Blackwater

[lI1|1!]

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

What's not to get about the neocons? Throughout Clinton's second term, they clamored for the invasion of Iraq, claiming it was our time to revel in military supremacy. Failing to sell boldface imperialism, they sidled into the Whitehouse in 2001, claimed themselves experts and proceeded to turn everything to shit.

 

They failed to prevent 9-11. They didn't prosecute the war in Afghanistan to its end. They began the disaster that is Iraq.

What, exactly, did they do well?

 

Oh, yeah, they made a killing. In arms, in consultations, in "delayed compensation packages", they made out like bandits. And when they leave their jobs, seconds ahead of subpoenas, investigations, charges of serial perjury, they'll find comfort in the loving arms of the oil-and-arms funded think tanks that first shat them out upon the stage.

 

 

"Neocon" = "Jew" = "Zionist" in JosephH's world. Hence, his constant drubbing about conspiracies. Read some of his past rants.

[tvashtarkatena]

Look, the argument that there is no way the U.S. government can provide these services is ridiculous on the face of it. The answer wasn't privatizing these roles, it was expanding government services to include them. The U.S. government is fully capable of funding, recruiting, training, and deploying such services if it had an interest in fulfilling what the administration claims is a vital need.

 

I wasn't aware that Blackwater employees provide security for the President because the government can't train any internal employees to do it.

 

 

[noliquidity]

 

 

""Neocon" = "Jew" = "Zionist" in JosephH's world. Hence, his constant drubbing about conspiracies. Read some of his past rants. "

 

HERR FAIRWEATHER

 

I see a talking point developing here, your homeboy KKK just destroyed me by calling me a blasphemer, Let us bow our heads.

Edited October 10, 2007 by noliquidity

[JosephH]

"Neocon" = "Jew" = "Zionist" in JosephH's world. Hence, his constant drubbing about conspiracies. Read some of his past rants.

 

Don't confuse a subset of concurrent and aligned interests with a single identity for two separate groups. Neocons are in no way a Jewish or Israeli entity regardless of the alignment of a subset of their individual interests. There are, however, hawkish Zionists who buy and sell the Neocon line and act as leaders among the Neocons.

 

My clearly stated opinion is that Israeli interests are not by default U.S. interests despite what Israel, AIPAC, and the Neocons would have you believe. I would go futher in saying the strict Zionist within the Israeli Right to both Israel and the U.S. no end to harm. This is the same crew who have of late been pushing for a U.S. attack on Iran. Now that is a broken record...

 

And I don't talk in conspiracies - I talk facts. One only need peruse their website - New American Century - to allow the Neocons to speak conspiracy in their own

 words. 

 

============================================

 

Or, here is their letter to President Clinton from 1998 which tells you all you need to know about why Iraq was invaded and that it was in fact, a long-standing Neocon objective simply waiting for a conveniently plausible [but false] pretext:

 

[i]January 26, 1998

 

The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

Washington, DC

 

Dear Mr. President:

 

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

 

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

 

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

 

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

 

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

 

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

 

Sincerely,

 

Elliott Abrams / Richard L. Armitage / William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner / John Bolton / Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama / Robert Kagan / Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol / Richard Perle / Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld / William Schneider, Jr./ Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz / R. James Woolsey / Robert B. Zoellick[/i]

 

============================================

 

Or, how about their 1997 Statement of Principles

 

(And bold principles they are - for a bunch of draft dodging cowards...)

 

[i]June 3, 1997

 

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

 

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

 

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

 

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

 

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

 

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

 

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

 

* we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

 

* we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

 

* we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

 

* we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

 

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

 

Elliott Abrams / Gary Bauer / William J. Bennett / Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney / Eliot A. Cohen / Midge Decter / Paula Dobriansky / Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg / Francis Fukuyama / Frank Gaffney / Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan / Zalmay Khalilzad / I. Lewis Libby / Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle / Peter W. Rodman / Stephen P. Rosen / Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld / Vin Weber / George Weigel / Paul Wolfowitz[/i]

 

============================================

 

All in all - and for all their bold talk - never in the history of our nation has any group of men so incompetently wielded U.S. military might. Aside from being treasonous felons - this is the original '[i]Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight[/i]' - incompetent poseurs to a person.

[noliquidity]

Joesph H, its a classic tactic for these guys to start making base attacks on loyalty, accusations of racism, etc.. Once they realise there logic isn't really logical at all, there is no where else to go but the pillar of fear. Soon you will be accused of colaborating with the alein invaders from Pluto. FYI thanks for your service in Vietnam, I wish the public would have focused at the time on the policy makers and not the troops. Again thanks.

 

I need to find that list of I think 14 points that were found in common among facsist regimes. When reading the list the Orwellian nightmare becomes very clear.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I need to find that list of I think 14 points that were found in common among facsist regimes. When reading the list the Orwellian nightmare becomes very clear.

 

You should have remained a lurker; cc.com is already sufficiently replete with simple-minded assclowns such as yourself.

[JosephH]

You honestly believe that you can change the course of a big ship such as DSS overnight? Maybe you weren't paying attention in NAVY school. That ship isn't going to change course more than 2-3 degrees at any one time. [/i]

 

No ship turns unless the captain gives and order and when the captain has the ship in full reverse on a straight line there is no turning and no forward progress. Institutions will always be incapable when they are explicitly being dismantled to pave the way for contractors. No will - no way.

 

The vast MAJORITY of private contractors ARE local nationals with oversight by small teams of highly qualified privatized contractors. This is a valuable move prividing disenfranchised locals with reputable work.

 

The vast MARJORITY of private [highly paid] SECURITY contractors ARE NOT local nationals. Don't obfusticate Security contractors with the bulk of local utility contractors.

 

The fact that you have zero experience with this type of work, and the last time you served in any capacity was about 30 years ago, makes it tedious to read your continued tirades. In addition your hindsight 20/20 analysis is such a con job it's laughable.

 

I don't need experience with this type of work to figure out the scam and the specific intent of the administration in availing themselves of this type of resource. One of those Navy years was spent preparing all the intelligence briefings for COMPACFLT and you won't convince me much significant has changed relative to the relationships between the military, intel, and executive in the interim - in fact, the Iraq war clear signals it's worse than ever in almost every respect.

 

And I contracted extensively with DoS/USAID in that 30 years, spending plenty of time working in U.S. Embassies to know what's going on that side of things as well. Bottom line is I've hung out with enough private security folks, military attaches, and spooks in the interim to know just how little has changed on one hand and what a complete rape of our nation is happening by a corrupt, imperial executive on the other. If anyone is naive here it's you.

[noliquidity]

I need to find that list of I think 14 points that were found in common among facsist regimes. When reading the list the Orwellian nightmare becomes very clear.

 

You should have remained a lurker; cc.com is already sufficiently replete with simple-minded assclowns such as yourself.

 

When standing on a mesa in the twilight in the Southwest seeing the silhouette of a heerd of wild horses youve seen a thousand times before . Does your brain tell you they are horses or zebras?

[archenemy]

I seed a heerd.

[JosephH]

When standing on a mesa in the twilight in the Southwest seeing the silhouette of a heerd of wild horses youve seen a thousand times before . Does your brain tell you they are horses or zebras?

 

Here in Albuquerque this week all I can see is a large heerd of balloons - many were striped, none were zebras - some were, however, trampled by a stampede of high winds...

[tvashtarkatena]

The fact that you have zero experience with this type of work, and the last time you served in any capacity was about 30 years ago, makes it tedious to read your continued tirades. In addition your hindsight 20/20 analysis is such a con job it's laughable.

 

Most people don't need any plumbing experience to realize that a house knee deep in shit is not a good thing.

[Fairweather]

You honestly believe that you can change the course of a big ship such as DSS overnight? Maybe you weren't paying attention in NAVY school. That ship isn't going to change course more than 2-3 degrees at any one time. [/i]

 

No ship turns unless the captain gives and order and when the captain has the ship in full reverse on a straight line there is no turning and no forward progress. Institutions will always be incapable when they are explicitly being dismantled to pave the way for contractors. No will - no way.

 

The vast MAJORITY of private contractors ARE local nationals with oversight by small teams of highly qualified privatized contractors. This is a valuable move prividing disenfranchised locals with reputable work.

 

The vast MARJORITY of private [highly paid] SECURITY contractors ARE NOT local nationals. Don't obfusticate Security contractors with the bulk of local utility contractors.

 

The fact that you have zero experience with this type of work, and the last time you served in any capacity was about 30 years ago, makes it tedious to read your continued tirades. In addition your hindsight 20/20 analysis is such a con job it's laughable.

 

I don't need experience with this type of work to figure out the scam and the specific intent of the administration in availing themselves of this type of resource. One of those Navy years was spent preparing all the intelligence briefings for COMPACFLT and you won't convince me much significant has changed relative to the relationships between the military, intel, and executive in the interim - in fact, the Iraq war clear signals it's worse than ever in almost every respect.

 

And I contracted extensively with DoS/USAID in that 30 years, spending plenty of time working in U.S. Embassies to know what's going on that side of things as well. Bottom line is I've hung out with enough private security folks, military attaches, and spooks in the interim to know just how little has changed on one hand and what a complete rape of our nation is happening by a corrupt, imperial executive on the other. If anyone is naive here it's you.

 

I see. So, on one hand you want to enjoy the stature that your military service has rightly given you. But with the other hand you want to exclude non-vets from the debate even while claiming that you don't need personal knowledge of said particulars to formulate your own opinion? Like I said before, sounds like nothing but ego to me.

[JosephH]

I didn't say you couldn't debate - in fact, I answered your racist remark and just in general ask you to take off the blinders and deal in facts. I'm also saying I have enough of the requisite experience and knowledge of sufficient scope and detail to make a pretty damn good call on why the administration has organized this war the way they have.

 

Look, I'm a big supporter of having a strong and effective military which is wielded wisely and with restraint, but once put into play it should be used to devastating effect. "Effective" and "wisely" are the key words above. The military should be allowed to do what does best and not be called on to do what it was never designed to do.

 

In the case of Iraq we should have gone in with overwhelming force levels, secured the borders, removed a small, select cadre of Baathists, fixed what we broke, and left fairly quickly with the understanding we wanted things run with a modicum of cooperation. The explicit plan to dismantle Iraq's governing, administrative, and security institutions while simultaneously looting the 'reconstruction' funding pretty much doomed this war failure before a single boot ever hit the ground. The failure is due directly to an unbelievable combination of gross incompetence and systemic corruption on the part of this adminstration.

[ClimbingPanther]

 

invisible female?

[Serenity]

Fact is you see one side of the coin, and I see the other. As respectfully as I can state this I will.

 

JosephH-I'll stack my 2 decades of service up against yours any day. Perhaps your past experience has made you jaded or ignorant of the current Middle East experience. And we're not talking Israel here. We're not talking foreign policy anyway, we're talking about the need for highly trained armed guards to provide safety for diplomats in a country that is at war (not occupied as has been insinuated)

 

You make sense in some ways, I even respect your views (not always your tone) but I feel like you're preaching an attitude of appeasement, to say it as simply as I can. I would preach victory, with the understanding that military means alone will not provide that. Their must be diplomacy, and for that reason there are teams of trained individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line for the safety of the diplomatic missions that go out into the red zone every day. It's harsh and dangerous work, and I know you've never been in a firefight, or you wouldn't be so vehement in your protest of their use.

 

Bottom line is that the diplomatic missions cannot operate without security, and this isn't the embassies you worked in previously. The world has changed, and I say that in no condescending tone whatsoever.

 

I feel that security contractors can be used much more effectively, and I think DSS would be smart to start deputizing some new agents from the ranks of contractors they have relied on. I also feel they have demonstrated their usefulness in past conflicts, high threat regions, and will continue to do so in the future.

 

[Serenity]

 

 

By Jay Price, McClatchy Newspapers Tue Oct 9, 6:34 PM ET

 

BAGHDAD — When private contractors escort clients around the Iraqi capital, they use one of two methods. Low-profile security details rely on going unnoticed for safety and opt for older, nondescript vehicles. They often dress like Iraqis and keep their weapons out of sight.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

High-profile details, such as those used for U.S. diplomats, typically use large, new armored SUVs or specially designed vehicles and are often recognizable at a distance.

 

Such convoys are at obvious risk from suicide car bombs, among other threats, and have to keep other traffic at a safe distance. Often the vehicles bear signs telling drivers to keep back 100 meters (110 yards). Police said the trucks in the convoy Tuesday had those signs.

 

Contractors on such high-profile missions use hand signals, shout and sometimes toss objects such as water bottles or flares to warn vehicles that get too close. Depending on the circumstances, if a vehicle keeps coming, they may shoot into the road, then into the radiator grill, then at the driver.

 

In Tuesday's fatal shooting, Iraqi policeman Hamed Ali , who was at the scene, said no shots were fired into the road or grill of the car carrying the two women who were killed. Other witnesses disagreed and said the contractors fired at least one warning shot into the radiator.

 

The roads in Iraq are often chaotic, and civilians can be shot when, among other things, they misunderstand the situation or don't see the convoys in time to slow down.

[noliquidity]

Hey Serenity, I thanked Joesph H for his service and I want to thank you for yours. Hopefully I didnt come across as too much of a smartass with my debates with you. Its a good to have a methodical breakdown of serious topics with someone of an opposing view. I have never been in a combat situatuion, but have limited personal expierence with that need to be in survival mode 24/7 I lived in a major city for ten years in what would be descrided as not the best area of town. Had a drive by shooting directed at me 2 days after catching some gangbangers graffiting my car. Had a 9mm stuck in my face by some crackhead right in front of my apartment. Had some gangbanger walking around on a Saturday afternoon with on ?Uzi/MAC10? about 15ft away from me in the parking lot were I lived. Pretty quickly you go into this hypervigilant survival mode and after awhile it takes its toll. From my limited perspective,I can understand in a combat zone when troops (by neccesity) are in that survival mode, how a chain of events can occur that lead to an outcome nobody wanted. Its called survival. And the blame is usually focused on the ground level forces that had nothing to do with the policy getting them there in the first place. I know this doesnt have to do with the private security debate, but I dont want you guys going through the same shit the the Vietnam Veterans went through when they came home.

[murraysovereign]

...we're talking about the need for highly trained armed guards to provide safety for diplomats in a country that is at war...

 

...Their must be diplomacy, and for that reason there are teams of trained individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line for the safety of the diplomatic missions that go out into the red zone every day. It's harsh and dangerous work...

 

Bottom line is that the diplomatic missions cannot operate without security, and this isn't the embassies you worked in previously. The world has changed, and I say that in no condescending tone whatsoever.

 

So, here's the question that's been bugging me. What, exactly, are all these diplomats doing driving around in a war zone? What meetings are they going to that require risking the lives of a handful of innocent Iraqi civilians every time they drive across town? If they really thought about it, if they really asked themselves if this or that meeting was worth potentially killing a father, a mother, a couple of children, maybe some grandparents, how many of those meetings would actually take place? Or at the very least, how many of them would take place in the "red" zone?

 

I don't question the need to provide security for diplomats, but I do question sending diplomats into areas where providing their security necessitates the use of murderous levels of force against the very people the diplomats are supposed to be helping. It seems a tad counter-productive, doesn't it?

 

For instance, if the various parties involved had known their meeting of a few weeks ago would result in 17 deaths just to get everyone to the location, I can't help but think they might have found another way to meet. Given the blowback that resulted from those deaths, it would have to be one spectacularly successful meeting to be worth it.

[Serenity]

Baghdad is a city that is larger than Los Angeles greater metro area. Over the past 5 years there have been hundreds of car bombings, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries. This tends to make people nervous when cars don't immediately take heed of warnings to stop.

 

There are daily rocket and mortar attacks on most of the principal government locations, which tend to be scattered all over the city. There are armed militias, corrupt police, people with vendettas and motives.

 

Try to imagine that you need to go see someone in charge of finance or oil and their office is all the way across town and you have to cross this no mans land where anything can happen. You know people who have been killed and injured, sometimes several a year, but it's important work that is being accomplished because there are good Iraqi people who want the violence to stop and are willing to work with the people who want the best for them. A lot of the state department folks are well educated, travelled, well meaning types who want to see Iraq succeed, but there is the the constant threat of death, and almost certain death to travel unescorted. It's a 360 degree battlefield with no clear front line, and often no indication of where you can and cannot go at any point or time. What's safe one minute of the center of the maelstrom the next.

 

The real blow back is that it appears that Maliki is aiding Sadr by providing propoganda coups such as this one that weakens the goal we are trying to produce.

 

I agree that it is a tragic occurrence, in a series of tragedies. I tend to focus more on Iranian trained militias planning raids using subterfuge that kidnap, torture, and then murder American soldiers. That signals a need to win this thing and quit being JosephH's looking back over our shoulders with hindsight "I told you so's & "We gotta get out" "Bush sux" and get the job done without wincing at every tragedy, and playing politico pundit.

 

I do agree that the current administration has not done everything right, but with the current state of the US, their would probably be a similar level of griping, bitching, and moaning and expert advice on how we woulda, coulda, shoulda hit Normandy Beach better.

[Mal_Con]

Not really, in 1944 every atom of the US was aimed toward the effort. Every home had a family member in the project. The existance of civilization was at stake. Now it is only a few cents off the cost of gas. Altertnatly, political freedom for sectarians who do not wish it except to suppress their brothers over differences that seem trivial to us. The shia agenda was obvious from the start, there are no surprises.

[JosephH]

Fact is you see one side of the coin, and I see the other. As respectfully as I can state this I will.

 

Serenity - I'm not so sure it's the flipside of the coin so much as we're constantly talking at, and speaking of, different scales and scopes.

 

JosephH-I'll stack my 2 decades of service up against yours any day. Perhaps your past experience has made you jaded or ignorant of the current Middle East experience. And we're not talking Israel here. We're not talking foreign policy anyway, we're talking about the need for highly trained armed guards to provide safety for diplomats in a country that is at war (not occupied as has been insinuated)

 

As I said, I think it's a matter of differing scopes and scales with regards to 'the current Middle East experience'. Look, I have no problem whatsoever deferring to your perceptions of the situtation and experiences of contract security personnel on the ground in Iraq or elsewhere. And I have nothing but I high respect for the skills, experience, and capabilities they bring to bear on the situation - I just would never wield those resources in the manner they are currently deployed. But that's not the real issue from my perspective. The real issue isn't how they perform in their current context, but rather how it is that context has come to exist.

 

And, as a side point, I'm not 'insinuating' we are now an occupation force - we are one. The 'war', short and sweet as it was, is long since over. Now you, like the administration, can continuously redefine both the mission and the definition of this 'war' to be some form of strategic geopolitical/cultural chess game, but even in that attempt and context you simply make Iraq into an end game of pawn moves without end in-country and a locked, static piece with no good move regionally. You also basically further cast Iraq as another Vietnam (in it's Cold War role), albiet with more active internal and external players.

 

And if we are still at 'war' then that is an even more devastating indictment of the incompetence of the administration's ability to wield our military might. WWII lasted 1,244 days - Iraq is now going on 1,666 days as of today (Vietnam was 3,918 days). Call it what you will, but that ain't winning. I have no doubt whatsoever it feels like a war to anyone on the ground in Iraq given you can't get from one side of of the GZ to the other, or to the airport, with any confidence - but, again, if it is war, we lost long ago while daily grasping for a new definition of 'winning' in the face of a grim and contrary reality.

 

I guess in general, my comments in this thread fall into a few catagories of very different scopes than I believe you are discussing:

 

• The long-term political intriques and prelude to the war (Neocon fantasies of a ME that never was, nor ever will be)
   
  
• The extraordinary grasping and extension of Executive power based on the John Yoo's doctrine (Unitary Executive Theory)
   
  
• The planning and prosecution of the war (Tragically incompetent weilding of U.S. military might)
   
  
• The execution of a long-awaited and explicitly planned dismantling of institutional oversight and the imposition of privatization on basically every government agency and institution of our government (Outsourcing for a smaller gov't)

Taken together, the above administration activities establish a context of broader scale and scope that have, in essence, led to the very situations and circumstances you say a person on the ground in Iraq experiences and deals with every day. They are also directly responsible for a strategic, operational, and tactical situation in Iraq - and now the region - that are in every way detrimental to the long-term, strategic interests of the United States and also entirely self-inflicted.

 

You make sense in some ways, I even respect your views (not always your tone) but I feel like you're preaching an attitude of appeasement, to say it as simply as I can. I would preach victory, with the understanding that military means alone will not provide that. Their must be diplomacy, and for that reason there are teams of trained individuals who are willing to lay their lives on the line for the safety of the diplomatic missions that go out into the red zone every day. It's harsh and dangerous work, and I know you've never been in a firefight, or you wouldn't be so vehement in your protest of their use.

 

Did you read my comments on Iraq from 2005? Hey, I fought in a war that [officially] began when I was 12 years old - it was equally misguided and incompetently prosecuted. That's one reason I've said I believe the day the first serviceman or woman is put in harms way for our nation is the day we better pull out all the stops and attack with overwhelming force for a quick and decisive victory. Failure to do so was merely the first [Neocon] mistake. Their biggest mistake was not learning the lessons of previous U.S wars; primarily that the use of military might is the easiest aspect of wielding power and a method-of-last-resort for achieving the nation's goals for good reasons.

 

Managing strategic geopolitical, post-war outcomes to our advantage is the real objective in the game of war - and in that the administration has failed catastrophically. We might as well have poured a trillion dollars directly into Iran's central bank and hung a sign in Mandarin on Hawaii facing West that says "kick me".

 

Bottom line is that the diplomatic missions cannot operate without security, and this isn't the embassies you worked in previously. The world has changed, and I say that in no condescending tone whatsoever.

 

I feel that security contractors can be used much more effectively, and I think DSS would be smart to start deputizing some new agents from the ranks of contractors they have relied on. I also feel they have demonstrated their usefulness in past conflicts, high threat regions, and will continue to do so in the future.

 

I have no problem with these assertions in the context of the intent and realities deliberately set in play by the administration. My comments are about how those realities could have, and should have, been far different had our intent been to wage a 'war' that resulted in net geopolitical gains for the United States. And that isn't an analysis in hindsight, I've held these views way before the war began.

 

In the final analysis, I believe it will be concluded the administration used the pretext of 9/11 to act on longstanding Neocon beliefs that the Middle East simply needed a domino-like 'first' push and that, once executed, a favorable, strategic geopolitical outcome for the United States was a foregone conclusion. That 'leap of faith' led directly to Rumsfeld and Cheney's 'lite' approach to the war and the near total absence of postwar planning in the face of a nearly universal contradictory opinion held by career military, intelligence, and diplomatic officers and personnel.

 

Unnecessarily squandering the power and prestige of the United States on the hope, the hope of a positive outcome from a theoretical Neocon scenario in the Middle East will cause this presidency to be considered an abysmal failure; and the manner in which that fantasy was perpetrated will forever taint this presidency with scandal and the suspicion of treason, regardless of how well-meaning their intent.

 

Personally, I think we're on the same side in all this, you are dealing with what is, I'm saying things didn't have to be this way. That and I'm personally outraged at how shabbily the military has been treated throughout this whole sad affair.

[JosephH]

Not to necessarily put you on the spot, but as another aside, and in illustration of the administration's true support of our troops, maybe you could explain to the folks here what the DoD having deliberately cut 729-day orders means to 1,162 members of the Minnesota Guard who just returned from Iraq.

[Serenity]

Not to necessarily put you on the spot, but as another aside, and in illustration of the administration's true support of our troops, maybe you could explain to the folks here what the DoD having deliberately cut 729-day orders means to 1,162 members of the Minnesota Guard who just returned from Iraq.

 

I'll have to take some time to reply to the other thread, but I did want to comment that this is indeed a slap in the face to those folks. It's an indictment of the lack of real trust that those guys deserve for their service. I'm sure it will be worked out, but it never should have happened to begin with.

[kevbone]

"there’s some 100,000 contractors—I actually think there are probably more than that. That’s a strangely round number. But the fact of the matter is that we know from internal government audits that were done on the Iraq occupation that there are some 48,000 employees of private mercenary companies operating in Iraq right now. And what these companies do is they give the Bush administration extraordinary political cover. Their deaths don’t get counted, their injuries don’t get counted, their crimes don’t get reported, they don’t get investigated, they don’t get prosecuted"

 

 

Anyone else here have a problem with this?