[dinosaur]

Fox News has been reporting the rising death toll from an RPG attack bringing down a Chinook helicopter. This may not be the final toll. :(

[Deadman]

I didn't notice this anywhere else but apparently a U.S. Chinook has been shot down in Iraq. At this time the media is reporting 13 dead and 20 injured.


damn....

[Moparmike]

Wow. I only heard 2 had died, and others were injured.:(

[2dogs]

What a shame- they were on their way stateside for 2 weeks r/r.

The Democrats wasted no time in whining about how Iraq is a failure.

Great timing.:rolleyes:

I detest them.

[w4rma]

Halliburton says KBR unit revenue profit, sales soar

HOUSTON, United States (AFP) - US oil industry services giant Halliburton said Thursday its Kellogg Brown and Root unit's profits rose four-fold and sales leapt 80 percent, boosted by work in Iraq.

Profits from the unit's operations soared to 49 million dollars in the three months to September from 12 million dollars a year earlier, helped by "government services activity in the Middle East," Halliburton said.

KBR, the engineering and construction division that netted a no-bid government contract to help rebuild Iraq's shattered oil industry, also posted an 80-percent jump in sales to 2.3 billion dollars. "
…
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031029/bs_afp/us_oil_iraq_halliburton_031029181531

Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags.

pic of the wreckage:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20031102/capt.ans10311021205.iraq_helicopter_ans103.jpg

[RKCheung]

Slight oversimplification of a complex issue. :rolleyes:

The threat of missile attacks against coalition aircraft has always been present and many attempts have been made by terrorists to bring down aircraft. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Choppers just do not have the evasion and defensive capability that fixed-wing aircraft do.

[w4rma]

First response: View from the Medivac team

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- From the air, the Chinook transport helicopter looks flattened. It doesn't look like a helicopter at all, and considering that the 159 Medivac helicopter I'm riding in was supposed to be headed to a roadside bomb explosion, it doesn't occur to me that the mess 400 feet below us is unusual.

I'm half-asleep in the back of the Blackhawk after riding on about a dozen such missions over the previous 36 hours. It's about 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, and I'd returned from the last mission just over six hours ago.

As we near the scene, it's clear that something big is happening below us. There are 6 or 8 choppers already on the ground. Sitting in the back of the Blackhawk without a headset to listen to the two pilots, medic and crew chief that fly the missions, I had no idea what was going on.

It did not take long, however, for reality to sink in, when we touch down about a minute later some 30 kilometers (about 19 miles) southwest of Fallujah. About a dozen men from the 82nd Airborne came running at our chopper as though we were bring them casualties. Usually, it's the other way around.

Minutes later an ambulance pulls up to the chopper with a very badly wounded young soldier inside. We happened to have on board this mission a visiting Air Force Flight Surgeon. He and the medic quickly start working on the wounded man, whose head wound is clearly serious. Within minutes, the doctor's performing CPR and the medic is trying to clear breathing tubes, which have filled with blood. This soldier is barely alive.

Under normal circumstances, the team would have flown to the 28 CSH Hospital in Baghdad, where there's a state-of-the-art medical facility for U.S. troops. But a Chinook filled with wounded had run out of fuel while landing there just moments before, leaving the landing pad unable to take any new helicopters until the crippled chopper was moved.
…
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031102-103706-1836r

[fallingblock]

"Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags."
************************************************************

Of trying to promote the ridiculous to the detriment of reality.:D

[Jeff White]

My sources say it was probably a SAM-7 Strella or maybe a somewhat newer model. Not an RPG.

It's time that the opposition party stops getting joyous over American casualties. We are at war. War is not a clean business. People get killed, equipment is destroyed. I knew that this would eventually happen. We have lost our collective memory of what it's like to be at war. Our society needs to realize that war is not a Playstation2 game.

The opposition party needs to stop the body count NOW. Every service member who is killed or injured in Iraq is NOT a tool to use to attempt to gain in the polls against this administration. Every life that we have expended, every limb that has been lost, every drop of sweat dripped into the sand demands that we see this through. The worst thing we can do for our servicemenbers is to turn tail and run. The fact is, we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter right now why we are there, and it doesn't matter how we got there. What matters is that we are there and to pull out now would be to spit on the graves of all those who have given their lives to this mission.

Is it really the opposition party's strategy to use every death and every sacifice to wring their hands and demand we pull out? The opposition party needs to remember that they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It's time for them to shut their mouths about the situation until it's over. If they didn't want to go to war, they had plenty of opportunities to refuse to authorize the administration to prosecute the war.

YOU OWE IT TO THE MEN AND WOMEN YOU VOTED TO SEND INTO HARMS WAY TO SUPPORT THEM 100%. DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE THE GUTS TO SEE ANYTHING YOU STARTED THROUGH? OR IS IT YOU WILL ONLY ACCEPT A SUCCESS IF YOUR PARTY IS IN CHARGE OF IT? ARE YOU THAT UNAMERICAN THAT PARTY POLITICS RISES ABOVE ALL ELSE? LET ME TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SERVICE MEMBERS OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES SERVING IN IRAQ.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF WE TOOK YOU AWAY FROM YOUR COMFORTABLE HOME, SENT YOU HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD, PUT YOU IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION, GAVE YOU A HARD JOB AND THEN SAID "OH, SORRY, I NEVER REALLY MEANT TO DO THIS, WHY DON'T YOU GUYS PACK UP AND GO HOME, DON'T WORRY ABOUT FINISHING THE JOB, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE."

You see that's what you're doing when you play these political games. You tell all those YOU sent to do the job that their sacrifice is for nothing, because YOUR priorities have changed. I guarantee you that with every casualty we take, it only increases the resolve of our soldiers to continue to fight. They don't want their sacrifices to be in vain. Apparently those who are calling for us to turn tail and run either don't understand whats involved here (which might be understandable) or don't care (which IMHO is unacceptable).

The fact is, that Congress authorized the use of force. members of both parties voted to authorize the use of force and it wasn't a close vote either. Now it's time to get out of the way and let the administration do it's job.

I don't see this as care for the servicemen. I see it as a bunch of politicians who are out of power gleefully waiting for the casualty reports to come in so they can bash the administration. Like VPC and the Brady Center waits for the next shooting incident so they can make political points, so do a lot of members of the opposition party wait for the body count to come in so they can make points in the polls.

The enemy strategy in Iraq is to cause enough casualties that we pack up and go home leaving the country in chaos. So your free speech is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They will now fight harder because they think just a few more American bodies and they'll go home. If you were patriots and really supprted our servicemen and women you'd be crying for more resources so we can finish the job. Not dancing on the graves of American servicemen and women because it might give you a boost in this weeks polls.

Jeff

[mattd]

When the story first broke they said 35 dead. Then it turned to at least 2. I lost all trust in the media and don't belive anything at all they say.

The people counting bodies makes me sick. They think its a score card or something.

[pittspilot]

Originally Posted by Jeff White

My sources say it was probably a SAM-7 Strella or maybe a somewhat newer model. Not an RPG.

It's time that the opposition party stops getting joyous over American casualties. We are at war. War is not a clean business. People get killed, equipment is destroyed. I knew that this would eventually happen. We have lost our collective memory of what it's like to be at war. Our society needs to realize that war is not a Playstation2 game.

The opposition party needs to stop the body count NOW. Every service member who is killed or injured in Iraq is NOT a tool to use to attempt to gain in the polls against this administration. Every life that we have expended, every limb that has been lost, every drop of sweat dripped into the sand demands that we see this through. The worst thing we can do for our servicemenbers is to turn tail and run. The fact is, we are in Iraq. It doesn't matter right now why we are there, and it doesn't matter how we got there. What matters is that we are there and to pull out now would be to spit on the graves of all those who have given their lives to this mission.

Is it really the opposition party's strategy to use every death and every sacifice to wring their hands and demand we pull out? The opposition party needs to remember that they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. It's time for them to shut their mouths about the situation until it's over. If they didn't want to go to war, they had plenty of opportunities to refuse to authorize the administration to prosecute the war.

YOU OWE IT TO THE MEN AND WOMEN YOU VOTED TO SEND INTO HARMS WAY TO SUPPORT THEM 100%. DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE THE GUTS TO SEE ANYTHING YOU STARTED THROUGH? OR IS IT YOU WILL ONLY ACCEPT A SUCCESS IF YOUR PARTY IS IN CHARGE OF IT? ARE YOU THAT UNAMERICAN THAT PARTY POLITICS RISES ABOVE ALL ELSE? LET ME TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE SERVICE MEMBERS OF ALL POLITICAL PARTIES SERVING IN IRAQ.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF WE TOOK YOU AWAY FROM YOUR COMFORTABLE HOME, SENT YOU HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD, PUT YOU IN A DANGEROUS SITUATION, GAVE YOU A HARD JOB AND THEN SAID "OH, SORRY, I NEVER REALLY MEANT TO DO THIS, WHY DON'T YOU GUYS PACK UP AND GO HOME, DON'T WORRY ABOUT FINISHING THE JOB, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT ANYMORE."

You see that's what you're doing when you play these political games. You tell all those YOU sent to do the job that their sacrifice is for nothing, because YOUR priorities have changed. I guarantee you that with every casualty we take, it only increases the resolve of our soldiers to continue to fight. They don't want their sacrifices to be in vain. Apparently those who are calling for us to turn tail and run either don't understand whats involved here (which might be understandable) or don't care (which IMHO is unacceptable).

The fact is, that Congress authorized the use of force. members of both parties voted to authorize the use of force and it wasn't a close vote either. Now it's time to get out of the way and let the administration do it's job.

I don't see this as care for the servicemen. I see it as a bunch of politicians who are out of power gleefully waiting for the casualty reports to come in so they can bash the administration. Like VPC and the Brady Center waits for the next shooting incident so they can make political points, so do a lot of members of the opposition party wait for the body count to come in so they can make points in the polls.

The enemy strategy in Iraq is to cause enough casualties that we pack up and go home leaving the country in chaos. So your free speech is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They will now fight harder because they think just a few more American bodies and they'll go home. If you were patriots and really supprted our servicemen and women you'd be crying for more resources so we can finish the job. Not dancing on the graves of American servicemen and women because it might give you a boost in this weeks polls.

AMEN.

[w4rma]

Soldier dies while heading home for mother's funeral
Among 16 killed by missle attack on U.S. helicopter

Sgt. Ernest Bucklew, 33, was coming home from Iraq on an emergency leave to attend the funeral of his mother when his helicopter was shot from the sky.

In three days, Donald Bucklew, of Darlington Township, lost his wife and his son.

"His mother and dad prayed every night that he would come home safe," said Jack Smith, of Point Marion, Fayette County, Ernest Bucklew's uncle.

The family tragedy started Friday afternoon. Mary Ellen Bucklew, 57, was driving home from work at a warehouse when an aneurysm in one of the arteries leading to her heart burst. Her vehicle ran into the median of the road and she died.

Smith said Ernest Bucklew's wife, Barbara, went to the American Red Cross and put in a plea to get him home for the funeral. The couple lived in Fort Carson, Colo., with their two sons, Justin, 6, and Joshua, 4. Smith said the Army agreed to get him to Fort Carson, but that he would have to get to Pennsylvania on his own.
…
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03307/236214.stm

[w4rma]

If I Were Bush's Speechwriter ...
(CBS) A weekly commentary by CBS News Correspondent Andy Rooney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years ago, I was asked to write a speech for President Nixon.

I didn't do that, but I wish President Bush would ask me to write a speech for him now.

Here's what I'd write if he asked me to - which is unlikely:

My fellow Americans - (the word "fellow" includes women in political speeches):

My fellow Americans. One of the reasons we invaded Iraq was because I suggested Saddam Hussein had something to do with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. No evidence that's so, I wish I hadn't said it.

I said we were going to get Saddam Hussein. To be honest, we don't know whether we got him or not. Probably not.

I said we'd get Osama bin Laden and wipe out al Qaeda. We haven't been able to do that, either. I'm as disappointed as you are.

I probably shouldn't have said Iraq had nuclear weapons. Our guys and the U.N. have looked under every bed in Iraq and can't find one.

In one speech, I told you Saddam Hussein tried to buy the makings of nuclear bombs from Africa. That was a mistake and I wish I hadn't said that. I get bad information sometimes just like you do.

On May 1, I declared major combat was over and gave you the impression the war was over. I shouldn't have declared that. Since then, 215 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. As the person who sent them there, how terrible do you think that makes me feel?

I promised to leave no child behind when it comes to education. Then I asked for an additional $87 billion for Iraq. It has to come from somewhere. I hope the kids aren't going to have to pay for it - now in school or later when they're your age.

When I landed on the deck of the carrier, I wish they hadn't put up the sign saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. It isn't accomplished.

Maybe it should have been MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.

I've made some mistakes and I regret it. Let me just read you excerpts from something my father wrote five years ago in his book, “A World Transformed.”

I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant, into a latter-day Arab hero …

This is my father writing this.

...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war.

We should all take our father's advice.

That's the speech I'd write for President Bush. No charge.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/31/60minutes/rooney/main581171.shtml

[RKCheung]

Jeff, thank you. You represent the sentiments of many who served over there and serve there now. People here in the states get an extremely slanted view of Iraq from the media, especially of the reconstruction efforts and the sentiment of the Iraqi people themselves. It is certainly going to be an uphill battle for years to come to ensure that Iraq becomes a secure and prosperous democracy to serve as a model for its Arab neighbors.

Although these latest casualties are certainly tragic, it would be more so if those who had given their lives to have died for nothing. It could mean more American lives lost, but the course must be stayed for the good of Iraq, the middle east, and indeed the world.

As for w4rma, instead of posting others' rhetoric, why don't you post your own and back it up?

[rock jock]

w4,

Your tagline reveals your obvious bias and you are simply parroting the POS democrates who are making poltical hay of this even now.

Our troops come home in bodybags and Halliburton brings home the moneybags.
A more accurate quote: "Our troops come home in bodybags and Gov. Dean smiles as his poll numbers increase."

[Malone LaVeigh]

Every time I read about a soldier being killed or wounded over there I feel like I've been kicked in the gut. I have a good friend with a son over there, and the thought of him or any other young people paying for the blunders of our corrupt leaders makes me sick. I resent anyone suggesting that those of us who opposed this war get any pleasure out of it. Screw you if you think so.

I hope Dean and the others make lots of political hay out of this. The liars and fools who got us into this mess need to be fired by their bosses.

Oh, do forgive us who don't swallow the government propaganda with sufficient fervor. There are plenty of sheep that do.

[Jeff White]

Malone,
Are you saying that those who have already died, have made the ultimate sacrifice for nothing?

Last Friday, 31 Oct 2003 I retired from the United States Army. I ended a career that started on 6 December 1974. Yes I was fortunate that I spent nearly 22 of the 29 years as an AGR traininer for ARNG units and that allowed me to pursure a second career in police work simultaniously.

When I went in the Army we were a broken entity. What broke the army was the way that both Democratic and Republican adminstraions handled Vietnam.

The fact of the matter is there were what, three votes on the use of force in Iraq? I don't seem to recall much dissent from the Democratic side of the chamber.

I have my problems with the way the administraion has chosen to conduct the war. Do a search on my posts, I was quite vocal about them.

What we are facing is an enemy strategy that is Bill Clinton's legacy. Throughout his administration every action he took showed our enemies that we had no stomach to take casualties. Every military operation we launched under his administration was conducted to avoid casualties at the cost of military effectiveness. The sad fact of the matter is that early in his first term Bill Clinton had his own Tet Offensive. It happened in a rathole called Mogadishu, Somalia. I call it the equivilent of the tet offensive because even though we won the battle, it was perceived as a loss, we lost 18 fine young men and to reward them for fighting so hard, we turned tail and ran. Just like we broke the back of the Viet Cong in 1968 (they were never a viable large scale force on the battlefield again) we took the wrong lessons away from the battlefield and decided we were beat. When Clinton pulled out of Mogadishu without getting Aidid, he told everyone that we were a paper tiger. The Americans are powerful they have many machines but kill a few of them, show them some blood and they'll go home. Fast forward to 1999 and the Kosovo war. Our pilots flew mission profiles that they knew weren't effective less one of them get shot down. We expended expensive smart muntions on targets like fuel trucks that would more appropriately have been dealt with with a few rounds of 20mm cannon fire. Again our enemies watched and planned. 2003 we invade Iraq. Much of the Iraqi army takes off it's uniforms and goes home. They know they can't beat us in a toe to toe fight, so they take the what they learned about the American will during the eight years of the Clinton presidency and apply it. Kill some Americans, they have a short attention span, soon they will pack up and go home.

I would only accept all of this Democratic criticism of the war if they had voted to the man against it. But the fact is they didn't. I don't recall there being too many votes against this at all. Every Democrat who voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq shares equal responsibility with the administration for us being there.

If you want to support your friends son, instead of whining about bring the boys home, why don't you push for an expansion of the army so that we have enough forces to do the job right, so that he can come home a winner.

I have seen war personally. I have a 20 year old son who is B-1-29th Infantry at Ft Benning right now. He goes to Ranger school soon and he may well wind up in harms way soon.

I won't sit by and watch my Army be destroyed for the sake of political expediancy again. I worked too hard to build it into what it is.

I know what's next in the Democratic playbook. Next they are going to start vilifying the troops who are serving. They're going to say that the war is destroying them and making killers of them. Do you think that it is a cooincidence that the Toledo Blade ran a multipart series on alleged atrocities by a scout platoon in the 101st Airborne Division in 1967 last week? I don't. The last article had a paragraph on soldiers in Iraq. Drew some similarities to the type of fighting that's going on.

I'm sorry Malone, but many of the liars and fools who got us into this mess have a D behind their name. I'm not buying the argument about faulty intelligence either. Let me tell you one thing I've learned in nearly 29 years in the Army, intelligence is almost always faulty.

As for the war profiteering, perhaps you should look into who in the Johnson adminstration had ties to Kellog, Brown and Root during Vietnam. They got their big start in this business back then. Or maybe it might prove interesting to look into what first lady during the Johnson adminstration had large holdings in Bell Helicopter. You also might ask any Army aviator if the Hughes OH-6 was a better scout platform then the Bell OH-58. Then look at which one was purchased...

Once you put boots on the ground, you have a moral obligation to support them in the accomplishment of their mission. If the Democrats didn't want to go to war they shouldn't have voted to. That's it, plain and simple. Now they have taken on the moral obligation to see the men and women they sent to war through it.

I hope that you can understand what I'm saying here. I have put myself in harms way before, I will go tomorrow if recalled. I have a son who could go at anytime. All the men and women who serve ask is for their country to support them. The opponents of the war need to be crying for the administration to commit enough resources to do the job as quickly as possible. Not to pull up stakes and go home. And the next time, if they have such moral misgivings about going to war, they shouldn't vote to.

What if we put you and your crew into a forest fire, you lost one or two members of your crew to the fire and you were engaged in a fight not only for your lives, but to save a small town in the path of the fire. And suddenly your bosses in Washington called you up and said, "Malone, pack it up and go home, this fire has cost lives it's not worth it." Would you feel feel betrayed? Would you feel supported? And would you think that your friends died for nothing?

You don't play politics after you send men into harms way my friend. I have to wonder what would the democratic candidates be saying if the economy wasn't recovering and they were trouncing Bush in the polls on domestic issues. Would the war be an issue at all?

Jeff

[fallingblock]

"Oh, do forgive us who don't swallow the government propaganda with sufficient fervor. There are plenty of sheep that do."
************************************************************
But you're responsible for swallowing the propaganda of the "Dems-wanna-be-in-power" instead.:D

Only a silly sheep (and there are a few of them) would listen to those folks;) .

[c_yeager]

From my point of view the only people who are proffiting from the deaths of American soldiers are the liberals in this country. Or is it just a cooincidence that they seem to report this new with barely contained glee? But, of course they arent the bad guys. right?

[MK11]

"You don't play politics after you send men into harms way my friend."

That also applies to President Bush when he says something sophomoric like, "Bring it on" in response to terrorist attacks in Iraq. You make an excellent point about the hypocrisy of the Democrats but don't forget, the war in Iraq was Bush/Cheney's baby and it's becoming obvious that this administration had zero plan for securing Iraq beyond fantasies of cheering Iraqis throwing flowers at American troops. Lack of support for the troops is just as big a Republican problem as its is for Democrats, albiet for different reasons.

Sorrow and disgust over American casualties in Iraq don't automatically equal a lack of patriotism.

Thanks for your service Jeff, and best wishes to your son.

[rapaz]

Excellent criticism of the democrats; fortunately or unfortunately a lot of it applies to the repubs, too.

Somalia, for example--Clinton pulled out... in large part because of intense criticism from republicans about "nation building," "sending our boys into harms way for nothing", blah blah blah. Sure set the tone for now, didn't it?

I simply refuse to accept that my criticism of the asinine actions of the bush administration is in ANY way unpatriotic nor is unsupportive of the troops. Hell, if it was up to me, they would all have body armor, which is more than you can say about Bush.

Bush has been lying from the beginning about the reasons for attacking Iraq; that slimebag switched from (an untrue) claim that Iraq threatened the US, to (nonexistant) WMDs, to some purported connection to the "war on terror", to human rights, to democracy.

One way we can support the troops is by ensuring that no president (of any party) can throw away their lives in a dishonest and futile adventure. Don't insinuate that I or others who disagree with Bush's policies are relishing the body count. Don't suggest that my patriotism is in any way diminished by my not believing the blatant lies of this dishonest administration.

If you want to "support the troops" ask Rumsfeld why they don't have body armor, and what exactly that post-war planning was, and what exactly the strategy is to deal with an escalating insurgency.

We've moved up from 12 attacks/day, and 1 death/day, to 30+ attacks and 3+ deaths every day. I guess they listened to W and are "bringing it on." What's the plan now, eh?

I keep hearing people say, "the plan is to lure them out in the open and then we can blow them away." Sure... except what happens is they set of a bomb by the side of the road, the US soldiers spray some machine gun fire, maybe kill a civilian or two, or maybe not, regroup, and drive on. Not exactly decimating their ranks, I think.

Sorry this is going on so long; it just makes me so mad when people say that exercising the first amendment is unpatriotic; and I get furious about the way this administration is destroying our international credibility, and is putting our soldiers in harms way for nothing. Meanwhile actual threats to the US are ignored.

[w4rma]

Republican controlled House Nixes Anti-Profiteering Penalties in Iraq Spending Bill
…
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The final version of the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan is missing provisions the Senate had passed to penalize war profiteers who defraud American taxpayers. House negotiators on the package refused to accept the Senate provisions.

The Senate provision was authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.). It was one of the last major sticking points this week as negotiators worked through the compromise appropriations bill. The conferees narrowly defeated the amendment after lengthy debate, with House negotiators offering no substitute and no willingness to compromise, despite repeated offers from Senate conferees to negotiate the language. Republican and Democratic Senate conferees consistently supported the provision, which had been unanimously accepted during Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the bill. Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin are members of the Appropriations Committee and also of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the criminal justice system.

"Congress is about to send billions and billions of dollars to a place where there is no functioning government, under a plan with too little accountability and too few financial controls," said Leahy. "That's a formula for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would defraud taxpayers, and removing this protection is another major blot on this bill."

"We are about to spend a lot of money in Iraq, quickly and with few real controls on how it is spent," said Feinstein. "The least we can do is prevent private companies from taking advantage of the American Government, its people, and the men and women who are risking their lives every day to make Iraq, and the world, a better, safer place to live. It was a mistake to strip the anti-profiteering provision from the conference report, and restoring it through this bill would send a clear signal that this kind of activity will not be tolerated."

"When the Senate Appropriations Committee considered this supplemental request, Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and I joined together to criminalize war profiteering -- price gouging and fraud -- with the same law that was passed during World War II. Yet this amendment, was stripped out of the final bill," said Durbin. "I fail to understand how anyone can be opposed to prosecuting those who want to defraud and overcharge the United States government and the American taxpayers."

U.S. fraud statutes protect against waste of tax dollars at home, but none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. Leahy described it as "strong and focused sanctions" that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

Leahy, Feinstein and Durbin will re-introduce the legislation again as a separate bill and will work to win its passage. But because criminal penalties cannot be made retroactive, the absence of penalties in this supplemental appropriations bill will hamper efforts to crack down on war profiteering that involves funds from this bill.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/031031/180/5qfao.html

[Malone LaVeigh]

Whoa, folks. I hope no one thinks my comment means I support the 'rats that gave (even tacitly) the power to Bush to do this thing. Kerry and Edwards and even Clark are scrambling, but I'm not buying it. As far as Lieberman is concerned, he might as well join the repugs.

Jeff White,
I disagree with little that you wrote.

If you want to support your friends son, instead of whining about bring the boys home, why don't you push for an expansion of the army so that we have enough forces to do the job right, so that he can come home a winner.See my sig line. I just want to see the political leaders (D and R) who made this horrible blunder pay. But you have to agree that most of the responsibility rests with the cabal of neocon chickenhawks in the White House. They went to great lengths to decieve the country into giving them the power to do this thing, all to promote a global agenda that was laid out years ago, and which few of us would support if given the facts.
Let me tell you one thing I've learned in nearly 29 years in the Army, intelligence is almost always faulty.Exactly. Especially when you've been put in a situation where you're depending on intelligence from people who distrust your motives. That is, unfortunately, the situation our leaders have put the troops in.
What if we put you and your crew into a forest fire, you lost one or two members of your crew to the fire and you were engaged in a fight not only for your lives, but to save a small town in the path of the fire. And suddenly your bosses in Washington called you up and said, "Malone, pack it up and go home, this fire has cost lives it's not worth it." Would you feel feel betrayed? Would you feel supported? And would you think that your friends died for nothing?Your analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. But I'll see what I can do with it. In the situation you describe, I wouldn't wait for superiors to tell me to get out, I'd pull them out as soon as it got too risky. No tree, house, natural resource, or anything else is worth risking the lives of my crew. I know that ethic can't be extended to the military, and don't expect it to be. The time to make the decision with the military is before we are committed. Are oil wells and Halliburton contracts worth putting our young peoples lives and futures at risk? Who benefits if we create a world of global US hegemony? Sorry, I did the cost/benefit analysis a long time ago and decided it wasn't worth it.

[buzz_knox]

w4rma, post something showing original thought, not just cut and paste from elsewhere.

As for the "speech writer," he stated
I said we'd get Osama bin Laden and wipe out al Qaeda. We haven't been able to do that, either. I'm as disappointed as you are.

Using his own logic contesting going into Iraq, we should have done nothing about AQ, given that OBL isn't in custody and AQ still exists. Yes, we should have said "whoops, can't get them. I guess 9/11 was a freebie. Better not do it again."

As for rapaz,
Don't insinuate that I or others who disagree with Bush's policies are relishing the body count. Don't suggest that my patriotism is in any way diminished by my not believing the blatant lies of this dishonest administration.

Actually, you suggest both yourself. "Blatant lies of this dishonest administration"? By that, you mean the same information which the United Nations accepted as correct? The same information that Russia, France, and Germany accepted as correct? The same information which Democrats espoused for years?

[rapaz]

As for rapaz,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't insinuate that I or others who disagree with Bush's policies are relishing the body count. Don't suggest that my patriotism is in any way diminished by my not believing the blatant lies of this dishonest administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, you suggest both yourself. "Blatant lies of this dishonest administration"? By that, you mean the same information which the United Nations accepted as correct? The same information that Russia, France, and Germany accepted as correct? The same information which Democrats espoused for years?


This is a good example. Call me wrong, misguided, or dumb. Suggest that I'm informed soley by communist alien voices speaking through my fillings. Hell, even call me a stooge for the oh-so-lovely democratic candidates. But just lay off the unpatriotic/happy about dead soldiers crap.

Tarring critics of this administration with these lables is an unpleasant way to try to stifle debate and free speech. I mean, if criticising a president is unpatriotic, there are a long line of Clinton critics who I guess should be buying one-way tickets to Iran?

All politicians lie; I suppose whether Bush's lies matter depends on whether you like the direction his administration is going, or not.

[dadman]

Iraq

Revised November 3, 2003

The successful downing on Nov. 2 military of a transport helicopter perhaps marks another advance for the insurgent forces — an arbitrary but important point around which the situation qualitatively changes.

US forces rely on helicopters to provide rapid response to transport troops, to apply firepower, and to evacuate wounded. Restricting their use could significantly degrade our military superiority over insurgent forces. Per the 11/3 Financial Times: "The attack was the fourth time Iraqi fighters have succeeded in bringing down a US helicopter, but the first time there have been casualties. A Black Hawk crash-landed in Tikrit on 10/25 after it was targeted by a rocket-propelled grenade and on 10/14 a helicopter was forced to land near the Syrian border." Watch to see if this they can contest the Coalition's control of the sky.

As in the Russian-Afghanistan war, insurgent use of surface to air missiles demonstrates their progress along the learning curve. They're using more powerful and sophisticated weapons. More evidence: this week's destruction of an Abram's tank and the death of 2 crewman, the first reported in the "post-war" conflict.

Lastly, the increased tempo and skill of insurgent attacks means that we should prepare for a major increase in Coalition causalities The insurgents can also use "stand-off" weapons. Expect more attacks, better executed — such as mortar attacks on our bases and missile attacks on large aircraft. While most will fail, incidents with 10 - 50 causalities could become more common.

Results:

The tentative evidence available suggests that Coalition forces have been pushed onto the defensive. Worse, our civilian administrators seem increasing isolated from the Iraq people, our military increasingly viewing the local people as potential assailants and/or targets.

Watch the reaction of US popular opinion to this rise in causalities. It might reveal much about the Coalition's ability to win a protracted conflict.

Whatever "new" strategy Coalition forces had as of October 1, it might already need revising. The insurgents OODA loops run quickly. We will see whose runs faster.

Note:

This week's New York Times Magazine published "Blueprint for a Mess" which describes pre-war US planning errors. Much of this supports those who view the Pentagon as a "Versailles on the Potomac" where internal battles for status and power take precedence over external realities.
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/02/magazine/02IRAQ.html (free, but requires registration)

"scorecard" source (http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/us_iraq2.htm)

Other interesting sites:

http://www.d-n-i.net/

William S. Lind archives (http://www.military.com/NewContent?file=Lind_Index)

Center for Cultural Conservatism (http://www.freecongress.org/centers/cc/index.asp)

[rock jock]

I resent anyone suggesting that those of us who opposed this war get any pleasure out of it. Screw you if you think so.
The screwing that we will all receive will be the dems showing the world that we have no resolve to fight our enemies.

[hops]

Some talking-heads show I watched on Sunday, indicated that at the current Rate of U.S. Military deaths, it will take 15 years to equal the deaths we as a country incurred on 9-11.

Deaths are tragic, but lets finish the job, so as not to make their deaths meaningless.

I perfer that we engage them off-shore. We seem to be losing more people when they are able to fight on our shores.

Oh, if the U.S, cuts and runs from this, we will have no credibility in world affairs. A lot more at stake here than what meets the eye.

The only thing more terrrible than a battle/war won, is war/battle that was lost. I think Napoleon said that once. So let's not lose.

[w4rma]

The screwing that we will all receive will be the dems showing the world that we have no resolve to fight our enemies.You are making incorrect assumptions about Democratic policy proposals, rock jock.

Governor Dean's Statement On Today's Attacks in Iraq

BURLINGTON--Democratic Presidential Candidate Governor Howard Dean, M.D., issued this statement following today's attacks in Iraq:

"Today's attacks are a terrible tragedy.

"This loss of life saddens me and my deepest sympathies go out to the families of the US soldiers killed and injured in today's attacks.

"I also share the anger and outrage of Americans and people of all nations against those who would carry out such acts. They must be brought to justice."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10260&news_iv_ctrl=1441

DEAN SAYS 'WE CANNOT AFFORD TO FAIL' IN IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION
Wednesday August 20, 2003
By: Press Office

(August 20, 2003)

BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must: Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process."Yesterday's bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq appears to have been an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting us. It is vital to our chances of success that the Bush Administration redouble its efforts to internationalize the military and civilian presence and to speed up the stabilization and rebuilding process. We cannot afford to fail."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&news_iv_ctrl=1441

Iraq Truth Center
“It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a preemptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war, but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.”

For your convenience, Dean for America has assembled all of Governor Dean’s Iraq-related speeches, statements, and background materials on a single webpage.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

[bountyhunter]

And start wrapping it around the mouths of Rumsfeld and Bush until they are finally silent.

Rumsfeld is saying how great things are going publicly, and then sends an internal memo saying we are getting our butts kicked and can't even tell if we are winning or losing the war. Yeah, that isn't going to encourage the guerilla fighters too much.

And Bush goads them by grinning and saying how great it is that they are stepping up their attacks because it "shows they are desperate".

Only thing it shows me is that they are sending the message that they are in it for keeps and the real war is just starting. maybe GWB and Rumsfeld should be required to at least visit the planet the rest of us live on occasionally.

[bountyhunter]

The only thing more terrrible than a battle/war won, is war/battle that was lost. I think Napoleon said that once. So let's not lose.

No, the only thing that is worse is when you win the war and lose the peace. And we have already lost the peace. The international good will toward the US after 9/11 has been squandered and our government has cast us as bullies who thumb our noses at the world. Our mission in Iraq is doomed because it is (whether Bush admits it or not) to install a western style government friendly to US interests that the Iraqis will support. They will not support any government that is forced upon them. We need to get the hell out, let them hold elections, and if they vote in a Muslim governement: DEAL WITH IT. Bottom line, if we claim to be bringing them freedom then let's give it to them. The current plan is to let them choose from the members of the ruling council the US approves because they will follow our guidelines. They will not be supported by the majority of the Iraqis and it will be another dictatorship propped up by force like the Shah of Iran. That turned out so well.....

[Jeff White]

Bountyhunter,
We made some mistakes, we didn't send in a sufficient number of troops to secure the country. IMHO the administration severly underestimated what would be required. But we are far from losing the peace. Iraq is better off today then it was before the war.

I don't know what goodwill we have sqaundered. Have the French and Germans stopped trading with us? Is anyone embargoing American goods and sevices because of this? Has any nation refused to sell us anything? Does the average man on the street in Paris, Berlin, London or Cape Town even care about what goes on in Iraq?

The Bush administration took great pains to seek multiple approvals from congress and multiple UN resolutions. We aren't in it alone. and no one who voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq has any right to open their mouth in protest now. Doing so is urinating on the graves of those who died and telling their loved ones that they suffered a fool in thier midst and he/she died for it. It's not supporting the troops. You don't vote to send them into harms way then say take-back when the going gets rough. Where were their morals and ethics pertaining to war when the votes were cast.

How would you like to be living in a tent in Baghdad right now? Hot during the day, cold at night, in an environment where everything and anything no matter how innocent seeming could be designed to kill or maim you? How would you like to be eating one hot meal (made of mostly dehydrated food) a day and having scruptious MREs for the other two? How would you like to be going days at a time on 2-4 hours sleep unless you were an aircrew member? How would you like to be waiting three weeks or more for mail from your loved ones? Now how would you like to be living under all these conditions, and have many of the very people who sent you there publically supporting the enemy and questioning why you are there?

Yes I do mean publically supporting the enemy. Everytime one of the Democratic candidates gets on TV or the radio and calls for us to pull out, he's giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They sit in their safehouses and plan some more attacks, because they know for every American serviceman the kill, the louder the cries to pull out will get.

As for another theocracy in the middle east, have you forgotten how well those have worked out. Iraq was always one of the most secular societies in the middle east. Do you really think that the world will be safer with another muslim theocracy? Will the Iraqi people be better off?

Jeff

[hops]

OK, you nay sayers. Read this - not found in the Washingtoon Piss, or CNN, or the MAJOR mainstream news media since they are owned by the Democratic Party.

PAGE ONE
How Iraqi Professor
Overcame Doubts
To Trust a General
Mr. Jomard, Strong Opponent of Hussein
And U.S. Policy, Saw a 'Fellow Human'

By HUGH POPE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

MOSUL, Iraq -- "Don't expect me to go on television to express gratitude," declared Iraqi historian Jazeel Abd al-Jabbar al-Jomard.

U.S.-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein, a man Mr. Jomard despised, and helped rebuild the scholar's looted Mosul University, Iraq's second-largest. None of that has changed the short, thickset, 51-year-old professor's vehement opposition to Washington's policy and actions in the Middle East.

But over the course of six months, a patient American general and his forces in the 101st Airborne who oversee this section of Iraq's north have slowly managed to win Mr. Jomard's trust. "I learned to see these people as my friends ... once I realized that, as individuals, they had nothing to do with U.S. policy," he said.

How Mr. Jomard made his decision to work with the occupying forces offers a window on one of the most urgent challenges America faces in Iraq: getting Iraqis to actively cooperate in the face of an increasingly effective resistance movement. The U.S. suffered its deadliest day in Iraq since March 23 Sunday. The toll included 16 soldiers killed when their Chinook helicopter crashed west of Baghdad, apparently shot down. (See related article.) Last week anti-U.S. forces added car bombs to their attacks on the reformed Iraqi police, the most prominent collaborators with the U.S. occupation and a key to any future U.S. exit strategy from Iraq.
IRAQ IN TRANSITION
See continuing coverage on the Iraq in Transition page.

Any form of collaboration carries the danger of being targeted by resistance fighters. Last Thursday, thousands of leaflets were distributed in Baghdad threatening to kill all who "have sold their souls to work with the Americans and the Jews." They also said, "We know for certain who you are," and were signed by the Fedayeen, an organization loyal to Mr. Hussein.

Such pressure causes many Iraqis who want to cooperate to waver and crumple in places where the U.S. occupation isn't as adroit as it has been in Mosul. Iraqi assistants to U.S. Army personnel often wear dark glasses to avoid being recognized. A translator working for U.S. journalists justifies his job to friends by saying he is brainwashing the Americans.

Legacy of Opposition

Opposition to foreign intervention comes naturally to Mr. Jomard, scion of a prominent Mosul family that was a longtime nationalist opponent of Iraq's old British-backed monarchy. When the king was toppled in a bloody 1958 coup, Mr. Jomard's father became foreign minister for the first six months of the new republican regime that followed.

An expert in Christian Europe's medieval crusades against the Islamic east, Mr. Jomard spent several years of doctoral study in Scotland and is familiar with the West. Though unhappy with Mr. Hussein's regime, he expected no good to come from the U.S. invasion.

He remains offended by what he views as a U.S. failure to prevent Israel from occupying Palestinian territories. He knows that Washington supported Mr. Hussein during his murderous 1980s prime. He deeply resents the way the U.S. left Mr. Hussein in power after devastating Iraq's infrastructure in the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, and then led the effort to impose crippling sanctions on the country.
[[Jazeel Abd al-Jabbar al-Jomard]]

"I swear that even Iraqi ants were affected by those sanctions," says Mr. Jomard, who drives a battered 1980 Datsun with a dashboard held together by tape. "Before, they used to stay in the garden of my house. Now they've even reached my bedroom, looking for things to eat."

The university that Mr. Jomard loved, a sprawling campus of stark concrete buildings and dusty hills, was overcome in the chaos that descended on Mosul after the U.S. forced Mr. Hussein's ouster on April 9. Traffic jams formed at the campus gates as armed looters loaded up everything their cars could carry. They even stole one of the gates.

Mr. Jomard's initial contacts with the U.S. military didn't foster trust or cooperation. He had joined up with other leading Mosul figures that day and gone to ask the newly arrived U.S. Marines for protection. He found the officer sent out to talk to the group to be young, arrogant and interested only in the safety of his own troops. A Sunni Muslim from the majority of Mosul's 1.7 million people, Mr. Jomard felt the Western reporters attached to the U.S. military were interested only in the local Christian priests in the group.

"I felt like I was being confronted with a relic of the British occupation a century ago," Mr. Jomard says.

New Attitude

The next day he joined a group of local judges to again visit the base the Marines had established at the airport and appeal for American troops to get a grip on the city. "It wasn't useful. The Americans seemed irritated by us," Mr. Jomard says. "I went home and never went back."

Mosul endured two rough weeks, including a gunfight involving U.S. troops in which a dozen local people were killed. Then the 101st Airborne arrived to relieve the small Marine force.

With the 101st came Gen. David H. Petraeus, the division's commander and, Mr. Jomard says, a new attitude. Gen. Petraeus, a veteran officer who directed peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and has a doctorate from Princeton University in international relations, is a fervent advocate of nation-building. He rammed through a one-month program to pull Mosul together. His men forced the pace on local elections, some of the first in occupied Iraq. Pinned to the map in his war room was the motto: "We are in a race to win over the people."

"We try to be an army of liberation, not occupation. It's very hard to pull off," the general says. "The only way you can win respect is individually."

Gen. Petraeus was one of the most intensive users of money seized from the former regime, a program in which his officers paid more than $26 million directly to Iraqis for myriad projects to get the region going. Beneficiaries included not just the university, but hospitals, irrigation systems and even an asphalt factory. "Money is ammunition," the general says.

Under U.S. supervision, neighborhoods chose a local electoral college of 270 people, which in turn choose a 24-man provincial council in early May. This body soon elected Mr. Jomard to the post of university vice chancellor, even though he hadn't put himself forward as a candidate and was boycotting the U.S.-backed group.

His colleagues pressed him to accept the post. He remained reluctant. "I told them, it's very difficult" to work with a foreign occupier, says Mr. Jomard. "But they played with my emotions, my sense of duty. For us, the looting and chaos in Mosul was a tragedy, spiritually and physically."

Although he took the appointment, he kept his job teaching history, so he could leave the administrative post at any time. He also tried to maintain a psychological distance. "I told myself it would not be dealing with the invader. I would never be a collaborator."

Reaching an Understanding

But he began to discover a new face to the U.S. occupation. When the officer in charge of his area passed by, Mr. Jomard told him about three gates hanging off their hinges that the university couldn't fix. Two days later, U.S. Army engineers arrived to repair them.

Mr. Jomard, who had grown up with rhetoric about Arab solidarity, had hoped for aid from the Arab world. But little materialized. Two Persian Gulf states sent gifts, but one included a TV crew who asked him to sing the praises of its generous prince. "When they asked me to sit in front of a banner to do the interview, I had to refuse," Mr. Jomard says bitterly.

Wealthy local families gave about $50,000 to the university, hoping to get it back on track before exam time so that students wouldn't have wasted a year's study. The U.S. officers channeled in nearly $1.4 million, according to Col. Will Harrison, in charge of the 101st's relationship with the university. Much of this early cash came from Iraqi state funds or assets seized from Mr. Hussein's regime. In the longer term, U.S. aid coming through American university-run programs is also on its way.

Mr. Jomard was impressed by the military's efficient generosity. It helped that Col. Harrison accepted the professor's sometimes prickly behavior, and made no demands for public expressions of gratitude. Both men were comfortable with the sort of back-channeling and lobbying that was sometimes necessary.

The colonel, for instance, furthered the university's cause behind the scenes by bringing Mosul administrators and Baghdad officials together with the help of the 134 helicopters in his unit, the 159th Aviation Brigade. Such communication was critical to smoothing over post-Hussein staffing and other organizational issues, since laws still on the books keep Iraq a highly centralized state.

The ebullient 44-year-old pilot, who hails from New York, is responsible for all matters concerning higher education in Mosul as well as the brigade's 2,000 men. He typically spends two hours of his long days on university matters and has assigned captains and lieutenants to pay similar attention to each of the institution's 19 faculties. They, too, have come to terms with Mr. Jomard's determination to build an image of independence for his academy.

Mr. Jomard "only lets us on campus because we're nice," jokes Maj. Mike Shenk, a U.S. officer from the 101st Airborne and one of Col. Harrison's deputies in the 159th. He was passing by the university after dropping off yet more cash for items such as office furniture, telephone exchanges, computers, air conditioners, refrigerators and ceiling fans. Returning Maj. Shenk's warm smile, Mr. Jomard acknowledged a fondness for the American.

That didn't stop him from pulling Maj. Shenk aside that day to ask the 101st to remove two U.S. Army lookouts posted on the engineering faculty roof. Mr. Jomard says he understood their need to watch a road in front of the university, where attackers had twice hit U.S. patrols. But the dean of engineering was furious and the soldiers' presence on campus could trigger student protests. Two days later, they were gone.

Mr. Jomard remains suspicious of the Americans. He admits he even got caught up in popular outrage that swept through Mosul after a baseless rumor suggested that Israel was taking advantage of the U.S. presence to buy local land. "What causes fear is the size of America. ... We might just be a little part of a much bigger policy," he says. "I have no desire to find myself at my age like the Palestinians, suitcases in my hand and my family on the road."

Trust Builds Dividends

Rising local anger forced a United Nations agency and some foreign nongovernmental organizations to leave town. The antiforeigner attitudes put constant pressure on Mr. Jomard. "One or two professors said that Jazeel, who we thought was working for the interests of the people, is now shaking hands with the enemy," Mr. Jomard says. "I feel that I am shaking hands as a fellow human."

Worse was to come. Mr. Jomard was indirectly told by the anti-U.S. forces to stop cooperating with the Americans. He dismissed the threat, hoping he would be protected by his reputation as an observant Muslim known for popular public lectures on Saladin -- the Kurdish prince from Iraq who drove the crusaders out of Jerusalem.

"I, too, believe the American occupation should end, but if they leave now, everyone will be killed on the streets, there'll be civil war," Mr. Jomard says.

His own behind-the-scenes lobbying with occupation forces has paid dividends. When the Baghdad Coalition Provisional Authority, the central U.S. occupation power, ordered the sacking of all senior members of the former Baath Party, it would have crippled some of the university's departments. Mr. Jomard and the chancellor pressed for the best of the 130 to be kept on. The 101st Airborne fought his case in Baghdad and won a reprieve that kept the teachers in class.

One day during the summer, Col. Harrison stumbled into a confrontation with some angry graduates demanding jobs that had been promised by the former regime. He found Mr. Jomard at his side, "picking them out by name, and telling them, 'I didn't educate you to talk like this,' " Col. Harrison remembers. Mr. Jomard, in turn, recalls with amazement Col. Harrison's calm handling of provocative, anti-American questions.

Trust grew to the point that when a much-delayed graduation day came around in October, the university faculty did the once unthinkable: They invited a uniformed Col. Harrison and a U.S. civilian administrator into the semicircle of dignitaries that bestowed the top degrees. "It was wonderful," Col. Harrison says.

The moral juggling act thrust upon Mr. Jomard by the occupation has led him to rethink his former view of history as black and white, cause and effect. "Sometimes a man can be caught up in events that are more powerful than himself," he says.

Write to Hugh Pope at hugh.pope@wsj.com

Updated November 3, 2003

[Malone LaVeigh]

Jeff,

As far as Iknow, the only dem candidate that is calling for the US to pull out is Kusinich. I don't even agree that that is "publically supporting the enemy." The quotes given above for Dean should make it obvious that he wants to finish the job. So what, exactly, are you talking about?

I haven't decided yet whether to support Dean, but he sounds better and better.

[rapaz]

Honest question: What happened to the "powell doctrine"? You know, overwhelming force + clearly defined success + exit strategy? Has it been officially discarded? Or was it tried, and something went wrong?

Another honest question: What is "success" in Iraq? Meaning, even if every democrat shut up tomorrow, when could we leave? Is it when we catch Sadaam? Or when the guerrillas get tired and go home? The track record around the world at crushing insurgencies isn't that great--even if you are willing to ignore human rights abuses (eg chechnia) all some diehard has to do is plant a bomb and the uprising continues. I am presuming that it is some variant on "secular elected government that has the capability of fighting the insurgency itself"--am I right? Is that a feasible goal?

These are honest questions, not rhetorical ones. Not all of us see eye to eye politically, but I think I for one can learn from all of you.

[rapaz]

edited to delete

[hops]

France, Germany, Russia are BROKE! Thye have no money. Germany can barely meet its Afgahn commitments. Turkey was willing to help, with US carrot, but Iraq has declined. If you remember your history, The OTTOMAN Empire (turkey) rules the middle east for 4 centuries until the end of WWI. The Brits have to keep a low profile since they did some bad things in Iraq in the 1920's.

Also, do not forget, that Irag was a constitutional monarch from around 1923 to 1958 - when the BAATHISTS took over. WSJ had a good piece on that last week.

[hops]

Speaking of France, here is another WSJ piece from today. Mike Irwin will enjoy it.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Deadbeat France

Not only has Old Europe refused to ante up for Iraq's reconstruction, France and Germany in particular have been resisting calls for a radical write-off of the country's crushing debts. The two countries were major financial backers of Saddam's war machine. While lenient repayment terms may be considered, they have suggested, they're intent on getting the bulk of their money back.

Well, if the French are going to be sticklers, we think it's time they be reminded of their outstanding debt to the United States. No, we're not talking about the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who gave their lives in two world wars so that France might be free. We're talking about a monetary debt -- one that hasn't been serviced since Herbert Hoover was president.

During and after World War I, the U.S. extended a substantial amount of credit to its European allies. In 1922, the U.S. and 15 European countries agreed on a total indebtedness of about $11.5 billion -- slightly more than $4 billion for France. Payments were made until 1931, mostly from German war reparations. Then the Depression led Hoover to declare a one-year moratorium, and by 1934 all but two of the countries defaulted. As of last December, according to the U.S. Treasury, principal and accrued interest on the French debt amounted to about $11.8 billion, or about twice what France may be owed by Iraq.

If France is going to make America's mission in Iraq more difficult by insisting on Saddam's debt, maybe the U.S. should insist on France finally repaying it.

Updated November 3, 2003 1:31 a.m.

[hops]

And last, the WSJ is going to kill me but I need ammo.

Since the current strategy seems to be to comapre Iraq to Vietnam.

THINKING THINGS OVER
By ROBERT L. BARTLEY

Iraq: Another Vietnam?

Suddenly the historical debate over Vietnam is sprouting all through the current debate over Iraq. Howard Dean, leading the Democratic pack, told Dan Rather: "We sent troops to Vietnam, without understanding why we were there. And the American people weren't told the truth and it was a disaster. And Iraq is gonna become a disaster under this presidency."

With other would-be Democratic presidents joining this assault, it might be helpful to review what happened in Vietnam. Especially what happened at the Tet offensive, like the car bombings in Baghdad timed at the start of a religious holiday. In what sense should we fear that Iraq is "another Vietnam"?

Well, first of all, the Tet offensive was a militarily significant effort, not four truck bombs. After erosion of their position during 1967, the Communists threw all of their South Vietnam guerrilla forces into attacks in more than 100 cities across the length and breadth of the country. Most spectacularly, since it came before the eyes of the Saigon press corps, a 19-man sapper squad penetrated the U.S. Embassy compound. They failed to enter the chancery building, despite early reports, and the last of them was killed or repulsed after a six-hour battle.

General William Westmoreland appeared in the shattered compound to proclaim a great victory. His televised appearance came against a backdrop of destruction throughout the country, and the American elite decided to believe not the general but their own eyes. A widely cited Wall Street Journal editorial proclaimed that "the whole Vietnam effort may be doomed, it may be falling apart beneath our feet." Walter Cronkite turned against the war, editorializing on the need for negotiation. With this home-front reaction, Tet was the turning-point in the war, the anvil of Communist victory and American defeat.

Yet in fact, Westmoreland was right, subsequent analysts have uniformly concluded. The Communist offensive was decisively repulsed. There was no general uprising in favor of the North. The South Vietnamese army did not buckle, though operating at 50% strength because of imprudent holiday leaves. The indigenous Viet Cong were destroyed, leaving the rest of the war to be conducted by troops recruited in the North.

"To have portrayed such a setback for one side as a defeat for the other -- in a major crisis abroad -- cannot be counted as a triumph for American journalism," Peter Braestrup wrote in his book "Big Story." He was Washington Post Saigon bureau chief during Tet, and his critique didn't provoke serious controversy even within the press corps.

Tet was a military victory turned into a psychological defeat on the home front. Shall we do it again in Iraq?

Tet represents another, less widely understood, turning point in the Vietnam War. Soon after the offensive, Gen. Westmoreland was replaced as the U.S. commander by Creighton W. Abrams, with a notable change in U.S. strategy and tactics. The contrast of the two eras is pregnant with lessons for the far smaller guerrilla war in Iraq.

"More troops" was Gen. Westmoreland's first request from Vietnam, and also his last one. He sought to take the battle to the enemy, with "search and destroy" missions intended to find the major enemy units hiding in the jungle hills. It was a war of attrition, using superior U.S. firepower to destroy the enemy's forces faster than he could replace them. But the scale of the Tet assaults was scarcely encouraging.

Under Gen. Abrams, "search and destroy" was replaced by "clear and hold." This is recorded in "A Better War," by Lewis Sorley, who notes that most of the histories of Vietnam pretty much skip the post-1968 period. Abrams put emphasis not on attrition but on the security of the local population, and the training of the South Vietnamese who would continue the fighting as Americans left.

The success of these programs was tested by the Easter Offensive of 1972. Some 200,000 North Vietnamese troops attacked on three fronts. U.S. ground troop withdrawals continued as scheduled, but President Nixon ordered heavy air and naval retaliation, including the mining of North Vietnamese ports. With this air support, the South Vietnamese army repelled the invasion. The North Vietnamese lost half of their attacking force and half of their tanks and artillery. The legendary Vo Nguyen Giap was quietly removed from command of the Northern armies.

Three years later the North had recovered sufficient strength to repeat the offensive. But by then the Paris peace accords had been signed, with U.S. prisoners returned at the cost of allowing Hanoi to infiltrate military units in the south. With Watergate, Congress had passed the Case-Church Amendment forbidding military involvement in Southeast Asia. Sen. Edward Kennedy passed a $266 million cut in supplemental spending for Vietnam, and funds were slashed for the coming year. Counter-insurgency expert Sir Robert Thompson remarked, "perhaps the major lesson of the Vietnam War is: do not rely on the United States as an ally."

This time the South Vietnamese got no assistance from the U.S. and fell before an assault by 20 tank-led divisions. Some million refugees took to the seas as "the boat people." After the loss of Iran and some trying times in Europe, the U.S. elected Ronald Reagan, who revived the American military and faced the Communists down at Reykjavik. The Communist empire fell after all, and Vietnam goes down as a lost battle in a successful campaign.

Yet something more than a lost battle, a self-inflicted wound arising from an essentially dishonorable strain of American neurosis. Yes, by all means, don't do it again in Iraq. As Gov. Dean says, the first step is to tell the truth, starting with the truth of what happened in Vietnam.

Updated November 3, 2003

[hops]

What the Hell. Let's post Zell Miller too from the WSJ. Just to nuke the far left of the Democratic party that is trying to use this Iraq stuff to get elected in 2004, yet supported Pres. Bush early on.


COMMENTARY
George Bush vs. the Naive Nine

By ZELL MILLER

If I live and breathe, and if -- as Hank Williams used to say -- the creek don't rise, in 2004 this Democrat will do something I didn't do in 2000, I will vote for George W. Bush for president.

I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then. My political history to the contrary, this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support. For I believe the next five years will determine the kind of world my four grandchildren and four great-grandchildren will live in. I simply cannot entrust that crucial decision to any one of the current group of Democratic presidential candidates.

Why George Bush? First, the personal; then, the political.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together, and I just plain like the man, a man who feeds his dogs first thing every morning, has Larry Gatlin sing in the White House, and knows what is meant by the term "hitting behind the runner."

I am moved by the reverence and tenderness he shows the first lady and the unabashed love he has for his parents and his daughters.

I admire this man of faith who has lived that line in that old hymn, "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see." I like the fact that he's the same on Saturday night as he is on Sunday morning. And I like a man who shows respect for others by starting meetings on time.

That's the personal. Now, the political.

This is a president who understands the price of freedom. He understands that leaders throughout history often have had to choose between good and evil, tyranny and freedom. And the choice they make can reverberate for generations to come. This is a president who has some Churchill in him and who does not flinch when the going gets tough. This is a president who can make a decision and does not suffer from "paralysis analysis." This is a president who can look America in the eye and say on Iraq, "We're not leaving." And you know he means it.

This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

I have just described George W. Bush.

Believe me, I looked hard at the other choices. And what I saw was that the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way. Look closely, there's not much difference among them. I can't say there's "not a dime's worth of difference" because there's actually billions of dollars' worth of difference among them. Some want to raise our taxes a trillion, while the others want to raise our taxes by several hundred billion. But, make no mistake, they all want to raise our taxes. They also, to varying degrees, want us to quit and get out of Iraq. They don't want us to stay the course in this fight between tyranny and freedom. This is our best chance to change the course of history in the Middle East. So I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run with our shirttails at half-mast.

I find it hard to believe, but these naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign -- the president is a liar and we must have peace at any cost -- with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign -- watch your wallet, we're going to raise your taxes. George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier.

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia and the author of "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat," published last month by Stroud & Hall.

Updated November 3, 2003

[Jeff White]

rapaz,
The Powell doctrine (it was actually the Weinberger Doctrine) was officially replaced by the Rumsfeld Doctrine that relys on IT techniques to focus combat power where it's needed the most. Rumsfeld's idea is that war is like business you can replace people with machines and make it more efficient. I am convinced that Rumsfeld will go down in history as discredited as MacNamara is. I personally don't believe they had a plan for the post war. I think they really felt that one of the pro western groups would come in and fill in the void. They needed another 100K troops on the ground to do things right, but that wouldn't have proven a certain defense secretary's pet theory on transformation. We had a couple of long heated threads about that at the time and my patriotism was questioned because I dared disagree with the new conservative darling, Don Rumsfeld.

Malone,
You are correct about the Democratic candidates. My anger is towards the talking head functionaries from the party and from congress who are calling for with drawal. I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard Nancy Pelosi calling for "Bringing the boys home" yesterday. I do think that that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, especially when the enemy's strategy seems to be to keep killing Americans till we get tired and go home.

Unfortunatley for the Democrats, they don't have much credibility in the national security field. Perhaps if you could get Sam Nunn to run for president, you might field a candidate that the American people would trust with their security. As long as the world remains as dangerous a place as it currently is, I don't see the Amercan people trusting any current democratic candidate to keep the nation safe.

Jeff

[Sean Smith]

I doubt the vast mass of people will be abandoning their a priori convictions for or against the Iraqi war anytime soon. But what is interesting is how little information on the progress of the rehabilitation of Iraq is really being put forth by the media... pro or con.

Those who, a priori, thought the war was bad just harp on the casualty figures, with varying degrees of sincere revulsion and scarcely concealed joy (at either a ratings bonanza or anti-Bush schadenfreude). Those who already decided the war was good no matter what complain about the above. But we really have very little information in the public domain about what really is, or isn't happening as far as the reconstruction effort is concerned.

The only thing we heard about was how bad the electrical system was... no doubt because it affected journalists in their hotels having trouble getting drunk in the dark. Then the harping on that stopped, I'm guessing because the power came back on. But the power coming back on, or not, is the most vital sort of news. NPR reported that traffic was disrupted and children kept out of school after a particular attack. That's bad. But the fact that there are traffic jams and classes to go to or not go to are good news, presumably. But the state of the roads and the schools of Iraq are not a news item either way... good or bad.

My assertion is that we in the general public quite literally have no idea either way how well the occupation is going. The simple fact that we are killing bad guys and taking losses does not really answer the question one way or the other. I'm guessing formerly Nazi Germany in 1946 wasn't a playground for G.I.'s either, for instance... but the Marshall Plan seems to have panned out pretty well, the current German administration notwithstanding. Is the Iraqi equivalent going to do the same? That is the question that nobody is providing evidence to answer.

[bountyhunter]

This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can't gobble it up.

Oh, sure... they would never do something like engage in DEFICIT spending like when.... oh, say a president who had browbeaten the congress into submission needed an $85 BILLION advance on his war allowance.

Yeah, that tax cut sure has reigned in government spending all right.

[fallingblock]

"I guess they listened to W and are "bringing it on." What's the plan now, eh?

I keep hearing people say, "the plan is to lure them out in the open and then we can blow them away." Sure... except what happens is they set of a bomb by the side of the road, the US soldiers spray some machine gun fire, maybe kill a civilian or two, or maybe not, regroup, and drive on. Not exactly decimating their ranks, I think."
************************************************************

The enemy have 'brought it on' and the U.S. military is in position on the enemy's ground. If the U.S. formulates its response and adapts its tactics to the situation, it can prevail.

If the U.S. 'pulls out' and goes home, it loses everything, not merely a few troops.

The islamofanatics will have succeeded with the assistance provided by the whiners within the U.S. itself.

I went through a similar scenario thirty five years ago as a demoralized soldier of the U.S. Army. We had achieved victory over the NVA and VC on their own ground, but the U.S. whiners converted it into a defeat through skillful misuse of the media:mad:

As it happens, I myself was opposed to the U.S. effort in Vietnam. I had several friends whose lives were sacrificed to what was perhaps a serious misreading of geopolitical events by the Democrats in the Whitehouse at the time. The tragedy is that those friends and the rest of the U.S. military succeeded in winning the military struggle only to have the effort and expense nullified by the whiners and a pandering media.

The U.S. has now a great opportunity in Iraq to stabilize the region and deal serious setbacks to the islamofanatics. It is now in position to do what I believe must be done to check the expansion of terrorism and demonstrate the resolve which will convince the enemy to reconsider its aggression against the U.S..

To cut and run at the loss of a mere handful of troops will spell geopolitical disaster in the long run:eek: .

Those who are speaking against the Bush administration efforts to pursue this strategy for waging the war against the islamofanatics of course are entitled to their opinions and the expression of them.

With every right comes the concomitant responsibility to excercise judgement as well.

Is Iraq 'another Vietnam'?

Certainly not. There is little similarity in the geopolitical situation.

But the potential exists for a similar degrading humiliation of the U.S. military, and such an outcome at this time will have real and negative consequences for the U.S..

Unlike the Vietnamese, the islamofanatics are not fighting a 'war of liberation' to unify their nation, but rather a 'war of enslavement' to elevate Islam as the true faith and drive all else from the region.

Before the chorus chimes in with their standard "Saddam wasn't a fundamentalist" chant, remember that the strategy being pursued by the current administration seeks to stabilize the region through isolating the islamofanatics politically and militarily. Iraq is a piece of prime real estate that was available at relatively low 'cost', politically and militarily compared to the others. And they got rid of a nasty regime at the same time.

Will it work? I sure hope so....now's the time to put the effort into it:D .

Thus the "Bring it on" remark, which is in fact exactly what needs to happen. It would seem that a bit more advance planning could have been done by the higher command, however:( .

[bountyhunter]

no one who voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq has any right to open their mouth in protest now. Doing so is urinating on the graves of those who died and telling their loved ones that they suffered a fool in thier midst and he/she died for it. It's not supporting the troops. You don't vote to send them into harms way then say take-back when the going gets rough. Where were their morals and ethics pertaining to war when the votes were cast.

I agree 100%. My highest contempt is for the democowards who spoke out against the war, then lost their spines when Bush called them terror lovers and are now trying to re-write history and claim they opposed the war. I don't like liars who re-write history, democratic or republican.

I don't know what goodwill we have sqaundered.

Yes you do. We went from a position where many Arab nations would have helped us to get at the specific people who perpetrated 9/11 (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeada) to being hated by them because they believe we are waging war on Islam and that we think all Arabs are terrorists. That came from a steadily repetaed lie summed up when Bush declared victory in Iraq: "The terrorists declared war on us on 9/11 and now we have taken the war to them." To this day, polls show the majority of Americans believe that lie (that Iraq was behind 9/11) even though Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have all admitted publicly there is not a shred of credible evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeada. It's all urban myth.

The Bush administration took great pains to seek multiple approvals from congress and multiple UN resolutions. We aren't in it alone.

But the evidence shows the decision to go to war was made at least a year before any of the "UN act" went on the road. And the people who provided intel to the WH (Ambassador Wilson and Thielmann) both said their proof showing no WMD activity fell on the deaf ears of people busily heading to war. Bush withdrew the last request for a stiffer UN resolution after the straw vote show it would be overwhlmingly rejected which would go down as an official UN mandate AGAINST military action.

How would you like to be living in a tent in Baghdad right now? Hot during the day, cold at night, in an environment where everything and anything no matter how innocent seeming could be designed to kill or maim you? How would you like to be eating one hot meal (made of mostly dehydrated food) a day and having scruptious MREs for the other two? How would you like to be going days at a time on 2-4 hours sleep unless you were an aircrew member? How would you like to be waiting three weeks or more for mail from your loved ones? Now how would you like to be living under all these conditions, and have many of the very people who sent you there publically supporting the enemy and questioning why you are there?

NON-SEQUITUR. My enemy is the people killing US citizens, which is Al Qaeada and the country financing them, which is Saudi Arabia. Iraq posed ZERO threat to the US and damn little threat to it's Arab neighbors.

And I am genuinely pissed that our troops are stuck in that shooting gallery because I was the one screaming "Remember Beirut" when this ill conceived plan for using Armed forces as a "peacekeeping" force was going to town. We should get the hell out of their ASAP and turn it over to a multi-national force who can hold elections. let the Iraqi's run that sand pit.

Yes I do mean publically supporting the enemy. Everytime one of the Democratic candidates gets on TV or the radio and calls for us to pull out, he's giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

And I suppose they took no comfort from the memo written by Rumsfeld musing about how we have no way to know if we are winning and our costs are Billions to their Millions? I heard all this "confort to the enemy crap" used as political cover all during the Viet nam war. It didn't wash then, it doesn't wash now.

As for another theocracy in the middle east, have you forgotten how well those have worked out. Iraq was always one of the most secular societies in the middle east. Do you really think that the world will be safer with another muslim theocracy? Will the Iraqi people be better off?

They will be in the hell of their own choosing and we will not be getting the wrath (and terror attacks) from propping up another puppet government in the middle of a sea of hostile countries. If they want a Muslim government, so be it.

[fallingblock]

"Yeah, that tax cut sure has reigned in government spending all right."
************************************************************

The folks who seem to be planning this course are those who hate the legacy of that socialist FDR with passion.

What better way to deny the government the power to profligately waste money on socialist programs than to bankrupt that government?:D

I thint they've finally hit on a plan to roll back FDR's 'legacy' of socialism;) .

[w4rma]

Time to take the Dover test

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- At Harvard on January 19, 2000, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton provided a valuable standard, both to determine whether the United States ought to send the nation's warriors into combat and to enlist "the support of the American people as well as the Congress" needed to sustain that involvement. In Shelton's judgment, such a grave decision :

"(M)ust be subjected to what I call the 'Dover test.' Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware -- which is a point entry for our Armed Forces?

This is an issue, I think, that should be raised early on. It should be discussed, and it should be decided by our political leadership before any operation begins."

In the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration chose instead to duck Shelton's "Dover test." The scene so familiar to older Americans -- of the military honor guard in white gloves, respectfully accompanying from the aircraft to the waiting loved ones the remains of the fallen warrior in the coffin covered by Old Glory, often with a military band offering an appropriately solemn piece -- was simply banned. George W. Bush's war against Iraq could not flunk the Dover test because there would be no Dover test.
…
After 241 U.S. servicemen, mostly Marines, were killed in a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, Reagan went to Camp Lejeune not simply to console the grieving, though console them he did, but to do what President Bill Clinton would later do so memorably after the deadly attack on the USS Cole and the murder of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Nairobi -- to give voice to the national sense of grief and offer meaning to the ultimate sacrifices made.

Where is the outrage on the part of the press? Are we lapdogs? The administration in full spin control insists that the reality on the ground in Iraq is much more positive than the press reports. Yet the administration denies reality at home -- the reality of the recent heroism of this nation's fallen sons and daughters.

By official government policy,. there is no band to welcome them home. No honor guard to present the folded flag to their widow and orphan, to make certain the family knows that their loss is also their country's loss, that they do not weep alone. It is a cruel and ugly policy that robs the patriot of the glory and public honor he has earned and deserves.

The time is long past in 2003 to take the Dover test.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/column.shields.opinion.dover/

[Mike Irwin]

Au Contraire, mon chien Hops...

I don't enjoy anything about France...

[w4rma]

The Wounded Come Home
For every soldier who dies in Iraq, many more are injured. TIME takes an up-close look at the battle they face after the shooting is over

For several seconds after the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) drilled through the back of their armored M113 "battle taxi," the soldiers inside, mainlining adrenaline, continued firing. Then they started screaming. "It blew my leg clean off," says Private First Class Tristan Wyatt, who was standing at the rear of the armored personnel carrier (APC), unloading an M-240 machine gun at a dozen or more Iraqis who had ambushed them minutes before. He was the first to be hit. The RPG then passed through Sergeant Erick Castro's hip, spinning him violently to the floor. His left leg was still attached — but barely. "I picked up my leg and put it on the bench," he says, "and lay down next to it." Finally, the RPG shredded Sergeant Mike Meinen's right leg. "It was pretty much torn off," he says. "There was just some meat and tendons holding it on."
…
The medic, the wounded soldiers and their comrades began a frantic race against the clock. Buddies pressed their hands into Castro's hip wound to keep him from bleeding to death. The wound was so massive that his tourniquet was useless. He handed it to Wyatt, who needed two to stanch the blood flowing from his femoral artery. Amid the mayhem, Meinen, who had been manning a 50-cal. machine gun, noticed that he didn't have any feeling in his right foot. "It felt like it had gone to sleep on me, so I picked my foot up and was trying to massage it, trying to get the feeling back," he says. "But then it dawned on me: it wasn't even connected. So I put it on the floor."

They tried to raise their wounded legs to slow the bleeding. "There was nothing to elevate my leg except for the piece of my leg that had been blown off from the knee down," Wyatt says. "So I took my leg and jammed it under the stump to keep it pointing up. It was kind of messy."
…
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031110-536257,00.html

[Jeff White]

w4rma,
Why don't you ask PFC Wyatt, SGT Castro and SGT Meinen if they think we should pull out? Or if pulling out would mean they suffered for nothing.

Were you ever in the military? Anyone who served knows what a horrible thing war is. That's what makes our soldiers so special, they know what it is, because they bear the hardships...and yet they keep going back and doing it for those who would sit in the safety and comfort of their living rooms and spit on them.

Jeff

[w4rma]

Did I say we should pull out? Not before installing a working democratic republic in Iraq. And, what I think I have said, or at least implied, is that Bush's unilateralist, empire-building, arrogant policy and leadership have been, and will continue to be, a miserable failure.

Dean Says 'We Cannot Afford to Fail' in Iraq Reconstruction
Wednesday August 20, 2003
By: Press Office

(August 20, 2003)

BURLINGTON--Governor Howard Dean issued this statement on Iraq:

"Since last April, I have been calling on President Bush to internationalize the reconstruction effort in Iraq. I repeat that call today.

"Expert after expert has returned from Iraq stating that the window of opportunity is closing faster than anyone expected and that our chance to successfully stabilize and rebuild the country is quickly passing. Despite this, the Bush Administration refuses to seek a UN mandate so that our historic allies and friends can join us in this effort and speed up the reconstruction process.

"I call on the Bush Administration to take the following steps to encourage our proven allies and friends, including France, Germany, India, and Turkey to join us in Iraq and to accelerate the reconstruction process. We must:

Work with the UN to build the largest coalition possible to help us succeed in Iraq;
Make clear our intention to share decision-making on security and reconstruction issues in Iraq with those countries and international institutions that join the international coalition;
Prioritize restoring law and order and the resumption of electricity, water, and sanitation services -- they are fundamental to success in all other areas;
Focus on developing Iraqi capacity to undertake key functions as soon as possible;
Decentralize the operations of the Coalition Authority and make money more forthcoming and flexible;
Employ the sizable number of available Iraqis with short term public works projects and get state-run enterprises up and running, even if they must be downsized and privatized later;
Push for UN oversight of the successor to the Oil for Food program;
Award reconstruction contracts to the best US or foreign bidder in a transparent and open process.
"Yesterday's bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq appears to have been an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting us. It is vital to our chances of success that the Bush Administration redouble its efforts to internationalize the military and civilian presence and to speed up the stabilization and rebuilding process. We cannot afford to fail."
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8372&news_iv_ctrl=1441

Iraq Truth Center
“It only becomes more and more clear every day what a mistake this administration made in launching a preemptive war in Iraq. The evidence mounts that not only did the Administration mislead the American people and the world in making its case for war, but that it failed to plan adequately for the peace.”

For your convenience, Dean for America has assembled all of Governor Dean’s Iraq-related speeches, statements, and background materials on a single webpage.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

[Jeff White]

Jane's Defence Weekly
November 5, 2003

Baghdad Situation Report

Far from the political wranglings at the UN, coalition troops in Iraq continue their mission. Peter Felstead reports from southern Baghdad, on the ground with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division

To the soldiers of the US-led coalition in Iraq, the political arguments over Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' - that the war may have been mis-sold and that weapons of mass destruction may in fact not exist - are irrelevant.

What matters is that Iraq has been crippled by a cruel regime and more than a decade of sanctions. The mission of coalition troops - to provide a safe and secure environment for the Iraqi people - means they are playing a major role in putting Iraq back on its feet.

The 2nd Brigade Combat Team (2BCT) of the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division is currently fulfilling this mission in the Al-Rashid district of Baghdad, an area that comprises the southern third of the city and houses 1.2-1.5 million Iraqis. Baghdad's original name, Madinat as-Salam, meant 'city of peace'. While it is hard to see when that will again ring true, troops are making real progress on the ground.

The eastern half of Al-Rashid, bordered by the city's Highway 8 to the west and the Tigris River to the north, is the area of operations for the 2BCT's 2nd Battalion. This sector, Ad Dawrah, has a number of key infrastructure sites, including an oil refinery, a power plant and a water treatment plant.

The western sector of Al-Rashid, Al-Bayaa, bordered by Highway 8 to the east and the north as the highway turns west and into Baghdad International Airport, is the 3rd Battalion's area of operations. The brigade's 1st Battalion, meanwhile, has been deployed north and attached to the US Army's 1st Armored Division (1AD) while the 82nd's 2nd Brigade has, in turn, received a cavalry squadron from the 1AD. This has given the light infantry of the 82nd some armoured support and vice versa for the 1AD.

Originally deployed in-theatre in February, the 82nd Airborne Division was committed to the fight following the initial push north from Kuwait to Baghdad by the US 3rd Armored Division. With Highways 8 and 9, the key routes used by US military forces moving north, plagued by ambushes and pockets of resistance, the 82nd was employed to eliminate the threat in the vicinity of As Samawah and points north along Highway 8.

The key battle for the southern town of As Samawah (Operation 'Medusa') took place from 30 March to 3 April, during which the division defeated some of Saddam's most determined fighters, including Ba'ath Party militants, Fedayeen and Al Qud units, Iraqi regulars and soldiers from the Iraqi Republican and Special Republican Guards. Despite occasional intense firefights, no soldiers of the 82nd were killed during that operation.

After securing As Samawah, the 82nd split into several elements, moving north to secure the towns of Al Diwaniyah, Al Rumaitha, An Najaf, Al Hillah and parts of Karbala. The degree of resistance after As Samawah, however, had significantly diminished, with Saddam loyalists melting away rather than standing their ground.

The 2BCT arrived in southern Baghdad on 2 May. "When we first got here it was like the Wild West," said Staff Sgt Brandon Petersen of the 1AD's 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Brigade. "There were murders, shootings; we were detaining people every night."

As soon as the 2BCT deployed to Al-Rashid, stabilisation operations got underway, with the US troops working to rebuild the local infrastructure and restore the city's medical, legal, and education systems. Some of the first tasks were clearing the trash from the streets, to minimise what was both a health and security hazard, and restoring the dilapidated local power station.

The sight of Ad Dawrah's power plant now belching out pollution from two of its four chimneys - but more crucially electricity to the city's power grid - is an indication that, despite the difficulties, much progress has already been made. "I really do believe that we've been ahead in a lot of what we've done," says Lt Col David Haight, Commander of the 82nd's 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment. He explains that the 82nd had begun reconstruction initiatives even in areas where it was still fighting, so that by the time the 2nd Brigade moved into the Al-Rashid district it was already used to finding local engineers to fix vital parts of the infrastructure.

By the end of September, 80% of the 572 schools in Al-Rashid had been refurbished and were back up and running (compared to a 12% average in the country as a whole), which also involved the brigade facilitating payments to 15,730 teachers and staff. Many of the schools in Al-Rashid district had been used extensively by Saddam's forces prior to the war, according to Sgt Nicholas Luetzow of the US Army's 307th Engineer Battalion, who collected weapons caches in as many as 30 schools in southern Baghdad.

Much of the work involved in restoring Iraq's society and infrastructure necessarily depends on re-engaging Iraqis in the restoration of their own security and government. The first three-platoon company of the Iraqi Civil Defence Corps (ICDC) completed its four weeks of basic training last month and one platoon has been assigned to each of the 2nd Brigade's three battalions. The ultimate aim is to form five ICDC battalions (Jane's Defence Weekly 15 October).

The US forces in Baghdad also benefit from the deployment of local police forces and what is known as the Facility Protection Security (FPS) forces, who guard bridges, key intersections, infrastructure sites and the outer perimeters of coalition compounds. Around 2,400 FPS personnel are deployed in the Al-Rashid district, allowing the 2BCT to concentrate on missions other than pure security duties.

Restoration of local government has been framed around the formation of successive levels of councils. In Ad Dawrah, for example, there are 12 'Mahal' Advisory Councils reporting up to six Neighbourhood Advisory Councils (NACs). The latter meet once or twice a week and report into the District Advisory Council (DAC) for Al-Rashid, which meets once a week.

The DAC site for Al-Rashid, which also incorporates offices for all the local utilities, was originally a Hunt Club frequented by Saddam's son Udai. It is ironically fitting that what was formerly such an exclusive venue for the Ba'athist elite should now be transformed into the district town hall and the focal point for local government in southern Baghdad.

DAC meetings have come a long way. Col Haight recalls that the first sessions were just endless slanging matches in which the 82nd's commanders would have to intervene and restore order. These days the officers of the 82nd are only seen on the periphery of the meetings, taking notes during the sessions and being present to facilitate and fund the various projects brought forward.

While the security situation in other parts of Iraq, most notably in the so-called 'Sunni triangle' to the north and west of Baghdad, remains precarious, in Al-Rashid the threat from Saddam loyalists remains sporadic. The Western media have made much of the lack of troop contributions from the international community and the rising number of US combat deaths in Iraq since 1 May, when major hostilities were declared to be at an end: a figure that passed the 100 mark in mid-October. The soldiers of the 82nd, however, remain unfazed.

In terms of troop numbers, Col Haight says "We will never need more than we have," while his soldiers remain dismissive of the threat they face. "Everything they [the enemy] do is bad," said one. "The only reason they're killing people is because there are so many people out here." Since 1 May, the 82nd 2BCT has had eight troops killed in action during hostile attacks and four non-hostile casualties.

Now that the security situation in Al-Rashid has been stabilised, the infrastructure issues addressed and local government given the kick-start and support it needed, the 2BCT's operations have changed compared with when it first deployed to the district. "At first there was a lot of house-searching," says Col Haight. Patrols went through all of the neighbourhoods in the 2BCT's area of operations searching for proscribed weapons such as machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Each house, however, is allowed to retain one weapon, typically a Kalashnikov, for personal security.

"The mission now is still the same," says Col Haight, "but the security of fixed sites has been turned over to the Iraqis, along with normal crime-fighting. Now we're more enemy-oriented, less government-oriented." The troops of the 2BCT are therefore now more focused on unearthing Ba'athist militants and Fedayeen, intelligence-collecting and surveillance missions and conducting specific 'knock and detain'-type raids, ideally when more than a single source has identified a threat.

Presence patrols are maintained and certain mosques are kept under surveillance in the 2BCT's area of operations: sermons are recorded to identify whether certain local immams have crossed the line between exercising their freedom of speech and fomenting violence against the troops of the coalition and the Iraqis working alongside them. The former immam of one local mosque, at Al Shuada, had blown himself up trying to build a bomb.

While the troops of the 2BCT can expect occasional attacks by RPGs, hand grenades and mortars, sometimes in concert with small arms fire, the primary threat in this area of operations remains the roadside bomb, or IED (improvised explosive device). The most obvious reason for this is the sheer abundance of ordnance available to those inclined to use it.

"This entire country is one big ammunition dump," says Capt Adam Schlang, a troop commander from the 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Brigade (1AD), attached to the 82nd. His view is certainly corroborated by Sgt Luetzow of the 307th Engineer Battalion, who says that during May and June he and his unit were working 16 hours each day moving and disposing of "an unbelievable amount of ordnance and small arms.

"It's worse out west, along the Syrian border," says Sgt Luetzow. "For the last three months, the EOD [explosive ordnance disposal] teams out there have been blowing three large bunkers a day."

The planting of IEDs is not necessarily the work of Saddam loyalists, although they probably do fund such operations. According to Sgt Luetzow, there will usually be two payments: one to the bomb-maker, and one to whomever places the device. Given that any Iraqi prepared to plant a bomb can make enough money to buy a car after placing just two devices, there is no shortage of takers from among the criminally inclined, although many 17- and 18-year-olds have killed themselves trying to make what they saw as easy money.

Describing the current level of the IED threat, Col Haight says: "I think they're dropping a little bit, although I think their sophistication has increased a little." Sgt Luetzow can certainly confirm the latter. He says that while the IEDs initially consisted of artillery and mortar shells hard-wired and detonated using clickers, which made it more difficult for the attackers to remain hidden, the devices he now comes across are mostly detonated wirelessly using garage door openers or car alarms. One he came across even used the timer from a microwave oven as an arming device, making it safer for an inexperienced bomber to plant.

Apart from the obvious measures that are taken to counter the IED threat, such as varying the timings and routes of patrols and removing trash from the highways that could be used to hide devices, the source of the threat again brings home why the 2BCT's operations are now more focused on intelligence-gathering: identifying the bomb-makers and who pays them is the key to neutralising the threat.

Meanwhile, the overall success of the 2BCT's mission - and that of all coalition forces in Iraq - will depend on increasingly handing over the responsibility for security in Iraq to the Iraqis. On pursuing the successful conclusion of his mission, Col Haight says: "It's like teaching a kid to ride a bike: we're at the point where we can let go but we have to be there to catch occasionally. What I'm trying to do is work my way out of a job."

Peter Felstead is Managing Editor, Jane's Web Content, and a JDW Special Correspondent who was embedded with the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad.

[Jeff White]

European Stars and Stripes
November 4, 2003

Troops Can Now Hit The Links In Iraq

By Jason Chudy, Stars and Stripes

CAMP SPEICHER, Iraq — Birdies, bogies and above-par performances have landed in northern Iraq, with the help of more than a few American eagles.

Camp Speicher, an American base just north of Tirkit, is home to what is probably the only operating nine-hole golf course in the country. It is under the management of the Wisconsin Army National Guard’s 229th Engineer Company.

Master Sgt. Rick Brown designed the course and unit members built it out of dirt and scrub over a two-day period during the summer.

First, the company’s survey unit took Brown’s ideas and transferred them to paper. Then, Spc. Jason Hacht graded the course and Spc. Nicole Mayne compacted it with a vibratory roller.

Finally, Sgt. Adrian Swanson installed the holes — coffee and juice cans — and flags, which are camouflage netting poles topped with numbered sandbag flags.

The holes are a little larger than regulation, but the players say that’s OK.

“Out here you need all the help you can get,” said Sgt. 1st Class John Bohonek.

The 1,493-yard, par-29 course will challenge most golfers.

There’s an old Iraqi obstacle course on the third hole that golfers must hit over, and Hole 5 features a rock pit. There are even a few bomb craters.

The course has no water hazards and the fairways aren’t green — the course’s maintenance crew is waiting for a good rain — but there are plenty of sand traps.

“Oh yeah, the whole thing is a sand trap,” Bohonek said.

Brown said the course’s name — UXO 9 — was inspired by the large amount of unexploded ordnance being blown up throughout the base during the two days the soldiers built the nine holes.

But there are no UXO on the course itself. “We’ve walked it pretty good,” said Bohonek, who golfs every Sunday with Brown.

Despite a base population of about 10,000 and UXO 9 being the only course in the area, it hasn’t really caught on with duffers.

“Nobody believes us when we tell them,” said Bohonek, the unit’s food service sergeant and club manager.

So unit members have pretty much been the only ones to play the 20-acre course since it opened in July near the 28th Combat Support Hospital area.

Still, everyone is invited to play and equipment is available, courtesy of donations.

“We’ve got about 200 to 300 clubs and balls with us,” Brown said. “We’ve got score cards.”

Residents of Prairie du Chien, Wisc., where the unit is based, donated the clubs and balls. Brown placed an advertisement in the town’s paper earlier this year, having planned to make a course wherever they ended up.

“We built one last time we were here [in the Middle East during Operation Desert Storm],” Brown said. “That was only four holes.”

There are no club dues or greens fees at UXO 9, but there is a dress code.

“You can go out in PT gear but you still have to carry weapons,” Brown said. His M-4 carbine fits in a golf bag but the M-16 and M-249 don’t. Camouflage uniforms also are allowed.

The course is open every day and closes only during mortar attacks. “We’ve had to come off the course a couple of times when they were banging away,” Brown said.

Anyone wanting to play the course can check out gear from the unit’s tactical operations center or charge of quarters watch. The unit is located across the street from the 28th CSH.