There are more contractors in Iraq than US soldiers -- to be exact. Blackwater, a company that is part of a scandal involving the shooting deaths of innocent civilians, has a of close encounters:
The State Department said Thursday that Blackwater USA security personnel had been involved in 56 shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq so far this year. It was the first time the Bush administration had made such data public.
This comes amid a report from the that faults US contractors for a number of setbacks in Iraq:
The United States' use of mercenary contractors like Blackwater in Iraqhas led to unnecessary violence against civilians, inflamed Iraqisentiment towards the United States and jeopardized military strategiesto defeat the insurgency...
These contractors cost between as much as US soldiers and do not follow the same rules of warfare -- yet are doing so much damage to our military's reputation.
Under the cover of the New Hampshire Democratic debate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed a Senate panel. When pressed, he admitted that the Administration is seeking to establish a long-term presence in Iraq. It will consist of 5 brigades -- at least 3500 soldiers per brigade -- conducting combat operations.
But according to the , twice as many soldiers will have to back up those five brigades, bringing the grand total of troops needed to around 35,000:
A combat brigade has 3,500 to 4,500 soldiers, leaving a minimum of17,500 combat troops in Iraq under the plan Mr. Gates described. Thetotal American force required would probably end up being at leasttwice that, because of the need for support troops and other relatedpersonnel.
In related news, Gates and Bush are asking Congress for another to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is an increase of from last year.
Army snipers in Iraq are instructed to "bait" Iraqis and shoot tokill when they pick up the 'bait'.
From
- WASHINGTON - Army snipers hunting insurgents inIraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspiciousmaterials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items,according to the defense attorney for a Soldier accused of planting evidenceon an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, saidMonday his client had acted "pursuant to orders." ...
This is reminiscent of the scandal. Tell the soldiers what to do then let them take the fall.Now That's surely the way to "support the troops"!!
I understand war is full of "things" and "missions" thatneed to be done in a certain way, but think about it this way. A poor Iraqi father is walking down the street two days after his city, village, street or housewere bombed, he looks down and sees what appears to be rope or wire (maybe even pinkplastic explosives that appear to be meat?), anyway, he bends down to pick it upbecause he needs something to tie his door back up that was ripped from it'shinges or rewire something from the explosions....BANG, daddy and his rope are gone. Now on theother hand it could be an insurgent that knows exactly what it is, and needs itto kill the good guys...my point? Mission wasn't accomplished ; there was NOplan ;we were continually lied to ;it becomes worse as each day goes by, andit's one helluva quagmire.
An "Under the circumstances" possible solution": Watch theindividual (when possible) and apprehend him and see if he leads you to a hungryNON-insurgent family, or a weapons cache. Anyone that thinks "this willonly put our boys in harms way", I say "Exactly!". Thank goodnessthere not there already. And to think about the relationships that are deterioratingdue to the deployment stays.
Excuse me while I get sick and continue to realistically support the troops,but not the war.
All week we have read and watched on the news about the Blackwater security firm, and how it is under fire for its involvement in a that killed at least . Today, a report by Iraq's Interior Ministry found that :
A preliminary Iraqi report on a shooting involving an Americandiplomatic motorcade said Tuesday that Blackwater security guards werenot ambushed, as the company reported, but instead fired at a car whenit did not heed a policeman’s call to stop, killing a couple and theirinfant.
Eric Prince, the CEO of Blackwater, once served as an to George H.W. Bush. The following video shows just how much Blackwater has profited off Bush's war:
When confronted about the actions of military contractors in Iraq, and how they are not forced to comply with the uniformed code of justice, President Bush dodged the question. He even admitted it:
BUSH: I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it's kind of convenient in this case."
There are more than double the number of US contractors in Iraq than there are US troops in Afghanistan.
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) submitted a bill that would speed up the redeployment of US troops from Iraq by requiring that all soldiers spend at least as much time at home as oversees. Republican presidential candidate John McCain calls the resolution :
"Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that theCongress decides how long people spend on tours of duty and how longthey would spend back in the United States? It's blatantlyunconstitutional," McCain said.
It is the job of Congress to pass laws. McCain is asking whether Congress has the constitutional right to pass laws that shape the way agencies inside the executive branch are allowed to behave.
Actually, Congress does impact the business within agencies. Read the , which created the Department of Homeland Security. The measure completely laid out the duties in that department, which the Congress has a right to control.
Just ten months into his freshman term as US Senator, Jim Webb has already made a huge splash. Duking it out with Washington establishment heavyweights, this is already the leading voice for the Democrats on foreign policy matters. His new Iraq bill is on the verge of passing, which would counter the claim that Bush is a friend of the military, and significantly reduce the amount of troops on the battlefield.
This is :
Now that President Bush and Gen. David H. Petraeus have charted their course for the Iraqwar, Democrats in the Senate say one of their proposals aimed atshifting the president’s strategy is finally close to winning enoughRepublican support for a real chance at being approved. It wouldrequire that troops spend as much time at home as on their most recenttours overseas before being redeployed.
The proposal, by Senator Jim Webb,Democrat of Virginia, has strong support from top Democrats, who saythat the practical effect would be to add time between deployments andforce General Petraeus to withdraw troops on a substantially swiftertimeline than the one he laid out before Congress this week, and thatit would protect troops from serving protracted and debilitatingdeployments.
If Democrats get the 60 Senators needed to force a cloture vote, this bill will pass. Then it will turn into a one-on-one battle between George W. Bush and Jim Webb, the former NAVY Secretary. Bush and every '08 Republican presidential candidate would have to decide who they are with: the Neocons or the young men and women in uniform and their families.
In the end, Bush will veto the bill, and it will head back to Congress for yet another vote. Two thirds in the House and two-thirds in the Senate (67) must vote yes in order to override the veto. Every GOP Senate candidate in 2008 will be put on notice. It will not pass on the first try. But the anti-Republican backlash among military voters would get the ball rolling, and set the stage for the same measure to pass about one month later.
Jim Webb is exactly the guy Democrats need to have out there front and center debating their side of the coin. Not Harry Reid. Not Dick Durbin. Not Nancy Pelosi. Jim Webb! He has so much credibility on foreign affairs, and the military establishment respects his intentions. Right now, he is more fit than any lawmaker to help us change course in Iraq.
Earlier this summer when Rudolph Giuliani accused Barack Obama of being "," maybe he should have just asked the troops themselves. According to the , Barack Obama and Ron Paul, two anti-war candidates, are getting more campaign donations from US soldiers than any of the other candidates:
Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in moredonations from this group than any White House contender from eitherparty. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S.troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.
Paul, a Texas congressman and the only GOP presidential hopeful who supports an immediate troop withdrawal, comes in second.
"Paul and Obama are talking straight tosoldiers, and what they are saying is resonating," said Larnell Exum, aretired Army lieutenant colonel, who gave $500 to Obama. Exum, whoworks for the Army as a congressional liaison, is a Democrat but votedfor George Bush in 1992.
Are our soldiers trying to tell us something by their support of two anti-war candidates? There is a rhetorical question for you.
Yes, what is being donated is a small amount, since many soldiers and their families are just scraping by financially. But the point is that this is what is being given, and there might be a real reason for it.
Last night, President Bush tried to get his nationwide audience to believe that the mission in Iraq is about to enter a brand :
“Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to oursecurity, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, havebeen at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing inIraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.â€
I would not be surprised if by the end of Bush's presidency this quote goes down as the most misleading statement of the last eight years. In those two sentences lies George W. Bush's free ticket to pass this crisis on to the next commander-in-chief. Even after next summer, troop levels will be no lower than 130,000 -- same as in 2006, a year in which more than 800 young men and women .
The troop surge has simply exhausted the military of its reserves. The Army is so overstretched that the NAVY is now tactics. There are no more troops to send. That is why Bush is drawing down forces by next summer, including by the end of this year -- but not because we are winning. If we were winning, there would not be 1,000 , as there are now.
In the coming weeks, the President will ask Congress for more war money. This is where Congress ought to put its foot down. No money unless it is tied to a bill that safely redeploys all of our soldiers out of Iraq, and eliminates the possibility of future bases inside the country. Unless we change course now, at least another $150 billion will be spent before Bush leaves office, and more thereafter when the next president, hopefully a Democrat, pulls them out.
Please call your and in your district. Tell them not to spend another dime on this war unless it is tied to a rapid withdrawal plan.
Let's make a few things clear about President Bush's 9 PM ET address to the nation. He will announce the redeployment of US troops by next summer, including soldiers by the end of this year. In a nutshell, between 130,000 and 135,000 troops will remain in Iraq until the end of his presidency. That is not a course change. It is yet another swindle that could cost another one thousand American soldiers their lives between now and January of 2009.
Also, what we are talking about here is not even a legitimate withdrawal. The military is stretched to a breaking point, and the President does not have anymore troops to send. So, he has one of two options:
Reinstate the draft. Thus Sparking a major youth protest movement in this country that would ensure the erosion of Republican Party support among the younger age demographic for an entire generation.
Let the surge run out when no more troops are available, and then declare success.
In the end, especially with this White House, it all comes down to politics. Therefore, Bush will choose the former, not the latter, and use a slight change in troop numbers to reinforce the phony notion that the mission was a success.
Lastly, John Edwards had the courage to buy two minutes of airtime on MSNBC during the first commercial break after Bush's speech. It is courageous because we all know that Edwards, compared to Obama and Clinton, is having trouble competing in terms of money. Yet, he is looking beyond potential primary voters, and is paying for airtime so that he can speak to the entire nation. No, not just voters in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Not just to potential undecided progressive voters. He will speak to everyone -- voters and non-voters alike. When you make the mistake of voting for maybe the most disastrous war in US history, you had better try your absolute hardest to set it right and prove to taxpayers that you learned your lesson. Since 2006, Edwards has done just that.
As for Bush, he will wait it out until January of 2009, and hand this mess to the next commander-in-chief. Tonight, when John Edwards calls on Congress to end this war, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had better be listening.
Back in January, before the Bush troop surge began, about the progress in Anbar Province:
You’ve seen it, I know, in Anbar province, where it has sort ofgone back and forth. And right now there appears to be a trend in thepositive direction where sheikhs are stepping up and they do want to beaffiliated with and supported by the U.S. Marines and Army forceswho are in Anbar province. That was not the case as little as perhapssix months ago, or certainly before that. [Senate Armed ServicesCommittee hearing, 1/23/07]
Oh, and by the way, we are anyway. So that pretty much puts a dent in the claim that sending more troops into Anbar calmed the situation. Anbar was a tactical success, not a strategic success.
Recent Comments