The Uncomfortable Truth

A concise and accurate summation of our current situation. Since it's the darkest days of the solstice now, and I'm looking for hope: A reasonably intelligent group of people have met and issued their studied opinions on what should be done in Iraq, and this requires thinking on the part of said beer bonger and cohorts to justify a different course, and any real thinking has to be better than what has gone before.

Thank you for reading, and especially for your comment. We can only hope!

I cautiously disagree with you on this, I have more optimism for Iraq.
To think clearly and objectively about Iraq, you have to mentally take Bush out of the equation. Pretend we have Clinton again or just look at the country on its own accord.
The people of Iraq are tasting real, true freedom. They never had it under Saddam. And yes, he did kill his own people, he killed Iraqis and he's an Iraqi. He also put the screws down on freedom.
Another blogger on here reports about bloggers in the middle east, and how Iran is restricting internet access for the people. While Iraq has a lot of problems, they have no dictator now telling them they can't go online and learn about the world. There's no one telling them they can't open their own business and take their kids to schools and be fruitful and have a good life. No one, of course, but the terrorists who blow up their neighborhoods to strike at the U.S.
But once the U.S. is gone, will the Iraqi people, with their 200,000 strong army, long tolerate terrorist activity?
That's the million dollar question, and my faith in humanity tells me this is a country that will one day shape its own destiny, now that they have the chance.
Of course, what do you and I know anyway. We haven't been there and we're surrounded by the political rhetoric of those who either want Iraq to be a disaster or those who want it to be a success. I just hope the Iraqi people find some happiness despite the politicians over here.

Excellent thoughts, sir. Thank you for sharing.
Regarding that "million dollar question," I have a friend who has been there and claims to be familiar with peoples' attitudes. He says they tend to be fatalistic, they're not used to standing up and taking on adversity. I honestly don't know if the Iraqis will tolerate terrorist activity. Further, if 150,000 troops of the world's finest army cannot stop terrorist activity, I see problems ahead for the Iraqi army.
I wish I could be as optimistic as you.

The Iraqi people have been greatly damaged by so many things it's staggering to recount them all. But, as we all know most recently it was Saddam Hussein. He he did his worst for decades! And looking back a bit further in just this century we see their borders were drawn up rather casually by the British in 1919 without regard to cultural divisions. That was a setup for the Bathist party Hussein. Ironically the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was also the setup for Hitler and the Nazis.

Quintin, you said, "Today, the war has lasted longer than WWII..." and you cited what a failure Bush has bestowed on us. Well, I can understand your frustration and your impatience..Bush has made a lot of mistakes. However, is this really a fair analogy?

This isn't about defeating any enemy by any means in an all out war, is it? No, it hardly that simple. It's about today's political correctness employed in a police action. That means very constrained rules of engagement and a much longer time to accomplish the mission and at a far greater cost!

It's a tough situation and I don't know of any other war ever fought this way, do you? But, it's the hand you (progressives) have dealt us and we are trying to make the best of it.

Looking at it from the basis of a conventional war, you must acknowledge we defeated the world's 4th largest army in a matter of days. Remember, it took Iran years to fight Iraq to only a stalemate.

We won the war, it's the peace that is in doubt.

If we were to use your logic against the backdrop of history, then there are no end of "failures". One might just as wrongly conclude the Korean war was a total failure since it still has not officially ended and we are still there to hold North Korea in check.

The situation in Iraq was never about fighting a ground war and then walking away. It was about helping oppressed people to undo 30 years of the worst in human rights abuses in our time. That HUGE job has been confounded by centuries of religious prejudices between Sunni and Shiites that were exacerbated and exploited by Hussein' regime for his own purposes.

And you wonder why 1300 plus days after Saddam was deposed that Iraq is a still dysfunctional society?

We American's can barely imagine the brutality and depravity they have endured under Hussein. Now factor in the crime and corruption that followed in the wake of his ouster.

I know our military can defeat them too, I'm just not sure our feminized liberal America is up to it. They have been critical since the begining and I really think they hate Bush enough to want us to fail.

Your comments only reinforce that sinking feeling.

I believe our military is more than capable of winning in Iraq, it is our liberals that are the weak link, at least in my humble opinion anyway.

Quentin, I have no doubt you are a well meaning person and you see yourself as a patriotic person doing what is right for America. Me too. But, where we differ is you don't acknowledge what is at stake here if we fail to get the Iraqi's on their feet.
Yes, it may be an impossible job...there are no guarantees, but we are far from giving it our best effort and it is FAR FROM A LOST CAUSE! Yet you would have us cut and run...now?

Iran and the radical Shia's are waiting in the wings to fill the void should we depart from Iraq before they can stand on their own. IF that happens they will hold sway over the worlds richest concentration of oil reserves (a financial fortune for terrorism) and they will use it to extend their doctrine throughout the middle east and the world. We'll likely be headed right back over there for yet another all out war.

I believe it is possible for Iraq to become a productive member of the worlds civilized nations, but the cost may be too high for the liberals, those well intended Americans like yourself, that lack the understanding, patience, vision and courage to see it through and everything we had hoped to accomplished that was good and decent will come to naught.

Now let me add this caveat, we can't do it alone. The Iraqi's must decide their own fate...Lex et Libertas -- Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis!

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." --Thomas Paine

I am honored you took the time to compose your reply. Thank you.
You raise a great many issues that give me a number of ideas for future essays. Thank you again.
Where the borders were drawn is the WHOLE PROBLEM here. Yet that idea was rejected at the start lest we upset the Turks, who aren’t too crazy about the idea of a Kurdish nation.
As our leaders have made zero effort to fix the root of the problem, then our leaders cannot be sincere about their intentions.
We didn’t go to Iraq to make it a “productive member of the worlds civilized nations.‿ We went because of the WMDs. At least, that’s what we were told—then. Remember?

“This isn't about defeating any enemy by any means in an all out war, is it? . . . . It's about today's political correctness employed in a police action. . . . . It's a tough situation and I don't know of any other war ever fought this way, do you?‿

Yes, it was in a place called Vietnam.

“But, it's the hand you (progressives) have dealt us and we are trying to make the best of it.‿

Oh? There aren’t enough progressives in DC to crowd a men’s room, much less the halls of Congress. No sir, this abortion began with the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress in Republican hands. Someone has lied to you.

“One might just as wrongly conclude the Korean war was a total failure since it still has not officially ended and we are still there to hold North Korea in check.‿

Only if one was a total idiot. 95% of the KIA have been since your boy declared “mission accomplished.‿ If we had had 20 times the number of soldiers killed (900,000) after it was supposed to be over in Korea, I would agree with you.

“[The war in Iraq] was about helping oppressed people to undo 30 years of the worst in human rights abuses in our time‿

I’m sorry sir, but that’s a lie. The war was about WMDs. Remember?
Our leaders don’t give a damn about human rights abuses. Why weren’t we in Rwanda? Eritrea? Why aren’t we in Darfur?

I do not wonder at all why we are still in Iraq some 1300 days after Saddam was deposed. I predicted it would happen. I’ve studied history. I predict we’ll be there for a long, long time if we do not correct the root cause of the problem—the borders.
You are right that I hate Bush, but if Bush fails, America fails. Do you honestly believe there are people who hate him so much, who put their politics before their country? I do too. And I believe they should be shot for treason.

“Yet you would have us cut and run...now?‿

I think you listen to way too much talk radio. Let’s talk “cut and run.‿ When this mess started, when Bush was trying to sell his war, did Congress get up and say, “Only Congress can declare war.‿ No. They chose to cut and run. Did Congress conduct its own investigation into WMDs before blindly following the president’s manipulated intelligence? No, they chose to cut and run. When Congress was warned that the planned Iraq invasion would require three times the number of troops Rumsfield insisted on using, did Congress stand up for our professional military officers? No, they chose to cut and run. Cut and run seems to be the watchword of a Republican-controlled House.
Actually, what I would do is carve Iraq into three new countries. Again, the ONLY solution is to correct the root cause.

“Iran and the radical Shias are waiting in the wings to fill the void should we depart from Iraq before they can stand on their own. IF that happens they will hold sway over the worlds richest concentration of oil reserves (a financial fortune for terrorism) and they will use it to extend their doctrine throughout the middle east and the world. We'll likely be headed right back over there for yet another all out war.

This is, sadly, the most correct observation you have made! But, it wouldn’t be the case had we not gone in. And, it wouldn’t be the case if our leaders had the guts to stand up to the oil companies. We have the technology right now to negate the need for Middle East oil, but Bush and Congress would rather our troops die for profits. If we shared that technology freely, then no one would buy their oil and they could choke on it for all I care.

“’Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.’ --Thomas Paine‿

I guess that means that you will be reporting to your local recruiter “like a man.‿ Or, do you—like Congress and the president—expect my kids to die for your manhood?

“’Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.’ --Thomas Paine�

Actually this quote was for the Iraqi's, but ok you asked, "I guess that means that you will be reporting to your local recruiter “like a man.� Or, do you—like Congress and the president—expect my kids to die for your manhood."

Quintin, I would never ask anyone to do something I would not do myself, period. I have lived by that code my entire life and I am too old to change. And yes sir, I have put good people in harms way many times for good cause and I have been in harms way many times for just cause too.

You seem to forget this is an all volunteer army...they are there because they believe in the mission and so do I, but I am also a realist and if and when that mission becomes a lost cause I will join you in saying lets bail, but I don't see that happening just yet.

Next, I must disagree with your assertion we went into Iraq because of WMD's. We went into Iraq for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it should be made clear that there was a legal case for war against Saddam's regime. This has not been undercut in any way by the failure to find stockpiles of WMD's.

There were numerous violations of the UN treaty signed by Hussein in 1991. Now, regardless of whether or not you agree with the war's legality, we have an inherent right to defend ourselves against threats to our security; see U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized the use of force against Iraq in 1991.

This was to restore peace and security in the region, and it has never been withdrawn! Next, Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in the fall of 2002 and finding Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligations under various preceding UN resolutions; or some combination of the above.

None of these justifications depended on the actual existence in Iraq of WMD stockpiles, Quintin...NOT ONE, yet when liberals cite our reasons its all about WMDS or it was all about oil, which is the most lame of the two.

"...it should be emphasized that at no time was it the responsibility of the U.N. inspection teams, or the United States and its allies, to establish that Saddam Hussein retained a WMD capability. The onus of proving that he had fully disarmed was always on Saddam. This was the price of an armistice, and of keeping his odious regime in power following Iraq's defeat in the first Gulf War. From a legal point of view, his failure to meet this burden fully justified military action."

Quintin, I thank you for your thoughtful reply and I enjoyed our exchange. I will leave you with the last word now.

Actually, there’s nothing lame about saying this action is for oil—for that is the truth.
UN resolutions?
Aren’t there UN resolutions regarding Israel that they continue to ignore? The UN passed a resolution regarding Darfur two-and-a-half years ago, and yet, we haven’t gone yet. The UN has passed any number of resolutions against any number of countries! Why don’t we go to war to enforce them? Why was Bush so hell-bent on enforcing these particular resolutions? For the same reason we’ve built fourteen permanent US military bases in Iraq. It’s because of the oil.
Saddam was never a threat to our society. Unless you count the threat to oil companies.
Yeah, I know. “We were attacked�—actually the biggest symbols of American capitalist hegemony were attacked--by Saudis.
If a fox kills your chickens, do you shoot your dog?
In the Fall of 2001, a village in Afghanistan—miles away from the action--was blown to bits. A mistake, they said. Yeah, with all our technology. Turns out this particular village was on the route for an oil pipeline between the Caspian Sean and the Arabian Sea.
OF COURSE this action is for oil!
I realize you don’t believe that. There is nothing I can tell you to make you believe it. Someone has repeated the big lie so often to you that it has now become your truth. I listen to talk radio too (I'm just not stupid enough to believe it). Over and over I hear of the reasons we started this action. Yet, if it were the truth, it wouldn’t need repeating!
I’m wondering . . . . .if a liar tells a lie, and someone honestly believes it, and repeats it, does that make him a liar too?
But, I digress.
You speak of an all-volunteer army. Another lie. A good friend of mine has been in the reserves for twelve years as a helicopter mechanic. Last year, they activated him, changed his MOS, sent him to train as an infantryman, and then sent him to the Middle East. He’s thirty-four years old—a bit too old to be a grunt. I guarantee you sir, he DID NOT volunteer. Neither did the thousands of others who were ordered to active duty.
You say you don’t expect my kids to die for your manhood. However, the liars you believe and support do. To me sir, there is no difference. If you support the war, go fight it!

I totally agree with you, except for one thing. You said, "There aren’t enough progressives in DC to crowd a men’s room, much less the halls of Congress."

I am proud to say that progressives make up at least 85% democrats in Congress and at least 60% of all democrat voters.We also have our lobbyists, our PACS and the majority of the mainstream media that are solidly behind progressive causes. Its a powerful influence!

Mecha and the ACLU are both popular groups that often assist in liberal causes in politics and this goes for politics in Washington DC.

Progressives make up at least a majority of those in the Dept. of State (I am told it runs almost 70%) and there are probably many more groups that I could cite that do carry a great deal of political clout for those considered "liberals."

It's time to stand up and admit we have the power to take it all back! We will have a progressive in the White House in 08, believe it!

Thank you very much for writing. Often, it is only those who disagree that take time to write. It’s nice to get props now and then.
Perhaps you and I have differing definitions of the word “progressive.� I’ve always thought it to include making use of new ideas. Alas, Of the “contenders� I’ve seen so far, not one is ready to embrace new ideas. Looks like more of the same stuff to me.
When I get back from Pasadena, I’ll be talking more of new ideas.
¡Prospero Año y Felicidad!

Sir, I am glad you are here to speak out against this unjust war. George Bush is an oil man and he is in bed with the big corporations that make vast sums of money from this industry. It's been all about oil from the begining.

The United States has been plundering and exploiting the world for too long. Right next door they have robbed and plundered poor Mexico. I say it is time for the Mexican people to be compensated. This should begin by returning Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to the rightful owners, Mexico.

As harsh as this may sound to some here, I know in time the American people will learn why this must be done. It was not right to steal this land from Mexico. I believe a compromise could be worked out where these states become free states that will bridge the gap between the USA and Mexico. They should be places where no visa is need to work by anyone.

¡Prospero Año y Felicidad!

Quinton, I'm sorry but you said some awful things and I just have to respond just one more time.

You are too quick to accuse Bush of being a liar with no offer of proof. Where is the proof Bush actually "lied" about anything?

Everything he has said about Iraq and the reasons for the war have been echoed by most of his opposition, is being misinformed or mistaken the same as being a liar in your book?

Bush One then Clinton both spoke about the dangers of Saddam Hussein and Clinton spoke most forcefully, saying much the same as Bush.

So please, lets separate the "educated guesses" thse men used in their rational for a war with Saddam from what you call lies.

There is a MONSTEROUSLY HUGE difference beween a lie and a mistake. For you not to distinguish it costs you much credibility.

Next, your buddy who volunteered to serve in the military did so knowing he could be order to fight anywhere at anytime.

News flash: We don't let soldiers pick and choose which battle they would like to take part in. It doesn't work that way. Not in our army anyway.

Can you imagine what kind of military we would have if the soldier said, "Gee sorry General, but I don't feel like fighting this particular battle. This is because I know more than the Pentagon or the President and everyone else above me that thinks I should go fight...so you all have a nice time. I will just stay home and repair helicopters."

No way, he's a volunteer and no matter how you parse it, he volunteered to serve and that means he goes where he is ordered and he does what the military orders him to do when he gets there.

OK, I'm done...really...time to move along anyway, we've beat this subject to death.

I realize that you pull a great deal of your oil/war information from activists like Michael Moore, but maybe if you looked for your information somewhere other than the conspiracy theory pages, you may come across some useful information.

First let me address your point about an all volunteer army. Now I understand that for some people the English language is a very difficult thing, so here is the Webster definition of volunteer.

-1 : a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service: as a : one who enters into military service voluntarily b (1) : one who renders a service or takes part in a transaction while having no legal concern or interest (2) : one who receives a conveyance or transfer of property without giving valuable consideration

Now if your friend would have read that contract he signed, he would have seen that he agreed to said arrangement. Something tells me he was probably more concerned over his benefit package.

No one FORCES you to join the military, period. Now that situation for your friend sucks, Ill give him that, but to say that the military ceases to be a volunteer force because an extreme, yet expressed stipulation was enacted is, well in your words, a lie. Sorry but all of our military forces are volunteer anyway. If you have never served in the armed forces you can not be called to go to Iraq. If however you have signed a contract in the military, any contract, and read the fine print, you will realize that as soon as you did so you owe a minimum of 8 years service; usually broken down into active, reserve or guard duty, and inactive reserve duty, where you can be called up. Your ignorance of military policy does not give you the right to change the meaning of the English language. I hope that clears up the volunteer question.

As far as Saddam not killing his own people which you now cleverly define as Iraqi Sunni only. First of all I don’t think this could be a more flawed statement. Your American president comparison is not even close. A more accurate comparison would be if we had an Irish American Catholic President who decided to kill all of the English American Protestant citizens. But I see why you didn’t use such a comparison since such a thing has never happened.

The other reason why it is completely absurd is because Saddam did murder Sunni Arabs, including members of his own tribe. And many of the Sunni Muslims that I worked with were very glad he was going to swing, so I’m sorry, what was your point again?

Now lets go to the ever popular “This war is illegal� argument you liberal legal scholars like to throw around so much. Now I’m sure that at some point during your education you came across the term “cease fire�. But just incase you received your education any where in the Bay Area, Ill elaborate. A cease fire agreement is a legal agreement between various warring parties which states, that you will cease fighting provided that the other side meets certain stipulations. If one of the sides breaks the cease fire, you are legally permitted to reinstate hostilities. As soon as Saddam fired at one of our planes in the no fly zone, we had the legal right to reengage to what ever degree we felt necessary. Now you may not consider that a “good� reason to go to war. But Saddam’s actions did make it LEGAL. So maybe you guys could drop the cool illegal war bumper stickers and go toward an argument that is at least factual.

As far as manipulated intel. Well I guess Great Britain, France, and others also manipulated their intel as well huh. Keep spouting this off like it is something other than your own convoluted opinion. I get a chuckle from it.

Now lets discuss carving Iraq into 3 countries. I’m curious, have any of you liberal history majors asked Iraqis what they think of this idea?? I’m guessing no, because everyone that I asked about it didn’t care for it much. Of course you’re a liberal, and you know best, so their opinion doesn’t really matter. Neither do, I suppose, the economics of it. Oil is that countries life blood. Now I know you think that oil is only used for making gasoline, and that the Iraqis should shift their economy to making hemp bracelets, but as it turns out, it’s probably going to be pretty important to them for sometime to come. That is why splitting that country across tribal boundaries in order to split the oil wealth will probably lead to a real civil war (Not the fake one your buddies on TruthOut.Org keep saying is going on right now). Take a quick look at where the oil is, where the refineries are, and where the ports are at. Then go ahead and clear up that little problem of Kurdish sovereignty with Turkey, Iran and Syria. Now me personally, I don’t mind [upsetting] turkey, and I think taking care of Syria and Iran would be great, but I think Dennis Kucinich would be against it, so you might want to rethink that one.

Now let’s get back to oil lines running through to the Caspian sea, and the village we supposedly wiped out to keep our oil buddies in the black. First of all, “all our technology� is still run by humans, who make mistakes. Whether or not the story you brought up actually happened is a mystery to me, maybe you could produce the news story. And then maybe you could elaborate on who exactly is constructing this pipeline. Last I heard, there had been talk of running an oil line through in the mid nineties, but the idea was scrapped when some intelligent human being looked at a map and realized you’d be running it through some of the most unforgivable terrain, and people in the world. But maybe MoveOn.org has fabricated…I mean, uncovered something new and exciting.

We get about 22% of our imported oil from the Middle East. That’s it. Your peace loving buddies in Europe and your like minded socialists in China get far more of their imported oil from the Middle East then we do. I’m not sure why exactly we would invade this country and simply sit around and watch Iraqis pump oil for their people when we could just as easily take it. I often wonder why us oil starved imperialists don’t just take what we want. Unless of course…were NOT imperialists.

As far as the commission not mentioning victory in their report. Yes that is disturbing. I mean, I know you have spent a lot of time in Iraq and studying counter insurgency and all…wait, what’s that, you haven’t? Oh, so when you say that this war couldn’t have been won from the beginning, that was your inexperienced, uneducated opinion, and nothing more….oh, I’m sorry my mistake. You spoke with such authority I just naturally assumed that you had a lot of practical experience and education in this particular field.

Well allow me to throw my two cents in real quick. We could have, and we still may be able to achieve victory in Iraq, if liberal politicians along with some of their left wing republican buddies will stop forcing restriction after restriction down our throats. Every time Ted Kennedy or John Murtha, or John Kerry gets up there and equates US Troops to terrorists, or says we cant win, or comments ad nauseam about the horrors of Abu Grhaib, it makes the job of foot soldiers on the ground that much more difficult. It means that strategic commanders have more incentive to pull authority away from tactical commanders to prevent embarrassing coverage. Because lets face it, you and your buddies at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC are always lurking around for that snap shot which either looks bad, or can be manipulated to look bad. It makes for a great working environment when you’re trying to help people while at the same time not getting shot.

I might also add that restrictions on our actions, which have had a hugely negative effect, have all been adopted at the behest of those on the left. Look you guys were against this war from the start, fine. But you lost the debate. And ever since then you have been working overtime to see that we fail. You guys are helping the insurgents to accomplish what they never would be able to achieve on their own. The defeat of a US Military engagement. Good job. I’m not exactly sure who you think you are helping though. For you Vietnam war historians, you will see that Islamic terrorists are incapable of turning this into a “Vietnam�. The ability to turn this into a Vietnam lied solely with the American people. And you guys on the left have been working overtime to accomplish that. If you succeed, all hail the self fulfilling prophets. You learned nothing from the Vietnam war, but our enemies in Iraq did.

Now if you’re wondering why I choose my first post on here to be so exceptionally rude, sarcastic, condescending, etc. It’s because I have known Jack Lee a long time; and your reaction to his first letter was appalling. Jack Lee has served his country and his community in harms way, and it probably would have been wise to discover that before taking the route you choose to. And since it seems that reasoned debate doesn’t fly around here, I decided to act in a manner that I thought would be more easily recognizable to your readers.

I would be delighted in the future to tone down my remarks, if you are willing to debate in a civilized manner.

True, there is a difference between a lie and a mistake. A mistake is what you make darn near every time you try to spell my name. A lie is what Bush told the American public when he said that Saddam was a threat to our national security. It does not matter to me that the so-called opposition echoed his lies. If a million people tell the same lie, does it become the truth?
Isn’t it funny how, as soon as the cold war was over, we had new enemies? I wonder what our leaders would do without a bogeyman to keep us frightened all the time. I’m sure you’re aware that we had the real enemy cornered at one point—Tora Bora, I think--yet Rumsfield wouldn’t spare the troops for the capture.
Oh yes, I’ve heard that copout line before about “soldiers volunteered to join and have to do what they’re ordered.� The warmongers really love this one. If my friend gets killed, will knowing that “he volunteered� help you sleep better?

Thank you for taking the time and effort to pen such a lengthy and humorous response. I am both honored and amused.
If I found something appalling I would not engage in it myself.
Believe it or not, I’ve never been to any of those websites you refer to, nor do I watch those networks. Michael Moore is too much of a leftist for me. My opinions are my own. My education is quite extensive, but I’m not here to give you my CV, I’m here to make you think.
Only Congress can declare war. Period. This war is illegal. Period.
The Constitution was not modified in any way for us to take action at the behest of the UN, or the intelligence findings of our allies.
Violation of a cease-fire from a previous action where Congress did not declare war (Gulf War '91) is not a reason to declare war.
You are incorrect when you lump me in with those leftists in Congress. As a true liberal, I would have demanded the president ask Congress for a declaration of war. As a practical warrior, I would have fought it efficiently.
I was hoping that someone would mention that Saddam killed members of his own tribe. Keep that word in mind.
What we are dealing with here is tribalism. We are trying to instill 21st century values and political systems on a people with a ninth-century mindset. That is why I believe victory to be impossible without amending the borders.
We have started a war between opposing citizens of the same country. The dictionary calls that a civil war. The obvious solution is to separate those citizens into their own countries.
It is working in the former Yugoslavia, it’s worth a try here.

If you want to make the argument that this conflict is illegal because congress did not declare war, then you will have to take that up with the vast mjority of the members of congress who voted to authorize the use of force. There is jurisprudence to support this arangement.

You are absolutely right that we are fighting tribalism. And I have written before how tribalism, not Islam, is the largest obstacle we face in bringing any form of Democracy to such a nation.

However, I seem to recall sending troops into former Yugoslavia in order to stop civil war and genocide, was that illegal as well? Should we not have gone? I would also ad that there was a point in this nations history where regional differences were so great that we fought the single most costly war in US history. I do not think the solution was to become seperate entities then, and I think there are internal reasons why such a solution may prove far more diffacult in Iraq than some suppose.

I completely agree that trying to instill 21st century values on the Iraqis overnight is absurd. But Democracy IS NOT a 21st century value. It is a sysem of government old than Islam itself. The 21st century values that we are forcing on the Iraqi people are originating from the left in this country. Our own Judicial system and norms, which took us hundreds of years to develop. Our sense of boundries in fighting conflicts, our squemishnis over various forms of interrogation (and I dont mean rape, or inflicting permenant damage).

In addition to that we have our social ADD. We expect things to happen overnight.

Saying that Bush lied may make us think, but so does the statement that cucumbers are bad for you. Maybe its true and maybe it isnt, but I havent made a sensible argument for it. Intelligence can be manipulated, but in an era such as ours with "whistle blowers" it is a lot harder to grossly manipulate intel to get it to mean what you want. It is also noteworthy that various intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion about WMD (which was only one reason we went to Iraq).

We didnt go to war at the behest of these foreign intel agencies as you suggest, instead we did the logical thing which was to compare our intel with the intel of others keeping track of the same thing.

On another point, what exactly do you mean when you say that you are a "practical warrior"?

I agree with you that a President should ask congress for a decleration of war, but a President can ask for the authorization for the use of force, so again your illegality stance doesnt add up to established law. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution where the US Government is restricted from using force, except in the case of a formal decleration of war. If you can produce such evidence, I will concede the point.

If not, I would very much like the legality of the conflict brought to rest.

I would like to also address the issue of Tora Bora. The argument could be made that this was a tactical error. But I think it is absurd to make the argument that this was done so we could deliberately fail. Do you have any idea the kind of casulties we could have taken clearing out that stronghold?? Every night I turn on the news and I see liberals using the casulty lists (which have been very low) to cal for an end to this war. Does it not make sense that in the spirit of keeping casulties low, as well as handing greater responsibility over to the host nation forces, we would allow them to comprise the main effort in such a battle? If you want to assume that this was some great conspiracy theory, fine, but there are logical explanations why such a discision would be made. And after all, arent obvious, logical explanations the antithesis to conspiracy theories?

Thank you again, sir, for your comments.
Believe me, I would love to take up with Congress why they chose to cut and run instead of standing up to this imperial presidency, but the postage alone is more than I can afford right now.
Please don’t tell me about jurisprudence in support of this. We had jurisprudence define some people as property. If jurisprudence is your bible, you worship the wrong God.
I’m glad that we agree about the tribalism issue.
The question of whether our excursion to Yugoslavia was legal is a much different question than whether we should have gone.
No, it was not legal.
True, democracy is as old as the ancient Greeks, but it is a Western concept.
I think comparing this to America’s civil war is a poor analogy. Americans had regional differences, not tribal differences.
Comparing our intel with other countries’ intel is pointless if other countries get their intel from the same source. But didn’t some other counties have differing intel? Oh that’s right, they were pooh-poohed by the corporate media! I remember those “freedom fries.�
I guess I do not understand the difference between “use of force� and war. When you land troops in a foreign country, and they engage in battle, I call that war.
A practical warrior is a person who does not relish war, but fights it as best as it can be fought—with total shock and awe--when it absolutely, positively has to be fought.
You are correct that the leftists in Congress have strangled our ability to fight this action as it should be fought. Perhaps that is an issue you might wish to take up with those members of Congress who are responsible.
If the president is allowed by law to ask for the authorization to use force—as if it were somehow different than war—then the law itself is unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not delegate to The US the right to authorize “use of force.� The tenth amendment is quite clear in saying that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.� Simply put, this means if Congress or the president is not authorized by the Constitution to do something, then they are not allowed to do it.
I hope that settles the legality question!
As for the casualties we might have incurred in Tora Bora, a total carpet-bombing of the area would have produced fewer casualties than we suffered in just this month alone!
I am amused that you side with the left in your last paragraph. On the one hand, you decry the restrictions placed on our guys by the left, yet when it suits your purpose, it’s OK to let the host country handle our affairs. How namby pamby is that?! Osama attacked us, not the host country!
I never made the argument that Rumsfield chose to cut and run from Tora Bora so that we could deliberately fail, but it makes sense. With Osama still out there, we have a threat to our security. With a threat to our security, the “sheeple� won’t mind giving up their liberties.
Happy New Year to you, sir. May God bless you and keep you well.

Dear Quentin, this is a sort of non-response response, that is, I will not try to make any points or criticisms here except to say thanks for allowing all of us to express our opinions on your blog.

Speaking of...I especially enjoyed reading Nick's letter.

His is the only truly expert opinion here, he knows the Iraqi's, he has lived among them and he was able to talk to more them on a personal basis than anyone I know...we can learn a lot from Nick and his real life experience in Iraq.

I'm obviously very proud of him (and all troops). In his case, he's sure done a lot in his military career in such a relatively short time. It's a story in itself, if you knew it I'm sure you would be proud of him too!

Guess I won't be writing you again til next year...so till then, I say most sincerely, you have a safe and happy New Year...

c-ya L8tr Quenten! ; )

First. You will have to excuse me sir, but when debating the law, jurisprudence is everything. Your mentioning of slavery is a moral question, not a legal one. Of course I believe slavery to be wrong, but the bottom line was that it took a legal act to make it illegal. Such acts fall under jurisprudence. You may think this war is immoral, that does not make it a legal question as you have claimed repeatedly. In order for something to be illegal, there must be legislation showing it to be such.

Secondly, as far as the tenth amendment is concerned, I whole heartedly agree that the Constitution is seldom interpreted the way it ought to be.

But I still don’t think your point closes the book on the legality question in your favor. I would be interested to know how you would interpret the tenth amendment to cover things such as the various departments we currently have, and the jurisdiction they impose at various levels. Departments of HHS, Education. Or perhaps the FDA, EPA etc.

Furthermore, the constitution says nothing about providing disaster relief, unless you have a loose interpretation of the "General Welfare Clause".

Again, to say that any use of military forces which is not the result of a declaration of war constitutes illegality does not hold up with history. Even as far back as the Presidency of Jefferson, the Congress has authorized the use of force without declaring war. An example such as this with the authors of the Constitution still alive suggests to me that the concept of use of force without a formal declaration of war was not something the founders felt inconsistent with the tenth amendment. Perhaps this is why the Constitution states that only congress can declare war, but it does not stipulate that in order for military action to take place, that the congress use the term "Declare War" as is explained by this article from wikipedia :

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court, however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

I submit that the Barbery pirate incident is evidence against your legal theory appertaining to the 10th and 8th amendments. I would also point out that declaring war against a nation appertaining to the war on terror would be rather difficult, in respect to the larger conflict.

If your over all point is that more power should be left to the states, then I agree, but I am wagering that you are willing to use the tenth amendment to serve only this purpose, perhaps I am wrong.

As far as my position on Tora Bora, I don’t see how this constitutes siding with the left. Advising internal forces in military operations is a productive and useful strategy in fighting an insurgency. As I said before, it could be argued that this was not the best strategy for this particular engagement.

But as far as carpet bombing, I doubt that would have brought about the desired effects. First of all where talking about an enormous mountain enclosure, secondly, the idea is to be able to determine whether or not you have actually killed osama, correct? Extensive carpet bombing would have almost ensured that an identification of Osamas body would have been impossible. Then would you have claimed that we deliberately carpet bombed so that even if we did kill osama, we would always be able to claim that there was no evidence that he was actually dead?? Choosing to use host nation forces is not a restriction. It’s a sound FID strategy.

Yes democracy is a western concept. Which has been adopted successfully through out a variety of cultures, regions and religions.

Your original complaint was that we were forcing 21st century concepts down there throat, I simply pointed out that democracy is not a 21st century concept. Nor is it limited to the west, even though it originated there.

Tribal differences are not insurmountable. Europe is testament to this. But it does require a long process. I do not believe that such a process need take decades. I will remind you that the Bath party saw tribalism as a threat to national unity and sought to weaken it. It was only after the Iran Iraq war started going south for Saddam, that he implemented a policy of supporting the tribal system.

The overall argument of whether or not we should have gone into Iraq would be much more productive if we stoed the conspiracy theories and stuck to logic.

I believe that going to Iraq was necessary, and that the only way to leave that country was to attempt to emplace a democratic form of government. To do one without the other would have resulted in simply postponing a future war instead of attempting to seriously degrade the possibility of one.

In conclusion, if we are to continue debate about the legality of the conflict, we must set aside moral arguments such as slavery comparisons. It is possible for the law to be immoral in your opinion, but that does not affect the legality of it. I may consider capitol gains taxes to be immoral or wrong, but if I don’t pay them and are punished as a result, I don’t get off because it was “illegal� in my personal opinion.

I do applaud you on your belief of overwhelming force to resolve conflicts as quickly as possible, when absolutely necessary. The other side of this is that we have a democratic republic. You may not agree with a particular war, but I would hope that if you lose the debate, on whether or not to wage it, you would seek a quick and successful conclusion. I furthermore hope that you would not see it as your personal duty to undermine our resolve with soldiers in harms way. One of the lessons of Vietnam lost on Ted Kennedy, but full grasped by our modern enemies, is that an anti-war movement can be manipulated by the enemy to bring about the defeat of US policy.

One more quick point. If you would like me to take your alegation that other intel was forced out by the "corporae media" you are going to at least have to sight exaples. The burden of proof on such statements lies with the accuser.

This is all fairly long, so I'll try to keep my comments short.

Only the Congress has the authority to declare war. "Use of force" is war by another name. So, all instances of the US using "force" overseas are illegal. That includes Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Gulf War I, Gulf War II.
How did we get here? I blame Truman. The Congress was all set to give him a declaration of war in re Korea, but he decided that the UN Resolution was all he needed. Every President has followed him since.
Did the words of Washington about avoiding foreign entanglements not register with Truman or anyone since?

As for the guy who found himself fighting under a different MOS than the one he signed up for; that's just too damn bad. The needs of the service are primary. If the service needs to move him from whatever he was to the infantry, well that's the way things sometimes.

As for the Rules of Engagement & how we're fighting in Iraq, the last time a Commander in Chief actually lead troops into battle & did a decent job of it, was (no surprise) Washington. No one has done a decent job of it since. Sun Tzu tells us that all decisions made in the field are properly made by the general in the field. If only all politicians would learn to butt the hell out of operational matters. Certainly, LBJ should have so butted out. Instead of micro-managing his war into the complete fiasco that it wound up being.

As for the differences between places like Rwanda, Darfur & the like vs. Iraq; I have no problem with our different responses. The US military does not exist to go about the world, in knight-errant fashion, doing good. The US military exists to protect & serve the people of the United States. Were things equally bad in Iraq, Darfur & Rwanda? Sure. So, why did we go to the one place & ignore the others? The others had no value to us. Iraq does. Is that value because of oil, at least primarily? Sure! So what? Does that mean our boys are dying for oil? Again, sure. Also again, so what? Oil matters. There are ways to lessen that, but until that happens, oil matters. That doesn't mean that our boys aren't doing good work there, or that they're dying JUST for oil. IF "W" can pull off this trick of making a stable Arab democracy in the Middle East, he will have performed a great deal for the world in general. The problem is that he (a politician) allowed another politician (Rummy) to mess things up. Rather than giving his generals orders of what he wants & then stepping back to let them do that. (AFTER a declaration of war, of course).

Did Afghanistan attack us? Of course they did! If you allow a force to train in your country, knowing that this force is going to attack some other country, then YOU have attacked that other country. Does this mean that the US attacked Nicaragua when we allowed the Contras to train here? Of course it does! Same for the Bay of Pigs? Also, of course!

The biggest problem is that politicians have forgotten that the rules exist for a reason. They have all (Democrats & Republicans alike) decided that if they want a thing done that doesn't fit the rules, they can just ignore the rules. While this started with Truman (in re war), they've all followed it since. The proper way to go, IMHO, is that when a situation of any kind arises, take a look at The Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution. If what they want to do is found there, then go ahead. If not, stop.

So would we have still gone to Korea? Yes, Congress was hot to declare in any event. Would we have gone to Vietnam? Nope! Would we have gone to Yugoslavia? Nope! Gulf War I & II? Maybe. Afghanistan? Yup! In any event, whatever we did would have been legal, which really should matter more than it does.

Mulay

I strongly agree with much of what you had to say Mulay, with perhaps 2 exceptions.

1. I certainly agree that the US should declare war when entering into major engagements. However, to say that there are no circumstances where congress can authorize the use of force without formally "Declaring War" is not so clear. I refer back to my statement about the Barbary Pirates incident. Approving use of force might not be preferable, but there is ample evidence to suggest that it is legal. Maybe that should change some, but untill it does, it cant be considered illegal.

2. I think Rumsfeld is taking way to much blame for what is going on in Iraq. Rumsfeld was a huge friend to the Special Operations community, and that pissed off alot of rank and file generals. Sometimes even generals dont have the clearest view of what they should be doing. Im not advocating political take over of tactical military decisions (God forbid), but it is important to realize that Rummy has implemented very positive change in the military AGAINST alot of conventional military advice.

Other than those I would have to say that it is refreshing to hear someone speak about "fighting for oil" so candidly. Strategic resources are a valid reason for military involvement (to a point obviously), and this seldom gets the mention it deserves. I would also say that we dont "send troops off to sie" for anything. We send trained volunteers off to engage in the dangerous buisness of war. I didnt feel that I was being "sent off to die". This is a politically charged statement, although I dont think you used it with that intent.

Well, I'm glad we all agree that this fight is for oil!
And since it is for oil, may I ask why America sends its soldiers to die for what is a privately held commodity?
If our nation is sending troops to die, then our nation should be the one owning the oil they die for. It is far past time to nationalize the energy industry