“ 'S A DAMN SHAME WE REMAIN”

Or, Changing the Debate on Iraqi

Unless the shape of the debate changes soon, it looks like the earliest our troops will realistically be allowed to hope for getting out of the mistake known as Iraq is the day Bush is removed from office or whatever day the amoebas in Congress finally grow a spine. Unfortunately, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be foolishly boxed into a “debate” defending against the assertion that anything ending the fiasco is somehow not “supporting” the troops.

Bush and his NeoCons have once again conned the nation into a non sequitur. What the anti-Iraq quagmire activists need to do is change the question. How to do that? Are there any challenges or demands that can be made (besides the obviously useful impeachment alternative) that might assist? Actually there are several in which Bush’s own rhetoric can be successfully used against him. How about:

ALTERNATIVE 1: LET’S VOTE.

Yeah. I know. We thought we already did last November. But, apparently it was not explicit enough on the question of Iraq. If so, it would be pretty easy to organize a special election, a national plebiscite solely on the subject whether to (a) leave now or (b) stay until our soldiers run out of blood or our treasury runs out of money, whichever comes first. Consider it as a national No Confidence Vote which European nations have turned into a proud and useful tradition. Let’s ask Bush and Cheney to resign if they cannot persuade a majority of the voters that Western Civilization itself is riding on us staying in Iraq forever. If he truly has confidence in what he is telling us, ask him why not put it to a vote?

Of course, since we already know Bush is totally opposed to democracy here in the States and is too cowardly to really debate the subject, that will never happen. (In fact, it might even prove counterproductive given how Bush’s minions like the owner of the Diebold voting machines seem to magically achieve voting totals which defy logic and evidence when there is no paper trail to check against.) BUT, Bush does loudly and frequently claim he’s at least for spreading “democracy” in the Middle East. So, let’s let the Iraqis give us the purple finger as to whether they want us to remain.

Why should Bush consider agreeing? He can continue pouring our assets down that rat hole until the end of his term assuming he is not removed by impeachment. On the other hand, he seems to be starting to worry both about his “legacy” and has good cause to worry about post term investigations. Frankly, it’s a perfect solution for him. If the Iraqis vote to keep us as their guards, he wins the debate and can blunt criticism of him. If they vote for us to get out, he then has cover to pretend whatever later disaster happens is all the Iraqis’ fault, not his own massive bungling.

If Bush won’t consider an Iraqi vote or if the civil warring factions there would not allow it, how about demanding a UN General Assembly vote in which we agree not to exercise a veto and to abide by the result? Once again, Bush who surely knows he has already lost the war assuming he can read the reports from his own generals, can shrug his shoulders and say “Well, I would have won, but I wasn’t allowed to do so.” Legacy saved, at least in his own mind.

ALTERNATIVE TWO: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER TROOPS.

Bush claims he “supports the troops” and touts the “all volunteer” army with which he likes to play toy general. While it is not true if almost everything learned about missing armor, extended tours, poor vet care, rotten salaries, and literal rotten food, etc. is accurate, nevertheless, let’s insist he make Iraq an “all volunteer” mission. It used to be a tradition that when you sent troops on suicide or dangerous missions, volunteers were called for. If Bush believes so much in the mission, he can truly “support the troops” by saying they don’t have to go to Iraq unless they feel the same way.

Normally, in a real war, that would not be a good idea, but most of our other wars have been fought for valid reasons in which there was a real and present danger from something other than tin pot dictators we had put in power ourselves or a covetous desire for resources like oil. Consequently, let’s give our boys and girls a choice as to whether they want to die in Iraq for Bush’s ego, particularly when they are being asked to do so at a salary one-fifth what the Bush and Cheney are paying Blackwater private mercenaries to do the same thing.

No doubt it will cost substantially more to bump soldier salaries sufficiently high enough to persuade them putting Iraq oil in Halliburton pockets is worth dying for. At the same time, wouldn’t a significant increase in enlisted man compensation finally show some genuine “support” for the troops instead for the empty words Bush has been so fond of mouthing?

Better yet, how about initiating a draft of all those who voted in favor of the Iraq war starting with Bush’s military age offspring? That way, we would not even have to raise salaries. They wanted the war, they get it.

Naturally, Bush will fight such a proposal, but in doing so it once again exposes him for the utter hypocrite he is and shifts the focus on which the issue is presently stuck.

ALTERNATIVE THREE: MAKE IT ALL VOLUNTEER FUNDING.

Don’t cut off the funds for the troops, but perhaps insist instead that they be paid for by those who want the war. Perhaps a line could be added to the income tax returns in which citizens and companies could specify how much they would voluntarily add to their tax burdens to fund the Iraq war. Bush could use those earmarked funds, but only those funds.

Oops, the big companies like Cheney’s Halliburton don’t pay much taxes. In fact, they are leaving for places like Dubai so they can pay even less. But, since the war is being really fought to supply them with oil revenue (plus a lot of easy war profiteering), they may have to be assessed some new taxes if the Republicans want to continue in their “Crusade” as Bush used to characterize it. Let them be asked to give back some of the billions they have stolen in graft, corruption, overcharging, insider trading and “bad accounting.”

If that does not supply enough money due to the public finally wising up or the corporations being too cheap to give back some of their obscene profits and obscene CEO obscene salaries, perhaps Bush can hold a telethon or use some of the campaign contribution bribery and lobbying funds he has stashed away. The bottom line is let those who want the war foot the bills for it. If they don’t, then use against them the same “unpatriotic traitor” mantra they call everyone else.

ALTERNATIVE FOUR: ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR OIL

Basically demand the Prez prove that this is not really all about Oil by eliminating its consumption for fuel in this country. Demand immediate genuine progress be accomplished by launching, say, a massive Manhattan Project or first Lunar Mission urgency to end dependency before his Presidency ends. Ask that at least as much be spent on a useful alternative energy goal as has been spent on Bush’s military adventurism. Perhaps a 100% tax on gasoline at the pump, a surtax on oil company profits, mandatory gas rationing as occurred in WWII, elimination of restrictions on wind, wave, solar and other non-oil construction such as the suburban zoning height restrictions preventing home wind generator towers plus a huge research and development project on fuel cells and other hopeful methods.

This only indirectly would be an impetus for getting the troops out, but it would finally require the rest of the country to share some of the burden and sacrifice. Bringing that sacrifice home would remind the heads in the sand public that something is going on for which they too have a responsibility. It broadens the debate.

ALTERNATIVE FIVE: DEMAND STANDARDS BE SET FOR WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE FINALLY “WON” SO WE KNOW WHEN WE CAN FINALLY LEAVE.

For instance, have we "won" and can get out if the death toll is dropped to, say, 25% of what it was last year? How about when the electricity operation is on for at least 50% of the day at least six days a week? How about if the daily death toll and utility service availability is at least the same as the average for, say, Mexico, East Timor or Algeria? Those are not very high standards to achieve. How about when reporters can report from anywhere and only, say, 25 a year are killed attempting to do so.

If we cannot achieve even those very low standards, then we will never achieve higher ones and it is better to demand we get out now while we still have the shirt on our backs.

No standards - no continuing.

ALTERNATIVE SIX: DECLARE PEACE, NOT WAR.

Although Bush rejects international law, signed treaties, precedent, tradition, the words of his oath of office and most of the Constitution, Bush did seek a “war resolution” to allow him to use force in Iraq. Repeal that resolution or alternatively recognize that the Constitution requires Congress, and Congress alone, to declare war. Read it sometime.

If there is no legal authorization for the troops being in Iraq, then leaving them there would be an illegal activity for which Bush could be impeached.

As to cutting off the funds for the war, Bush attempts to characterize that as an attempt to harm the troops. In fact, it is the opposite. If Bush insists on leaving them there, then he and he alone is responsible for whatever happens next. In fact, by military law, troops are required to refuse to obey illegal orders which they would be if Bush ignores a demand for removal of the troops.

Cutting off the funds was necessary to finally end the war in Vietnam. Few now believe that troops were harmed as a result and that proved to really be the only way to bring them home. To continue the war would be an utter waste.

ALTERNATIVE SEVEN: MOVE THE WHITE HOUSE TO THE “GREEN ZONE” IN BAGHDAD.

Bush is always trying to show us how macho he is cutting brush, riding bikes, wearing flight suits. How about if he will not agree to any of the foregoing, double dog dare him to move his personal base of operations along with his VP, senior staff and Attorney General to Iraq. Ask him to show his own personal courage for once rather than the yellow streak he showed in the Vietnam War. He should be asked to show the troops he is behind them just a few miles away, not an entire hemisphere. Legacy-wise, Bush would be asked to put up or shut up.

If he inspires the troops like Custer did, great at least for him. He can go down in history as being proved right – far right. If he gets killed there, no big loss and perhaps the Smithsonian, which is too close to the White House when someone finally does try a nuke, might be saved.

Bush can be reminded that if God is truly on his side as Bush proclaims, surely He will protect Bush. If not, then Bush can be happy he gets to go to his eternal reward even sooner.

One thing is for certain. We can do without Bush and his crew here for the next two years.

And if he doesn’t want to discuss one of the alternatives above, we can always seek to truncate the tumor consuming the White House by reconsidering the great ALTERNATIVE EIGHT: IMPEACHMENT. Overtly rejecting all these other seven alternatives would prove Bush (once again) to be the Hypocrite-in-Chief and might be just the miracle growth tonic those in Congress need to either grow a backbone or conclude they will lose their cushy job next time around.

It is time to break out of the box if we are going to ever break out of Iraq.

"BUSHWA"

Or, Perhaps Bush Is Not Lying This One Time When He Says He Is Not Planning An Immediate New Invasion

For about the first time in about seven years, I find myself agreeing that Bush is possibly telling the truth (to the extent that he is capable of it) when he says that he has no immediate plans to invade Iran. After all, he knows (or at least should know if he bothers to read the data regarding the total number of our men and women in uniform) that the minimum necessary number of trained and equipped combat troops are simply not available, let alone on short notice.

Granted, he may want to invade. He probably does despise or fear the Iranians since he seems to despise or fear anyone who doesn’t believe he should be Emperor of the World, but even Bush must recognize that mounting an attempted invasion or even military intervention in Iran would leave us critically under strength to fulfill our commitments elsewhere in the world, not to mention put guarding our installations at home in jeopardy.

It's puzzling then why Bush would seem to be deliberately, almost recklessly, provoking the Iranians by instilling in them a worry he may start yet another “pre-emptive” war as he did with Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s sudden planned deployment of about half our currently sailing nuclear carrier fleets at Iran’s very doorstep, not to mention the countless press briefings on supposed Iranian supplied weapon attacks on our troops and the possibility that Iran might someday have WMD, all add up to what sounds like yet another prelude to war.

Why then? Could it be that Bush is inciting the Iranians because he would welcome the opportunity for an excuse to use nuclear weapon if our ships that he has chosen to provocatively put in harms' way are attacked. It is almost as if he is siting them there because he wants someone to attack them (as former President Johnson did so he could have his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution allowing a major escalation in Vietnam). If even some two bit pirate or independent insurgent in a dingy fires a couple of rounds at our armadas, Bush could then announce he was "forced" to use nukes to "defend" the new task forces he is putting in the Gulf and Red Sea because he has insufficient "conventional" forces to stop them otherwise. I hate to be that paranoid about Bush's intentions, but he has proven in the past that he is capable of unimaginable excesses.

Of course, it is always possible that when Bush says he is not planning to invade, he is just lying to us and will do so regardless of whether we are ready or have enough troops. Unfortunately, our military prowess is always bigger in Bush’s imagination than it turns out to be in real life, especially as to "nation building" and territory occupying tasks. Perhaps he is simply taking another step proceeding with his and his fellow Neocons' early revealed intentions to sweep the Middle Eastern oil producing countries clear of anyone who might threaten supply.

Still, my gut says he might actually be telling the truth for once on this one issue. The problem with Bush's credibility on any subject is that he is seems to have a pathology against telling the truth. He often seems to be someone who lies even when he does not have to do so. Take for instance his response to the British 22% troop reduction in Iraq shortly after Bush had been telling Congress he needed to increase US troop strength by 16% in order to "win." His Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said in a press conference immediately afterwards that the British withdrawal was all part of the "plan." That would imply we no somehow longer needed the British troop for our Baghdad "surge." Unfortunately, the statements emanating from the White House and Ms. Rice so defy logic and common sense as to suggest she and her boss are outright prevaricating or, at least, trying to "BS" us with the usual automatic politician “spin” response.

If Bush had simply indicated he strongly disagreed with the Brits and preferred the maximum number of troops from all nations stay to support our "surge," we could have understood that. That would have merely meant Bush was not persuasive enough with Blair or that Blair bowed to Parliament pressure. Alternatively, if it was truly all part of the "plan," Bush have announced the Brit intention to withdraw before Blair did. That way, he could have said our own troop surge was needed precisely BECAUSE OF the British reduction. Instead, Bush and his Secretary of State spokeswoman tried to play games with our minds again.

It makes you wonder if they are really that stupid or just assume all of us are. Either way, Bush convinces me once again that, liar or not on a planned invasion of Iran, he needs to be stopped cold.

“A DECISION TREE FOR ANALYZING IRAQ POLICIES”

Or, Trimming the Bushes Obscuring What Could or Should Be Done about Iraq

Possibly the most, certainly one of the most, pressing and divisive questions facing our country today is whether we should stay in Iraq or leave. If you believe the former, start with numbered paragraph 1 below for a way to ultimately determine whether that is a wise decision. If you believe the latter, start with numbered paragraph 8.

1. The current policy being pursued by the President, in its essence, seems to be simply adding approximately 21,000 military personnel to the 135,000 or so already there and staying there for an indefinite period conducting training and counter “insurgency” activities. If you favor that idea or are at least willing to investigate it further, proceed to paragraph 2. Keep in mind that even if you initially trust the President or any other “decider” for that matter, that does not excuse you as a citizen from exercising judgment of the decision, particularly when it is a literally life and death result at stake.

2. Begin with determining what are the potential benefits from the current “surge” policy as it is commonly called. Is it a prevention of civil war between one or more of the three Iraq religious factions? That would be a good thing. Is it an end to or at least substantial reduction of insurgency activities? An end to suicide bombers, kidnaping, mortar attacks and other terrorist activities in Iraq? Elimination of terrorist threats in allied countries? In America? Capture of Osama bin Laden? An end or at least substantial reduction of influence in predominately Shiite Iraq by predominately Shiite Iran and predominately Shiite Syria or other countries? A stable and/or democratic government capable of defending itself and rebuilding Iraq? A stable and/or democratic Middle Eastern region? Cheap oil? A permanent base for military and other operations in the regions? Significantly improved admiration, respect and/or at least fear of the US in Iraq or elsewhere? Prevention of nuclear weapons development by antagonist countries? Assuming there are any genuine potential benefits from the course of action under investigation, proceed to paragraph 3.

3. More important than the mere possibility of benefits is the question of how likely is it that each of the alleged benefits or goals will actually be accomplished by such a policy? It does not matter that we desire something in the abstract. Examples would be a perpetual motion machine or permanent peace in the ethnically and religiously divided Middle East. They are nice concepts, but not likely in our lifetimes, if at all. You should conduct a hard look to determine such likelihood. For some reason, that seems to be particularly difficult for Americans. Our particular view of history is that we will always prevail regardless of what history has to say on the subject when closely examined. The fact that we are almost as likely to be eaten by a shark in Nebraska as win the big lottery does not seem to deter us from gambling. Nevertheless, it will not help if we continue acting on wishes, assumptions, hope, ideology, arrogance, pride, or misinformation. Review each of the supposed benefits as to the realistic probabilities they will happen when the policy being considered is carried out. Assuming you ultimately conclude based upon real evidence that all, or perhaps any, of those proposed benefits are relatively likely if we continue pursuing the current White House policy, then skip to paragraph 6. If you are no longer as sure, proceed to paragraph 4.

4. If 21,000 additional boots on the ground, many to be “embedded” with Iraqi forces, are deemed by you to be insufficient to accomplish the desired goals, is there anything else that might achieve them? 100,000 troops? 1,000,000? Of course, if you start thinking that way, you must also answer the question of whether we have that many spare troops, especially the actual combat ones as opposed to support troops who typically outnumber ground pounders ten to one? Remember, we only count less than a million and a half military on active duty in the entire world at the moment. It is any easy confirmation on the internet with a Google or other search. So, do we need a draft? Factor in how long it will take to train them. Will other counties or the UN willingly supply all that is necessary? Are they interested in the same results as we are? Do they want that oil for themselves? Would they like us taken down a peg or two? Are they courting some of the other players such as Iran? Okay, how about then bringing in more pure mercenaries hired by our mercenary companies like Blackwater instead? Be sure to consider the effect though if they are not governed by our morals, ethics, or laws. Same issue on timing too. Can we train the new Iraq troops to adequately do the job? If so, can we do so before the American voter runs out of patience, not to mention can such newly trained Iraqi soldiers stay loyal to a national government instead of sectarian groups? How will they be used? Will it matter if electricity, jobs, schools, and other infrastructure are not restored and remain secure? If the answer to any of the forgoing is no, how about splitting Iraq to separate the warring factions? Monetary bribes perhaps? To whom? Bigger rewards for bringing in villains? Given what we are already offering, do we have enough money in the Treasury? Are we likely to interest anyone in accepting even if offered? Would more diplomacy work? That does not seem to have been tried. How about returning to a semblance of neutrality regarding Israel and Palestine issues? Sacrificing Israel? Everything is on the table for the purpose of analyzing alternative routes as to whether they would have any chance at success. Would that buy Iraq friends? How about nuking Iran? Would that eliminate an enemy or just create new ones? How about permanent relocation or internment or maybe just outright genocide of one or more of the groups in Iraq? Offering the testicles of Bush and Cheney? Be creative. We are not discussing morality at this point, but mere feasibility. Morality and legality are a second level for elimination of any particular alternative. Go to paragraph 5 now.

5. If any likely new possibilities or alternate policies present themselves to you as potentially successful avenues for accomplishing the chosen goals you are articulating, then you can determine if they are permissible to be implemented. If they are still viable after consideration of applicable laws and still acceptable to you based on your morality and ethics, proceed to paragraph 6. If not, proceed to paragraph 8 (because at this point you have in essence concurred in a choice to leave rather than stay.)

6. Assuming any of the proposed benefits are genuinely likely, what are they worth? Values must be assigned. Assigning value will be tough. For instance, how much is a live trained solider worth versus a dead one? Be sure to count all the future earnings and children and happiness they could create if not killed or mangled in Iraq carrying out the President’s current policy. It is tough, but not impossible to assign dollar values to human suffering. Courts and juries do it all the time. For the moment, ignore the dead Iraqi citizens, even the women and children being constantly killed. That is a moral/legal question unless we are paying money to the relatives of the dead civilians as we do when it is a “friendly fire” situation. For the most part though, at the moment, we are only discussing direct costs to American citizens either as treasury expenditures or lost opportunity costs. The bottom line is you are trying to decide the potential costs to achieve the stated goals and whether we can afford it. In addition to the obvious increase in deaths and wounds to our soldiers and treasury dollars going to Iraq, what about the costs to the active duty military in terms of morale, recruiting and readiness to respond to other crisis? What about such costs to the National Guard and the Reserves, not to mention equipment replacement and re-training? What about the costs to our economy, social programs, oil energy independence, global warming? What about the costs to civil liberties elsewhere? Civil liberties here? Those are a bit more intangible, but still quantifiable to a certain extent in terms of dollars. Same for the adverse effect on our international credibility, prestige, trust and respect. Those affect whether or not other nations contribute to this and future causes and whether they agree to future proposed treaties such as NAFTA. Equally important, although again hard to put an exact dollar figure on, what will be the effect internally concerning credibility, prestige, trust and respect for American institutions such as the three branches of government and our two party system? What will it do to our national morale and stalemates? How about our willingness to remain involved in international affairs? Will corruption and its fallout increase? Will prices go up? An atmosphere of hypocrisy, lack of honor or morals, might tend to increase government spending losses and waste due to corruption for instance. Worse yet, are we increasing the number of those inclined to be terrorists? Will we further destabilize friendly or former friendly regimes in the area or elsewhere? Will moderation in tactics disappear? Will it make nuclear proliferation more likely or more likely for their use against us? Are the increased number of spawned terrorists likely to ultimately attack the US or just our offices and people abroad? What will be the costs of future 9/11s? How many can we afford? Ask the insurance industry. Ask the municipalities. Can we actually make our borders impregnable? How and at what expense? Again the effort should be to analyze all costs and consequences including the intangible ones. The analysis should be a sober one based on hard facts and figures to the extent possible, but add in some extra amounts as a contingency for the unknowns that usually are discovered too late and the unintended consequences that so often occur. Proceed to paragraph 7.

7. What would happen if we are precipitously kicked out of town and opposed to an orderly withdrawal? Review the history books for a starting point. This step is to insure “Plan Bs” exist and that they too are analyzed. For instance, do we want to leave behind a large stock pile of modern weapons in the hands of those who don’t like us as we did in Vietnam? Look what happened when we merely left Saddam’s ammo dumps unguarded and that was relatively low tech outdated stuff that could be used against us. What if our modern tank and smart bomb arsenals are seized or left behind? Now, proceed to paragraph 9.

8. If you believe leaving is the necessary or desired route, you must decide between a quick and a fast pullout. For each, you need to apply the same analysis as above regarding what are the potential benefits and their individual likelihood. The same for what are the respective costs and their respective likelihood. Presumably, pulling out earlier would result in less troop loss and less money spent than pulling out later. It is also presumed that pulling out would “embolden” the enemy and increase bombing here. These are all mere presumptions though for discussion purposes and more in depth determinations should be made to see if it actually does make a difference. Neither the dreaded “dominos falling” nor increased terrorist attacks occurred here after the fall of South Vietnam. The Viet Cong certainly had the terrorist know-how to do so, but the end of the war was the end of aggression toward us. They were apparently too busy in other things. Would that be true of Iraq? Is the mere sight of our uniforms in Iraq inflammatory? Would they bother to travel to this country to continue blowing themselves up out of pure revenge or would they tend to be more occupied with rebuilding in a best case scenario or destroying each other in a worse case scenario? From the casualty counts, it is sure looking like they like to blow each other up more than us, at least at the moment. Perhaps some investigation should be made into whether even the 9/11 attack was truly an attack on our “values” or merely to get us to “butt out” of an internal dispute in Saudi Arabia in which a rival faction wanted to diminish the ruling family’s protector. (Don’t forget the nationalities of Osama and most of the hijackers. Forgetting things like that can distort analysis.) We probably would have stayed in Saudi Arabia anyway, but the issue is the real motivation. After the same sort of analysis to determine first benefits of leaving and then costs, proceed to paragraph 9.

9. As always should be done, compare the costs to the achievable benefits. Be liberal on the side of costs and conservative on the side of potential benefits. The goal is to achieve a cost/benefit ratio greater than 1. If the value of the benefits does not exceed the costs, don’t do it. Try another route. If all the choices generate a negative ratio result, proceed, with a heavy sigh, to paragraph 10.

10. At one point in time, we had many options including to not invade Iraq at all. We are long past that point. Blame should be assigned and punishment enacted for any grossly incompetent or even criminal decisions that got us to where we are, BUT merely because the only decisions left are excruciatingly painful ones does not excuse us from making a new decision, albeit one literally a “Hobbsian Choice.” In any event, if the costs will exceed the potential benefits under every single alternative, then the last issue is comparing the various cost/benefit ratios to each other. If leaving is even marginally less a disaster than the disaster of staying, you are relegated to choosing the lesser of the two evils. Could have beens, would have beens, no longer have a place. Reality must trump desire.

The foregoing is what is known as a “decision tree,” albeit one with regretfully fewer and fewer branches available regarding Iraq. Utilization of decision trees is a common technique in business (and for many life choices as well whether recognized as such officially or not). The method is designed to maximize the return on the minimum investment or, in this case, to minimize the maximum losses, sometimes referred to as the MiniMax Principle.

What is not clear whether any official presently in the White House has bothered to employ it regarding the thorny problem of Iraq. If they won’t, you should. And, if you can’t get those in charge to adopt the least costly alternative, then you need to consider how to best truncate those in charge and bud in their place someone who will. That decision too is amenable to scaling the branches of yet another decision tree.

“BIN LADEN DESIRES - BUSH ACHIEVEMENTS”

Or, Are we sure Bin Laden hasn’t been hiding in the West Wing?

What Osama Wished	What George Wrought
Damn and demonize the US in the eyes of its allies, supporters and apologists.	Unilaterally invade sovereign countries on whim, ego and neocon ideology routinely ignoring the advice and wishes of almost all formerly friendly nations as well as experts diplomats . Use the military option first and allow diplomacy only when military efforts do not work or we are losing. Attempt to suppress terrorists using warfare tactics instead of police tactics which usually results in creation of brand new enemies out of the relatives of innocent civilian casualties caused by, say, stand-off bombing to kill as opposed to policeman-like surround, isolate and capture. Use incompetent arrogant cronies and hacks who are primarily interested in lining their pockets and cannot even speak the language, let alone understand the local customs, religions and history. Take sides in Middle East and other conflicts without fully understanding there might be two sides worth considering before acting. Then, act precipitously with little planning at all and no planning for when things go wrong. Be proven hypocrites consistently and keep real intentions secret.
Demoralize and destitute the US military.	Initiate so-called “stop loss” policies to prevent soldiers from leaving as promised at the end of their enlistments. Send them back to ill defined combat every year and send them ill equipped to do jobs for which they were ill trained if at all. Do so in insufficient numbers to accomplish the task. Ignore advice of the experienced military officers. Ignore other potential threats elsewhere in the world. Down size our military and take away their ability to deal with potential foes who might actually have technological sophistication. Spend lots for unproven big buck weapon systems while simultaneously impoverishing enlisted personnel and their families. Ignore the plight of the wounded and discharged veterans. Abandon the Geneva Convention protections.
Devalue and dilute the US economy.	Eviscerate fair trade in favor of “free” trade favoring only large international companies concerned about only their profits. Eviscerate all potential opposition in sight, especially unions, reporters and any attempts at controls on management and fraud. Govern primarily by corruption, campaign bribes, and pork barrel politics. Create monopolies. Send jobs and manufacturing overseas. Allow revenue to escape offshore untaxed. Refuse to investigate government contractor fraud and embezzlement. Subsidize companies that do not need it, especially oil companies enjoying record profits. Write into laws whatever large corporations desire. Indenture our grandchildren to the Chinese by creating massive government debt, massive waste and fraud, massive budget deficits and massive trade deficits. Encourage massive consumer debt and immunize creditors for abuses. Abolish or diminish funding for research and development, especially for the hard sciences. Create massive salary gaps between workers and CEOs. Wipe out pension funds and worker benefits. Discourage savings. Ignore viable alternative energy sources and rely solely on increasing expensive, increasingly scarce foreign oil from countries that hate us. Keep intentions secret.
Devastate and damage the US homeland.	Refuse to pay for levee, train track, bridge and other infrastructure repair and maintenance. Refuse to effective emergency communication and coordination. Appoint incompetent arrogant cronies and hacks to FEMA and similar agencies. Ignore science and scientists. Pollute the air, land, water and food sources. Over fish, over graze and over log. Eviscerate regulations designed to protect same and eliminate regulators and/or their budgets. Leave ports and cargo unscreened and unprotected. Strip funding for protecting genuine national monuments against security threats. Ignore warnings. Concentrate targets for ease of destruction such as no electro magnetic pulse protection for all our civilian financial and other critical data.
Divide and disillusion the US population.	Continue unabated “class warfare” by transferring large amounts of money from the lower and middle classes to the Uber rich. Accuse anyone of pointing it out as indulging in class warfare. Demonize any opposition by calling them traitors and unpatriotic. Demonize minorities, especially any of Middle Eastern origin. Ignore all advice and research. Consolidate media and means of communication solely in a few supporters. Declare everything secret, especially mistakes. Harass and stonewall reporters and investigators. Refuse oversight by other branches of government. Install cronies and hacks as judges. Indulge in gerrymandering, voting machine fraud and knowingly false attack ads. Cripple health care. Concentrate on “wedge” issues like gay marriage to distract attention to the problems. Pretend to be doing anything about hard drug smuggling.
Debunk and dissipate the US moral superiority.	Claim torture and rendition is allowed by the Constitution. Claim there are no other equal branches of government during “war” and unilaterally declare eternal war. Abolish most of the Bill of Rights even for American citizens. Presume guilt. Profile particular minorities. Spy on everyone without warrant. Invade all privacies. Imprison without trial or legal counsel. Lie about everything even when caught and attack the press. Never admit mistakes or change course in light of new evidence. Create an atmosphere of fear and hopelessness.
Denounce democracy and dominate the religion of others.	Have the stupidity to announce in Muslim territory that the War in the Middle East is a “Crusade.” Refuse to allow American military and diplomatic personnel of Middle Eastern backgrounds or with gay inclinations to play any key roles in interpretation and decision making. Install “puppets” in power in occupied countries. Leave friendly dictators and drug running warlords in power. Denounce results of fairly conducted elections in Palestine, Venezuela, Peru and elsewhere when they put hostile parties in power. Attempt to destabilize or replace by force if necessary any democratically elected governments when they disagree with current US desires. Support our own fundamentalists’ agenda to the exclusion or diminution of other religions. Support Jerry Falwell and similar cronies, hacks and hypocrites. Act the eternal hypocrite.

Conclusion: If you want to find where Osama has been hiding since 9/11, perhaps you should search the West Wing of the White House first.

“CAN’T ANYONE IN CHARGE COUNT?”

Or, Why Sending 20,000 More Troops Is Just a Drop in a Bucket. . .of Blood

The President is currently insisting after almost four years, 3000 dead troops, seven times that or more injured or maimed and a couple trillion dollars (counting equipment replacements, future medical costs and wasted infrastructure rebuilding) that we can still have “victory” or “mission accomplished” in Iraq by simply adding another 20,000 or so to the approximately 135,000 US military already there. No wonder the investors lost money in all the companies Bush ran before fleeing to politics. He failed accounting.

In the first place, when I was in the military, the ratio out of all the military to those at the sharp end of the stick, in other words the “ground pounders” who go out and personally kicked in doors of suspected enemy, was only about one in ten. The rest were clerk-typists, truck drivers, instructors, and the like. I am not disparaging them because those jobs need to be done as well, but we need to focus on whether 20,000 uniformed bodies, even 20,000 front line combat veterans who have already earned combat infantry badges, makes the slightest sense.

Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that the giant, self propelled, bureaucracy known as the US Military has managed to cut that combat troop to support troop ratio in half by farming out potato peeling or counting those in high risk MOSs (military occupation specialties) such as military policemen and combat engineers. That would still mean only about 10,000 additional armed door kickers are available to do the job.

Let’s also assume that none of those get sick or are on leave and that they are diligently out there beyond the perimeter kicking in doors twelve hours a day seven days a week. That means that at any given moment, only about 5,000 are out and about at any one time. After all, they have to sleep and eat some portion of each day. That is about the number that attend a decent, but not championship, basketball game.
Now, 5,000 looks like a lot crammed closely together in a stadium. But, disburse them over a country the size of California and they become lost. That works out to about one pair of new boots on the ground for every 33 square miles of Iraq or 277 troops per province.

Let’s assume however that the 5,000 are not scatted geographically. Logically, most would be concentrated where the people are, in the cities. Let’s also assume that not a single one is put in the Kurdish areas which still like us to a certain extent. Since there are (or were) 26,074,906 people in Iraq, not counting the new terrorists migrating there from elsewhere, and since up to about 20% of those are Kurds, that means each proposed new trooper on patrol only has to suppress about 4,000+ Iraqi. Even Custer faced better odds than that. You couldn’t carry enough bullets per person to defend against that if they started mobbing.

Actually, to be fair, each new troop would not have to face 4,000 hostiles. Since there are already about 135,000 military in Iraq (not all of which are door kickers of course, but most can shoot in self defense), that would lower the odds. Still, very roughly, it is currently only one personal in US uniform per every 167 Iraqis. Adding another 20,000 targets for the Iraqis to shoot at doesn’t help much.

According to public opinion polls about 60% of Iraqis favor killing Americans in their country. Because that includes the Kurds, the percentage is presumably higher yet among the Shi'ite Muslims (who represent 60% of the population) and especially among the non-Kurd Sunni (who represent much of the balance and lost all their power once Saddam was gone).

The figure apparently rises to eight or nine out of ten Iraqis who want us to leave, but let’s ignore the ignoring of democratic opinion and concentrate just on the six out of ten who openly want our troops dead. Bush proposes to increase the number of imbedded US advisors within Iraq army units. Oh good, surround our boys with armed Iraqis, six out of ten who wouldn’t mind if a bullet went astray in the heat of battle toward those same unpopular US advisors/trainers. In Nam, unpopular offices got “fragged.” Will they be “Iraqed” in this new configuration?

Twenty thousand new troops, even quadruple that number, hardly seems adequate given the magnitude of the task. Would a million troops in Iraq be enough to bring “stability” and “democracy” to that country, especially given the previous disastrous policies we have been pursuing? That would reduce the occupying army ratio to suppressed citizenry down to a more manageable one to twenty or so.

It would be insanity of course to contemplate such a “surge” in troop numbers, not to mention fiscal suicide. According to on-line encyclopedias, as of 2004, there were only 1,450,689 active duty military personnel from all services including the Coast Guard. About ten percent of the grand total is already in Iraq. The National Guard and Reserves are already stretched to the breaking point. To even add 20,000 more means many soldiers (and indirectly their families) will have to risk third and four tours in a combat zone, something Bush himself was not willing to risk even once.

Bush has been granted an unprecedented carte blanche for two thirds of his Presidency to use whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted supervised by whomever he wanted to pursue whatever ends he wanted. Everyone except Bush has known for years however that the existing number of troops is not enough to accomplish any legitimate objection (even assuming there was one to begin with).

It’s time for some rigorous cost/benefit analysis. The question that must be asked now is whether it is even possible to add enough troops to accomplish anything. If not, then why the hell are we doing it? I'm no accountant, but it doesn’t seem to add up.