

In October 2002, 75 members of the U.S. Senate were informed that Iraq possessed the capabilities to attack the east coast with chemical and biological weapons. A few days later, the Senate voted to allow the Joint Chiefs to pursue military actions against Iraq. In February of 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the UN General Assembly laying out the American case for war. Powell told the UN the same thing that had been told to the Senate. However, the UN told Bush that preemptive strikes went against the UN charter, and he did not have UN support. In early March, Hans Blix reported that he had yet to find any WMDs, and he stated that he needed to be allowed more time without outside interference.

On the last day of January, however, Bush met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the White House. Bush told Blair of an proposed plan to paint a spyplane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq, in the hopes it would be shot down and provoke the UN into pursuing war. The two leaders also resolved to attack Iraq regardless of the outcome of the inspections. They even set a date for invasion: March 10.

The Bush Administration began investigating what would be needed to conduct a successful war against Iraq. The top U.S. Army general, Eric Shineski, turned in a report stating that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to fight a winning war. The White House, however, did not like this number, and Runsfeld soon turned out his own report calling Shineski's suggestion way off base, and advising a significantly lower number of troops.

On March 20th, the invasion of Iraq began. The invading troops were mostly made up of American and British troops, with other countries supplying token amounts. The invasion proceeded northwest from the Persian Gulf, and Baghdad was taken by April 9th. Coaltion leaders declared the invasion successfully completed by April 15, and Bush held his "Mission Accomplished" celebration two weeks later. Only 139 U.S. troops had died.

It soon became clear that coalition forces werent going to be leaving Iraq anytime soon, though. In the months after Bush's declaration, religious radicals and other insurgents began a concerted effort to puch back against coalition troops. These insurgents opposed the U.S. plan to implement a democratic government with U.S. backing. After the capture of Hussein, insugrency attacks became more frequent and deadly.

2004 was a particularly bad year for the American-led forces. The American government began signing over many, many more duties to private contractors, who are not heavily regulated. Controversies ensued over shady practices and poor work by the contractors, particularly Blackwater USA. In June, the Provisional government signed over control of Iraq to the new Iraqi government, which provoked renewed violence from the insurgency. Finally, in April, the Abu Grahib scandal broke. Photos from the prison camp outside Iraq showed humiliating and tortoruous acts committed against Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. troops. The Abu Grahib incident is commonly held to be the main turning point in the war, the point at which coalition success took a downturn.

2005 brought the first elections for the new Iraqi government, and the ratification of their constitution. These events prompted the bloodiest month of the war, in April, and erased hopes of a forthcoming end to the insurgency, and the war.

The violence of 2005 carried over to 2006 to bring about civil war in Iraq. Various secterian groups began fighting each other, in addition to coalition troops, making it hard for the troops to know who was friendly, and who was enemy. Also, at the end of December, Saddam Hussein was put to death by the Iraqi government, for crimes against humanity. Most of the crimes cited were committed during Hussein's time as an ally of the U.S. and Britain during the 1980's.

2007 brought about the troop surge, an increase in 21,500 American troops. At the same time, Britain began pulling troops aout, due to increased opposition to the war back home. The surge was successful in reducing violence in Iraq, and in September, General David Petraeus announced that American troops would soon be reduced. However, secterian violence was as bad as ever, especially between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.

2008 brought the arming and deployment of the new Iraqi military, and the reduction of involvement from U.S. troops. However, interference from Iran and Turkey caused violence to increase, and the American-backed government continued to be heavily unpopular. The civil war was also growing. In April, General Petraeus testified to Congress that the troop withdrawal needed to be halted, due to the fact that Iraq was becoming increasingly unstable.

During all thise time, the presence of Al Qaeda became a problem. Before the war, Al Qaeda had no prsence in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein believed that Al Qaeda was forment rebellion against him. However, during the war, Al Qaeda was able to gain a foothold, and were major players in promoting the insurgency.

In late 2008, the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was passed in Iraq and America. The Agreement stated that U.S. forces would withdraw from all Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. troops would be gone by December 31, 2011. The June 2009 withdrawal was a success, with Iraqi forces able to maintain control of the cities.

In 2009, with the election of Barack Obama as the new American President, the first exit strategy formulated by the U.S. was announced. This was considered by many a huge success, as the Bush Administration had failed over the course of six years to ever present a cohernent strategy for one day leaving Iraq. Obama announced that combat operations in Iraq would cease by August 31, 2010, and that troops would be gone by the date specified under the Forces Agreement.

The war in Iraq has been extraordinarily costly, and these costs are only exacerbated by the fact that the war is both unneccessary and potentially illegal. Long before September 11th, the Bush Administration had resolved that it would enact a preemptive war against a sovereign nation. In building the case for war, the White House ignored intelligence asserting that there was no reasonable pretext for war, instead lying to the public, the Congress, and the UN about what was happening in Iraq. Throughout 2002, the Hussein government insisted they had no WMDs, and the inspections by Hans Blix backed this up. Six years later, it appears that Saddam was telling the truth, as no weapons have been found, and in fact, no evidence of the ability to even produce WMDs has been found. The American public was led to believe that Iraq was an iminent threat to national security, and in lying to the Senate about the threat, potentially committed purjury. Neither had Saddam or his government committed any recent humanitarian violations. Due to the actions of the Bush Administration, our country is mired in a war that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. And the war is not even successful at this point. Civil war is raging, and Al Qaeda, who had not been involved in Iraq, now has a significant foothold among the people there. The government is widely unpopular, and the Iraqi people are resentful of the presence of coalition forces in their country. America has neglected its duty of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, returning much of Iraq to the middle ages in terms of technology and practices. For all intents and purposes, our foray into Iraq is an unmitigated failure, and one that could have been avoided. We cannot support a war on two fronts, especially while trying to work through a major recession. December 2011 cannot come quickly enough. Our government and military need to use the intervening two years to rebuild a country we have destroyed.

American Law

Ok, I really hadn't planned on writing anything today, and I know that I already commented on this story, but the more I find out, the more pissed off I get. So I guess I'm gonna vent.

This whole story with the secret CIA death squad is absolutely infuriating to me. Here's the basic story, for those who don't know. Recently, CIA Director Leon Panneta informed Congress that the CIA had been running a secret counterterrorism unit that reported only to former VP Dick Cheney. As soon as he found out, Panneta informed Congress. This is bad because anything that the CIA does is supposed to be reported to Congress, by law. This is called oversight. It's part of on the foundations of our government, the balance of powers. Now, I have a deep respect for the laws of this country, and I believe nobody is exempt from them. Not you, not me, not George Bush, not Barack Obama. Anyone who breaks a law should be punished. Especially if they break them willingly. The fact that Cheney decided he was above our Constitution pisses me off to no end. Obviously, if Cheney felt the need to conceal it from a Republican-majority Congress, then he must have been doing something wrong. Let me play out a scenario for you. Reportedly, this unit was built to conduct secret operations inside other countries, and we weren't planning on informing the other countries that we had a unit inside their borders. So, lets say that this unit is sent on a mission deep inside North Korea. During their operation, they are discovered and captured. North Korea would undoubtably consider an armed American military unit in their country an act of war. Before we had any clue what was happening, North Korea would have all the reason they ever needed to start shooting nuclear bombs at our west coast. Even if we beat North Korea in a long-term war, we have severe devastation on out west coast, and our standing with the rest of the world is permanently damaged. This is bad, because regardless of what some right-wingers want you to believe, we cannot survive as a country if we have no allies. We have to be on good terms with other countries, for security and trade reasons, among other things. I am sick and tired of hearing a new story every week reporting that the Bush Administraion broke another law. This shows an utter lack of disrespect for the country I love and cherish, and the fact that someone we elected to office decided he wasn't gonna play by the rules is humiliating. We chastise and criticize countries where rulers ignore their own laws. But for the past eight years, we were no better than any of these countries. I am tired of America being seen as a bad guy in so much of the world. I long for the days I read about in history books, when Amercia was respected and looked upon as a paragon of virtue and all that was good. This argument also applies to torture. According to the Geneva Treaty, which we helped write and sign, torture is illegal. Not only is torture illegal, but it is wrong. I don't care who is in custody, no one should be tortured. It is an immoral practice. If it wasn't, we wouldn't debate it. And if you don't buy the morality issue, look at it this way: if the country we are fighting sees that we are ok with torturing their guys, what do you think they will do to our soldiers? We have an obligation, as the biggest and most influential country on the planet, to hold ourselves to a higher standard than torture. As I recently heard a minister say, "Who would Jesus torture?"
I absolutely dare anyone to argue with me about any of this. Because I know that I am on the moral highground on this issue. Torture is wrong. Lying is wrong. You cannot debate this. You also cannot debate the fact that Republicans consistently brand themselves as morally higher than the rest. But after torture, lying, extramarital affairs, and a war that was initiated by the use of deceit and backstabbing, I am begining to wonder where morality actually resides in our country.

Palin: A Comedy of Errors

Time for part 2 of my extra long weekend post. Just a couple subjects on tap here.

PALIN

For a little comic relief, I give you Sarah Palin and everyone around her! I know, that's an old and unfunny joke at this point, but that is what this situation feels like anymore. Lets look at how this comedy of errors is playing out: First, underqualified, semi-intelligent, fanatical woman is somehow elected governor of Alaska. Next, aforementioned governor proceeds to bend ethics and laws to her liking, while somehow convincing everyone she is fighting corruption. Then, fading presidential nominee pins her as running mate to (successfully) inject life into failing campaign. Governor-turned-VP nominee proceeds to bolster conservative base while alienating moderates, including the people running the campaign. Her lack of curiosity, low work ethic, and non-understanding of issues makes her the butt of jokes across the country. After the election, instead of laying low and buffing up on issues in anticipation of a potential 2012 presidential bid, she makes the rounds of the speaking circuit and develops a public feud with a late-night comedian, while alienating her few remaining political allies. Then, in a move that leaves everyone and their dog shaking their head, she resigns from the governorship with a rambling, semi-intelligible news conference with honking geese as her backing vocals. She spends the next week defending herself with the tired talking point, "I'm not a quitter, I'm a fighter," despite the fact she just quit her job that she was elected to. If it were a play, it might be funny. But this is an actual person we are talking about. It's almost sad at this point. And now she's in a spat with the father of her teenage daughter's baby, who she tried to force into marriage. Once again, I can only shake my head. The silver lining here? At least she's not running a state anymore.
By the way, if you haven't read the Vanity Fair article about Palin, you really need to. You can find it at the Vanity Fair website, titled "It Came From Wasilla."

CIA, CONGRESS, AND WIRETAPPING

Lots of developments coming from this front. The CIA and certain members of Congress are at odds over a public letter from six House Democrats addressed to CIA Director Leon Panetta. According to the Dems, Panetta admitted in a hearing that the CIA had misled Congress in the past. The CIA is obligated, under the National Security Act of 1947, to inform Congress of everything it does. Now it is being reported that the issue being discussed here is a secret counterterrorism operation that answered only to former VP Dick Cheney. Apparently, even Panetta didn't know about this operation until recently, and immediately ordered it's termination upon finding out about it. He also immediately informed Congress of the operation's existence. Also, a CIA report was unclassified that tells that President Bush personally authorized warrantless wiretapping. Not only this, but to get approval, he skipped getting Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off, because Ashcroft was in the hospital recovering from surgery. OK, lets check these out one-by-one. First, what ever happened to the balance of powers and Congressional oversight in the CIA? Did the Bush administration decide it would follow the rules only when it felt like it? When the CIA decides it is gonna do what it wants, without telling anyone, and the White House is OK with that, who is to stop them from doing something illegal? This also vindicates House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who received criticism from the right for claiming that CIA misled her. Sounds like she was telling the truth. And Panetta didn't really deny the allegations. He simply issued a statement stating that "it's not the policy of the CIA to mislead Congress" Not exactly a scathing denial. We know it's not the CIA's policy, but policy and reality seem to have differed considerably over the last eight years. As for the connections to Bush-Cheney, this only confirms what many have suspected about the Bush Administration (and VP Cheney in particular) for a long time. It's really scary that even the CIA director didn't know about it. This ties in with the CIA failing to inform Congress of their acts. Apparently nobody knows what is going on in Langley. Except Dick Cheney. (Now that's a scary thought!) Finally, the fact that Bush was personally involved with the wiretapping is not a big shocker, at least to this observer. This is also very deja vu-like, considering the new Nixon Tapes, in which Nixon also personally authorizes wiretapping. Good example to follow. This could be a big blow to the former administration if a federal prosecutor decides to pursue charges. Regardless, many conservatives will argue that the the former president had every right to do things like this, considering the war on terror. No, you are wrong. The president never has the right to do these things. This undermines our laws and the Constitution. If Republicans love the Constitution as much as they say, they will stop trying to rip it to shreds over anything that concerns national security. Follow the laws. That is what they are there for.

Well, time to wrap this up. As a parting note, two quick, ridiculous stories. Governor Rick Perry of Texas (he of secessionist fame) has nominated as his new secretary of education someone who in the past said that public education was unconstitutional and communistic. Good job, Gov. Perry, you are making everyone proud. In your new nation that you want to form, will all education be outlawed? Can we just give this guy a patch of land somewhere far away to call his own, so we can get him out of our hair? Also, goodbye to Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois. The embattled senator, appointed by disgraced former governor Rod Blagojevich, has announced he will not pursue re-election. Thank God.

Coming Monday, the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I am looking forward to it, and personally, I have no doubt she will be confirmed easily, making Monday a mere formality. More on this subject sometime in the next few days. Also, I may delve into the Republican sex scandals and the mysterious religious tying Ensign and Sanford together. If I can figure it out. Very shady, very interesting.

Thank you for sticking with me through this long-winded post; I promise they won't all be this long, this weekend was just one of those times. I'll be back within the next few days!