The Blue State

Marines want out of Iraq

What will it take to end the war, you ask?  Robert Gates has proved he doesn't have the courage to do it.  The Democratic Congress can't either.  Other than waiting for the next president to act, it might take someone from the inside to pressure for a course correction. 

It appears that the Marines want out of Iraq, and wish to be sent to Afghanistan instead:

The Marine Corps is pushing to redeploy its forces from Iraq toAfghanistan to take the lead in combat operations there and essentiallyleave Iraq to the Army, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, raisedthe issue with Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week, the Timesreported. Senior military and Pentagon officials said supporters of theproposal, including some in the Army, believe that such a realignmentcould allow both services to operate more efficiently in the face ofstrains on the separate forces.

No major Marine units are among the 26,000 U.S. forces inAfghanistan while 25,000 Marines are among the 160,000 U.S. troopsthere, the paper noted.

The Marines are at their very best when their job is to capture territory, which they are more efficient at than any other force in the world.  But when they are told to sit and play defense, and be subjected to an urban insurgency, it goes against what their role has historically been.

It gets spent either way -- but on what?

A few weeks ago President Bush vetoed the children's health care bill, citing cost as one of the main issues.  He also lashed out at Congress for exceeding his spending limit for the overall 2008 budget.  Yet, Bush submitted a Pentagon budget that called for a significant increase in funds compared to last year.

As Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said on Wednesday, President Bush is trying to have it both ways.  He complains about spending, yet turns around and increases it on other things, while still claiming to be a fiscal conservative:

“Republicans say there’s excessive spending. We agree. Two-hundredbillion [dollars] for Iraq is excessive,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel(Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Bush has repeatedly threatened to veto Democratic spending bills that come in higher than the budget numbers he has set.

That is $800 million each day on the war.

The debate is about what you spend your money on, not whether you spend anything -- because both sides are doing it.  The Democrats just think that investing in our children's health is much more cost-efficient and better in the long run than investing in military contractors and bombs that don't even help our foreign policy.

Black military enlistment down 58%

Between 2000 and 2005, the last year these statistics were available, the number of black military enlistees dropped sharply by 58%.  Among whites, they declined 10%.  Among Hispanics, it was 7% over that same period.  The Boston Globe reports:

Defense Department statistics show the number of young black enlisteeshas fallen by more than 58 percent since fiscal year 2000. The Army inparticular has been hit hard: In fiscal year 2000, according to thePentagon statistics, more than 42,000 black men and women applied toenlist; in fiscal year 2005, the most recent for which a racialbreakdown is available, just over 17,000 signed up.

The decline in enlistment applications among blacks is by far thefastest of any demographic group. Between fiscal 2000 and 2005, whiteapplicants declined by more than 10 percent. Hispanic applicantsdropped by almost 7 percent.

"African-Americans have been such a key part of the modern military,"said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst for the liberal-leaningBrookings Institution. "There's obviously been a degree where the blackcommunity in the United States has seen [military service] asculturally valuable and promoted it. That whole culture and valuesystem is at risk in the black community. That is a big, big change. Tome, it portends the possibility of a longer-term loss of interest. Itcan be tough to get it back."

Yes, the system certainly is at risk, that is for sure.  Also, being that we have an all-volunteer army, what health incentive do young volunteers have to put their bodies on the line with a right-wing reactionary in the Oval Office?

Nancy Pelosi needs to resign

Bloggers, progressive activists and others who gave their hard-earned money to the Democrats in 2006 were utterly shocked by what their House Speaker said on Sunday.  Each of us bought into the notion that Nancy Pelosi would have the courage to force the President to change direction in Iraq. 

Today there are at least 30,000 more US troops in Iraq than when Pelosi first took the gavel.  It is true that Democrats need 67 votes in the Senate to override a Bush veto.  But according to Pelosi, even if Bush's veto gets overridden, Democrats don't have the constitutional authority to end the war.

Unacceptable!

Voters, she told Fox News Sunday, “want it to end and they had expectations that Congress could end it.” 

But, she added, “You know we can’t without a presidential signature.”

Wrong!  If you override Bush's veto, he does not have to sign anything, and the war will be defunded.  Pelosi should know that.  One of two things are going on in Pelosi's head:

1. Either she does not understand the legislative process; or
2. She is giving up on her efforts to lead Congressional action to end the war.

In either case, Nancy Pelosi is not fit to be Speaker of the House.  We need a Speaker with courage, and who gives voters exactly what they asked for last November.  On the issue of Iraq, her tenure as Speaker has been a miserable failure.

Paying someone to keep a secret from you

Billions in tax money goes towards military contractors.  Yet, what they do is none of your business:

The State Department, which pays Blackwater hundreds of millions ofdollars to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, has stringent rules barringthe private security contractor from discussing with the media thedetails of its work, according to those familiar with the arrangement.

However, there is light at the end of the tunnel.  This week the House passed a resolution 389-30 that "would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law," according to the New York Times.  That means the FBI would investigate any wrong-doing, and any allegations would be open to the public.  Depending on how the Senate votes, a Bush veto on this issue would likely get overridden.

Richardson blasts Edwards, Hillary and Obama

In a much anticipated foreign policy speech at Georgetown University, Bill Richardson helped himself by taking a position that most Democratic activists agree with, and could vault him up a notch in Iowa and New Hampshire.  More importantly, if he does become a top-tier candidate, his popular view on the war may force Obama, Hillary and Edwards to take a more dovish position.  Richardson is the only major candidate in either party with a clear plan to get all troops out of Iraq.

Here is what I think was the best part of his speech today.  He starts with the issue of military contractors:

   We must also remove the private mercenaries.  As  President, I will no longer privatize and outsource American security!By utilizing contractors who are not subject to the rules of war or theregulations of armed forces, George Bush has further underminedAmerica's reputation and global leadership.

And then he zeroed in on the other contenders:

After seven years of this Administration, we have come to expect thatGeorge Bush will make the wrong call on the important issues.

   However, I expected more -- much more -- from my fellow Democrats  in this race.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have said we have towait and see how things go before we can know how many troops to bringout and how quickly. I say there has been enough waiting and seeing. Ifyou haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops outthen you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of Americaare seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough -- weneed to end the war.

Lastly, he exposed the fact that Clinton's Iraq plan would leave troops in Iraq for up to nine years:

Senator Clinton has reportedly said thatshe might well have troops still in Iraq at the end of a second term --9 years from now. Senator Obama and John Edwards are unwilling tocommit to removing all of the troops by the end of their first term --that's 5 years from now. I am opposed to 5 years or 9 years or any moreyears of our troops dying. My colleagues are wrong.

   Military analysts have said that Senator Clinton's plan  could require leaving up to 75,000 troops in Iraq.

   That's changing  the mission, not ending the war.

Maybe a question for Edwards, Obama and Hillary in the next debate should be how would leaving ANY combat troops in Iraq help our overall situation AT ALL?  I want to listen to them try and defend that.

Obama is probably the closest to Richardson's position.  However, for Obama, it's not enough to say, "I was against the war before it started."  The past is history.  What do you want to do now?  How would keeping US combat troops in Iraq decrease terrorist recruitment throughout the world over the next generation?  Answer it, please.

In related news, Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty explains that with the retirement of Republican Pete Domenici in Mexico, Bill Richardson could possibly decide to withdraw from the presidential race and run for that Senate seat instead.

Al-Sadr controls five ministries and 30 members of parliament

Interestingly, this news came from the Wall Street Journal's Bartle Bull, who intended to write a column this morning about how the US has succeeded in bringing democracy to Iraq.  He cited the fact that Moqtada al-Sadr, instead of boycotting the government, is now working within the democratic system to gain power:

As for Mr. Sadr, I reported thefirst hints of his democratic conversion in 2004 when a member of histop political committee told me Mr. Sadr was going to start a politicalparty and contest the elections when they came. He still has not formedsuch a party, but as I saw up close when I later spent five weeks ofthe December 2005 election period embedded in Sadr City with his MahdiArmy, he embraced electoral politics with subtlety and enthusiasm.

Of course he did: He is the leaderof the country's biggest popular movement. Today, controlling fivemajor ministries and about 30 members of Parliament (one of the twolargest blocs in the government) he underwrites the pluralist projectin Iraq as he has done since late 2004.

But just because someone works within a democratic system doesn't make what they are doing more pure.  After all, it was Hitler that worked within the Weimar Republic to take power.  Once he got that power, he dissolved the democracy.  In other words, the Hitler example reminds us of how someone can use the democratic system with the intent of destroying it.

The columnist is missing the point if he thinks that al-Sadr has "converted" into a believer of democracy.  He only uses the existing system to gain power.  And what happens after that is anyone's guess.

REAL soldier takes issue with Limbaugh

VoteVets.org takes exception with Limbaugh.  This is a REAL soldier, whether Limbaugh wants to believe it or not.

BRIAN MCGOUGH: Until you have the guts to call me a phony soldier to my face, stop telling lies about my service.

Something tells me that won't happen.

Democrats propose war tax

With the exception of all the military families, none of us have either fought or paid for this war.  The money goes straight to the national debt, while the bodies of brave soldiers come home in planes.  If Iraq truly is about September 11th, then telling Americans to go shopping does not cut it. 

This war tax proposal would help offset the more than $12 billion per month that gets added to the debt as a result of the war.  And yes, the tax is steep.  If you don't like it, then end the war!:

The plan unveiled today by House Appropriations Committee ChairmanDavid R. Obey, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John P."Jack" Murtha and Rep. Jim McGovern would spread the sacrifice amongall taxpayers by tacking a "war surcharge" on top of the federal incometax. Americans would pay up to 15 percent more on their taxes in orderto raise the $150 billion needed annually to keep the war going.

"If you don’t like the cost, then shut down the war," Obey said today.

Again, I don't think any of us would like this extra income tax.  But as far as reality is concerned, the Iraq war adds to the birth tax, which future generations will pay for.  The GOP talks a lot about the unborn.  Well OK -- Let's stop shouldering the burden to unborn children.  How about we, as living human beings, take responsibility and either pay for this war or end it (no question mark needed, because that wasn't a question).

Blackwater paid victims' families to cover up shootings

Iraq has often been referred to as the wild west -- an utter state of lawlessness where contractors behave as they wish.  Last month, the private firm Blackwater was involved in a shootout that caused the unnecessarily killed 10 Iraqi civilians.  According to a report this morning in the Washington Post, of the 200 Blackwater shooting incidents since 2005, in a few of the incidents Blackwater paid off family members of victims to keep quiet:

In at least two cases, Blackwater paid victims’ family members whocomplained, and sought to cover up other episodes, the Congressionalreport said. It said State Department officials approved the paymentsin the hope of keeping the shootings quiet. In one case last year, thedepartment helped Blackwater spirit an employee out of Iraq less than36 hours after the employee, while drunk, killed a bodyguard for one ofIraq’s two vice presidents on Christmas Eve.

Even with shady behavior like this, the Pentagon awarded them with a new $92 million this week.