War Czar? Why Not? Anyone Else With An Opinion?

Today, Bush has finally chosen a war czar. Or to be more accurate, a person willing to be war czar finally chose Bush. After having the job turned down by several top military officials and criticism already facing the new war czar even before he accepted the position, Bush has found his scapegoat. And the name of that unfortunate victim of a shortened career is Lt. General Douglas Lute.
With an extensive military background, he is just the man the Bush Administration needs to sparkle up his bureaucratic efforts to save his war. While the rest of the world is screaming for diplomacy, Bush has placed a three star general in charge of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there's a catch: the war czar has to be loyal to Bush's plans.
Now that this country has a war czar in place--the one link missing in the victory chain--we can all rest assured that soon we will have total victory in Iraq. As an assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor...wait a minute! An assistant to the who?! This isn't a job that is actually going to provide anything new. It's just a flashy title that all of the blame can fall on when things continue to go sour.
The president and the deputy national security advisor already have assistants. If they want the opinion of a three star general they can just ask. But instead, they've decided that by taking something they already had in the first place, repositioning it within Washington's bureaucracy and giving it a new title everything is going to change. I give up! This country is being led by a bunch of g*d d#&m imbeciles. What else is there to say?

Spiral Dynamics As They Apply To Iraq

The following is a comment made on my article, "Iraq: The American Tarpit". I feel that it has something valuable hidden within the message that I want to address afterward. Thank you, Anonymous.
mullah cimoc say him warning ameriki people in 2003 when bush the invading iraq.
mullah cimoc then tell all ameriki saying please to reading the books of him chairman mao tse tung on guerilla warfare strategies and tactical.
mullah cimoc say in 2003 him insurgent running the enrage the bear tactical.
bear so ferocious, but running to and fro and the lunging to and fro, finally getting tired and the weaker and finally after the tormenting after the exhaustion him wanting to be killed just for ending the suffering.
this usa now in iraq. so the weaken, now the guerilla more aggressive but still the so careful. the bear still roar but hearing now the weakness.
in this time now all muslim knowing that in new iraq only him who killing so many ameriki soldier having the status and the power.
the collaborator him to die and all the family too, unless so torture by ameriki.
only one kind of the voting to count in new iraq. this ballot him calling the body bag containing the ameirki soldier ballot. if not have the this ballot, not having him vote.
this new man in new iraq him true warrior face every day adversity. him only man with political power in new iraq.
for this reason now the killing for starting so much against ameriki soldier. the wife telling the husband, “Omar, you needing for killing three ameriki now so our children him going the college and have good job in new iraq”. Also, “you not my husband if not killing ameriki soldier.”
this new kind of gold rush, but this rush him calling this the rush for kill ameriki soldier.

This comment uses the analogy of a bear to represent the United States in a clever story reflecting the conflict between the views of the Iraqis and our views. The best way I can explain this is in the terms of spiral dynamics. A good link to go to for more information would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics.
Basically, spiral dynamics is a concept model of how human cognitive development evolves--much like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Using colored levels, we can elevate our cognitive development to new "tiers" of consciousness.
Now, this applies to the above comment in that Iraqis are thinking on a "blue" tier while we are thinking on a "green" tier. What this means is that while we are planning a democracy, which is a pretty complicated and in-depth concept to fully understand and implement, the Iraqis are thinking in more of a tribal sense of sects and power. And it is this gap between where we are, cognitively, and where the Iraqis are that is creating an obstacle for democracy in Iraq.
The blue tier is a more simple level consisting of basic codes and laws, a need to follow a path to right or truth, thinking in a sense of fundamentalism and traditionalism--occasionally extremism. This tier is where the insurgents are thinking on a cognitive level. They are only interested in tradition, authority, morals and the punishments for disobeying them. This is a tier in which many Islamic extremists worldwide are operating. Codes of conduct and tradition as well as purpose, right, wrong and consequences of straying from the set path are all parts of religious teachings such as in the Qur'an. And on this tier, understanding, creating and holding onto a concept such as democracy is beyond their reach. While some Iraqis have moved up to a higher tier, the vast majority are simply not cognitively ready for the responsibilities of sustaining a democracy--a western concept that is mostly unfamiliar in Middle East culture and is only recently starting to prosper in such countries as, ironically, Iran.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is thinking on the green tier which understands the global picture, decisions from the head and not the heart, equality, acceptance and cooperation--all concepts interwoven within democracy. These two tiers, while not that far spaced apart, are still two completely different ways of looking at things. Not just democracy, but these two different cognitive brains would look at everything differently from culture and society to the environment and economics.
What all of this comes down to is another fundamental factor in the many factors of why Iraq is failing to meet U.S. goals. This is something that needs to be much more seriously looked into by the Bush Administration and other politicians worldwide. We simply cannot expect such results from Iraq at the pace we are heading and our military presence in the country is likewise hindering the process by creating a "competing tribe" for power in the minds of the Iraqi citizens.

A Civil War By Any Other Name...

First of all, I would like to address that I made some changes to a previous post: Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America. I felt that parts of it were unclear and so I found better ways of explaining my view. I understand that this is a journal and I am not really supposed to do that but...who cares?
This journal entry has to do with the civil war controversy over Iraq. Many Americans feel that Iraq is in a civil war while some still feel that they are not. Well, for anyone who cares--they are in a civil war.
One argument I've heard is that only 10-20% or so of the country is actually fighting and so it isn't really a civil war. But our civil war in the 1860s only killed 3% of the population. Not many more could have been actually fighting. A civil war doesn't bring all of the population to arms. Everyone is enveloped in the civil war but only a few are physically fighting it.
Some people who think Iraq is in a civil war, even suggest that we continue to remain there. No one got involved in our civil war. And if someone did, then it wouldn't have remained civil. The point of a civil war is that it is domestic. A foreign entity has no place militarily in another nation's civil war.
And it is too easy for historians to judge past civil wars and determine whether or not someone should have intervened. But policies aren't made in retrospect. No one can play fortune-teller and assume who is going to take power and if that is going to be a good thing for the U.S. And if it is good for the U.S. does that mean that it is good for Iraq? It is unfair to involve oneself militarily in the domestic matter of another nation.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what you call IT as long as IT is acknowledged. I think that people don't like to admit that it is a civil war because that implies that the war is out of U.S. control and that is an unsettling thought. But that is the reality of it like it or not. You can call it a "civil war" or you can call it, "a whimsically violent parade of explosive sectarian balloons" for all I care. Just don't pretend that nothing is happening over there.

Iraq: The American Tarpit

In an ambush about 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya this morning, five were left dead and three missing among a patrol of U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter. Despite the military's best efforts, the three missing soldiers' whereabouts are still unknown. This is yet another tragedy in the ongoing larger-scale tragedy that is the war in Iraq.

In other news today, Vice President Dick Cheney visited the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in an effort to gain support for the war. The king, who gave Bush much support in the beginning of the war has now declared the U.S. troops in Iraq as being an "illegal foreign occupation".

Also, Abdullah has criticized Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq and refused to see him on his tour for support around the Middle East. Prime Minister al-Maliki is a Shiite leader while King Abdullah is Sunni. There has been much tension over these differences throughout the Middle East and it has turned one of Bush's strongest allies against the war.

King Abdullah is the leader of the most oil-rich nation in the world and also head of a primarily Sunni culture. Iraq is led by a Shiite leader and holds possibly the second largest natural reserves of oil in the world. It is no wonder that Abdullah's support has dwindled to criticism when it looks like an economic competitor is run by a Shiite leader. And the thought of Iraq siding with Iran is too much to bear.

Despite the highly unlikely possibility that Iraq will somehow form a vigilante alliance against the west in oil exportation, one thing remains certain; that oil is a primary factor in the Iraq equation as well as the sectarian differences between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis, who control most of the Middle East (Saddam was Sunni), would like to see Iraq stay ethnically allied with them against neighboring Shiite Iran. The Shiites in Iraq believe that now is their time to represent themselves from the ashes of oppression but face overwhelming challenges ahead.

The real question here is whether or not the Middle East is willing to compromise and allow both sects to rule democratically in the new nation of Iraq? More importantly--are the Iraqis? In such a sensitive geopolitical and religious environment, that Utopian democracy Bush envisioned might be a little too far out of reach. The best strategy for Iraq at this point is to pull the U.S. troops out of the country, assist diplomatically and allow Iraq to be run by Iraqis. Foreign policy should not become domestic policy. But do our leaders have what it takes to bring our troops home and let Iraq go or are we trapped in the oil?

Iraq: An American Frankenstein!

With poll ratings incredibly low for both Congress and the president, things are looking dismal for the direction the United States is headed. The Democrats in Congress have nothing to show for their time in power except a veto by the president while many other issues need to be addressed. And in the same boat is the president, who despite the concern of the American people, has continued his stubbornness and led this country further into the war with no hope of getting out soon.
The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has said that Iraq needs about two to three more years before he is confident that Iraqi forces will be able to take over for the U.S. troops. Whether this is true or simply a made-up figure, it may be too little too late. In Congress's latest bill, Congress will fund the war in installments in order to view progress made in Iraq and vote on whether or not or how much to spend in the next installment of funds.
This scenario seems to be quite fair even by Talabani's standards. As long as the Iraqis continue to make scheduled progress, the funding will continue until the country can stand on its own feet. But Bush has continued his vow to veto this bill because it shows a glimpse of U.S. forces at some point leaving Iraq.
Congress, as unsuccessful as it may be, merely wants Iraqis to be held accountable for Iraq. They have had over four years to do it. There seems to be no logical reason for funding the war indefinitely without setting up goals to be reached. And if the funding continues despite the scenario if the Iraqis fail to meet those goals is downright irresponsible of U.S. policy makers.
The Bush Administration's lack of concern for the consequences of this war show that they have been leading this country down the wrong path for far too long. Unfortunately, due to the terrible handling of the war in its early phases there is the chance that even after we leave what may appear to be a healthy Iraq, the Iraqi people could face another genocide. All we are doing is delaying an inevitable civil war for who will control Iraq. This is not our decision to make and the sooner we realize that the better. These harsh facts of life--that terrible things will happen despite all efforts--are facts that need to be accepted. We cannot successfully police the world on our own.
If the Iraqis fought their civil war and forged their own government, it would be the first step they've made on their own towards a sovereign nation. It is a simple inevitability that the Iraqis will only be content when they have created a country of their own without the influence of a foreign entity.
It is not fair for the U.S. to dictate how another country should be run and the American people are seeing that. We need to focus on our own domestic issues and leave the Iraqis with a country post-Saddam. There are more important things than intimidating Iran, which is one of the most democratic nations in the Middle East if only Republicans could look beyond the leadership and at the actual culture, society and base of Iranian government. If you don't believe me, look it up. And there are more important things than rebuilding Iraq in America's image.
War is not an acceptable result of adequate foreign policy. And no matter how much we may want it, Iraq will never survive as an American experiment; it will fall into a violent socio-political void unless it is allowed to grow into the nation it was always meant to be, like it or not--Iraq.

Another Bill, Another Veto

The president is once again on a a stubborn mission to veto any bill that doesn't bear his hallmark short-sighted failure stamp on it. A new bill passed by Congress willing to compromise with the White House allows $42.8 billion to be spent on the war until August 1. Then, over summer Congress will vote whether or not to end the fiscal year with another $52.8 billion to last until September 30.
President Bush said, "We reject that idea. It won't work."
Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress, Bush has stubbornly defied every idea that has come to his desk and has shown an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate with Congress on a spending bill for the war. If Bush truly wanted to help our troops he would fund them. The caution in Congress's bill is to allow the Iraqi forces to take over and relieve some of the stress from U.S. troops. This would be the first step in the United States' acceptance of a sovereign Iraq without U.S. occupation. But Bush will not allow any bill to pass into law that does not go along with his totalitarian view of complete and absolute compliance. He is showing the signs of a dictator and not the president of a democratic nation.
Even the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, compared Bush to Hitler in a recent speech given in Red Square. Putin criticized the U.S. for " disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”
I do not understand how people can support the president. I support the troops but this war is unjustifiable and our president is a spoiled little child who cannot agree to share power with the Democrats who happen to be supported by the majority of the American people.
Our troops need to be supported through action and not just through words. Bush's words are cheap and he throws them out over the airwaves with no regard to the consequences they forge; the neglect of our troops to salvage what's left of a miserable presidential legacy.

Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America

We, as Americans, are in danger of being subjected to the same sort of law that the Iraqis were held under during the regime of Saddam Hussein. If we are not careful, our own politicians may turn our Constitution against us and give the government more unrestrained power than was ever intended.
U.S. citizens have the Sixth Amendment right which states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall been committed..."
But in a senate hearing in January of 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said to Senator Arlen Specter, "...the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."
As found on Wikipedia, habeas corpus is the "legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment." In other words, U.S. citizens can NOT be unlawfully imprisoned.
The only exceptions to that are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution in Section 9 of Article One: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
To simplify things, look at the Sixth Amendment as a positive and habeas corpus as a double-negative. They both state the same thing but in inverse statements. The Sixth Amendment says that U.S. citizens have the right to be lawfully imprisoned if they are to be imprisoned at all. While habeas corpus says that U.S. citizens are not to be unlawfully imprisoned.
So, by Gonzales saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of habeas corpus, he is inversely saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of the Sixth Amendment. If, per Gonzales, I can be unlawfully imprisoned then I can't invoke my sixth amendment right. And that is illegal.
But there can be arguments that the "detainees" referred to in the definition of habeas corpus are not defined as the same as the "accused" in the Sixth Amendment, thus rendering my argument insufficient. These definitions were gathered from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Detainee--"a person who is detained; especially: a person held in custody prior to trial or hearing." Accused--"a person who has been arrested for or formally charged with a crime: the defendant in a criminal case."
Both definitions refer to a trial for the individual in question which prevents "unlawful imprisonment". And if that person is not charged, then they must be released within 24-hours as stated by law. If they are charged, which would allow the person to be held as long as the investigation is run, then that implies a trial will be held. And holding someone charged for a crime indefinitely is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment and is illegal.
All people of the United States are considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Taking away habeas corpus from the American people because the Constitution never fully grants it to U.S. citizens and not for reasons listed in the Constitution is illegal as proven above. The state of the nation is not in rebellion and the U.S. is not under invasion and so our government cannot suspend habeas corpus to U.S. citizens.
And though the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 may be considered an invasion--it is not. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines invasion as "the act of or an instance of invading". The United States is not under the act of invasion and the instance of the attack occurred over 5-years prior to the attorney general's statement rendering the instance of the attack void in today's view. In addition, a terrorist attack is by no means an invasion by definition; rather it is a violent means of political and/or religious coercion through the act of harming innocent civilians. Let us not be confused.
Do not allow habeas corpus to be suspended or eliminated all together as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has implied that it can. This is America, we are Americans and we will not be abused by our own politicians--not now nor ever!