The United States cannot solve the problems of the world on its own, and the world cannot solve them without the United States.
As the world’s only remaining superpower, America has the ability to affect the behavior of other nations through coercion, economic strength and the power of attraction. Hard power relies on coercion and raw economic power. Soft power influences others through public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, exchange of ideas and culture - everything from Hollywood to Shakespeare to orchestras.
In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama informed all countries, friendly and unfriendly, that there was a new attitude in the White House. He advised those countries “on the wrong side of history” that the United States “will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.
During his first year in office, Obama followed through by launching negotiations with Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programs, searching for common ground with Russia on arms control and missile defense, and softening economic sanctions against Cuba.
The jury is still out on whether the Obama initiatives will bear fruit, but it is a start and a welcome improvement from the George W. Bush reliance on hard power. But much more must be done to translate Obama’s effective rhetoric into a softening of policy, a softening more likely to increase the security of America and the rest of the world. If President Obama were to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, then reduce the enormous US military budget, close some of the 761 US military bases in 147 countries, he would set the stage for America to inspire and lead the world by using the panoply of its soft power.
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW
U.S. Out of Iraq - NOW
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.
While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave "responsibly." What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?
Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?
Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.
If we are serious
President Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.
The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama captured the soul of the Democratic Party when he denounced the American invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, based on faulty and manipulated intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. His election to the presidency proved that the voters trusted him to end the war as he promised.
While Americans are grateful that this six year old war will soon be over, they wonder at the delay in pulling our troops from Iraq. More than 4000 Americans have been killed; more than 30,000 have been wounded in this war generally regarded as a mistake. Our military leaders say that we should leave "responsibly." What does that mean? Responsible to whom? To the Iraqis, whose public wants us to leave at once? To the corrupt Iraqi government whose leaders want us to stay as long as we supply the dollars?
Our first responsibility is to the men and women of the U. S. military. No more deaths. No more wounds. How would you like to be the last soldier to die for a mistake?
Obama promised a pullout within 16 months. Now, his senior officials tell the New York Times that will be extended to 19 months. How many Americans will be killed or wounded in those three months? Why? To protect the military equipment? Leave it there for the Iraqis. When we invaded, our operation against a shooting enemy took one month. Getting out should take the same one month.
If we are serious
President Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" to continue training Iraqis, to hunt down foreign terrorist cells, to guard the American Embassy and other American installations. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal. The residual tasks are what we have been doing for six years. Right now, there are about 142,000 American military in Iraq and a like number of civilian contractors working for us. The duties of the residual force indicate that at least 100,000 Americans would remain in Iraq in addition to a sizeable number of contractors to help them. Not the pullout we expected. And if the fragile truce between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds disintegrates, U.S. forces are likely to stay in Iraq.
The U.S. now has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries. The Middle East contains 60% of the oil on earth. The U.S. has commercial, political, financial and cultural interests in every country in the area, some of the interests valued in the trillions of dollars. Will Iraq become the 131st country? Will the residual force become the U.S. military base? Removing all U.S. troops from Iraq – NOW – may reverse our reliance on military power, restore our international reputation and encourage the use of “soft power” in pursuit of American interests.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Afghan Cemetery
The Afghan Cemetery
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.
As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.
Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he's determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”
The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”
Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.
Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don't stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit's living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.
Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.
By Jerome Grossman
President Obama indicated through his press secretary that his administration would review its policy toward Afghanistan before making a decision about sending additional troops to fight in that country. Richard Holbrooke, his envoy, was in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region talking with leaders about how best to address the military and political situation. Obama also met with advisers at the Pentagon and the State Department.
As recently as February 15, it was reported that Obama “is refusing to be rushed into his first decision to send troops into combat…… questioning the time table, the mission and even the composition of the new forces.” However, Obama changed his mind on February 17, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country, joining the 30,000 U.S. troops already there.
Obama will be sending more troops to Afghanistan before he has begun to fulfill a promised rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His order leaves crucial questions of strategy and tactics in Afghanistan unanswered until the strategy review is completed in April. Antiwar groups criticized Obama’s decision. Tom Andrews, director of Win Without War said, “The president is committing these troops before he's determined what the mission is….. We need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation.”
The hasty decision ignored the many negative comments about the prospects for a U.S. victory. General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan “the graveyard of empires”. Holbrooke reported “a purely military victory is not achievable.” British historians furnish the details of their three failed military attempts to pacify the country. Twenty years after the troops of the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in defeat, the last Russian general to command them said on Feb 13 that the Soviets’ devastating experience, losing more than 15,000 troops in Afghanistan battling guerrillas “is a dismal omen for the U.S.”
Supporters of expanded U.S. military operations in Afghanistan cite the successes of the American military against the Taliban in October and November, 2001, immediately after the tragedy of September 11. However, that victory was accomplished by air power and bribery. Airpower prevented Taliban military operations. Hundred dollar bills bought warlord allies in this corrupt country whose main product is opium.
Can we do it again, bribing our way through the drug lords? Perhaps. But history shows that Afghans don't stay bought and that the guerrillas motivated by rebellion and nationalism will fight the invaders for hundreds of years, making a bandit's living out of their tactics as they have done for time immemorial.
Don’t think that General Petraeus does not know how to use money as a weapon. While he was installing the “Surge” in Iraq adding 30,000 fresh troops with great fanfare, he was quietly bribing the insurgent Sunnis with $20 dollar bills and rifles, paying 100,000 warriors to stop fighting the Americans.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Where is the Change?
Where is the Change?
By Jerome Grossman
Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.
Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?
Obama’s foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.
Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures?
During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, “We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama’s emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.
And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction.
Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama’s list.
Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president?
By Jerome Grossman
Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.
Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?
Obama’s foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.
Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures?
During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, “We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama’s emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.
And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction.
Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama’s list.
Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president?
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Don't Help GM and Ford
Don't Help GM and Ford
By Jerome Grossman
Please don't help General Motors and Ford. Loaning them $25 billion to ride out the world-wide economic perfect storm would be a waste of money. Every patriotic American knows that it is more important to save Baghdad than Detroit, or to put 100,000 Sunnis on the US payroll in Anbar Province for doing nothing, our current policy. Money for the automobile companies could be better spent in Iraq looking for Saddam Hussein's fictitious weapons of mass destruction. The funds saved in Michigan could be given to the Halliburton Corporation for one of their no-bid contracts. There will be plenty of opportunities to spend even more in Iraq now that the government there is about to authorize our presence for the next three years - and maybe longer if enough Iraqis rebel against our occupation and Iraq doesn’t run out of oil. No problem about the money. We have already spent about one trillion dollars in Iraq on an invasion based on lies told to the United Nations and the US Congress. And we didn’t even have a plan, ask Bush and Rumsfeld. Just like GM and Ford don't have a plan. And the generals and government officials and Members of Congress get to fly to Iraq in specially equipped US military jets, flights that cost $100,000 each, just to get their names in the newspapers to tell us that we are winning but whisper that we must stay as long as Iraq has oil and favors US oil companies. Hey, it's only money, better spent in Baghdad than Detroit or to pay for the 700 military bases we have in 130 other countries. First things first.
By Jerome Grossman
Please don't help General Motors and Ford. Loaning them $25 billion to ride out the world-wide economic perfect storm would be a waste of money. Every patriotic American knows that it is more important to save Baghdad than Detroit, or to put 100,000 Sunnis on the US payroll in Anbar Province for doing nothing, our current policy. Money for the automobile companies could be better spent in Iraq looking for Saddam Hussein's fictitious weapons of mass destruction. The funds saved in Michigan could be given to the Halliburton Corporation for one of their no-bid contracts. There will be plenty of opportunities to spend even more in Iraq now that the government there is about to authorize our presence for the next three years - and maybe longer if enough Iraqis rebel against our occupation and Iraq doesn’t run out of oil. No problem about the money. We have already spent about one trillion dollars in Iraq on an invasion based on lies told to the United Nations and the US Congress. And we didn’t even have a plan, ask Bush and Rumsfeld. Just like GM and Ford don't have a plan. And the generals and government officials and Members of Congress get to fly to Iraq in specially equipped US military jets, flights that cost $100,000 each, just to get their names in the newspapers to tell us that we are winning but whisper that we must stay as long as Iraq has oil and favors US oil companies. Hey, it's only money, better spent in Baghdad than Detroit or to pay for the 700 military bases we have in 130 other countries. First things first.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Dollars and Diplomacy
Dollars and Diplomacy
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the “surge” troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
By Jerome Grossman
Barack Obama and John McCain dispute the reasons for the decline in violence in Iraq, now at its lowest level in years. McCain emphasizes the effectiveness of the “surge” troops, 30,000 additional American combat soldiers. Obama appreciates the surge but emphasizes the political rapprochement between Iraqi factions. Neither Obama nor McCain give us the whole story and its implications for the future.
Before the 30,000 surge there were about 150,000 coalition forces in Iraq, mostly American and mostly combat soldiers. However, another 150,000 contractors were on the scene working for the US military, not in uniform but armed for self protection, feeding the troops, guarding US installations, repairing damaged sites, etc., doing what American uniformed soldiers have always done in past wars, but this time working for private contractors for high wages and corporate profits. The point is that the total Allied force was 300,000 making the surge increase only ten percent.
The decrease in violence was located in all of Iraq, yet the 30,000 surge was concentrated in Baghdad. In that city the troops concentrated on weakening the Mahdi Army, a militia controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric close to Iran who had already issued a cease-fire order to his minions.
The surge operation in Baghdad was aided by a new program called Sons of Iraq that employed Sunnis who were formerly insurgents, paying them $10 a day and giving them guns for their pseudo police powers. This strategy had already worked in Anbar province well before the start of the surge. There, the US military hired 90,000 Sunnis at $30 a month plus guns to maintain order and to disarm the few Al Qaeda partisans who had infiltrated into the country from foreign lands. Part of the Sunni motivation in accepting the American deal was to prepare themselves for the show-down when the US forces leave Iraq.
Iran may have been included in the arrangements. Neither the US command in Iraq nor their superiors in Washington are now accusing Iran of supporting insurgency in Iraq, quite a change from previous charges. In addition, cleric al-Sadr, still close to Iran, has shut down his militia. And the US does not have an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf for the first time in decades. The whole world has noticed that William Burns, the number three person in the US State Department, participated in a meeting with a representative of Iran, the first such meeting since 1979.
Has a deal been made? If so, the surge may have been the cover story for US home consumption, while the real story was investment in dollars and diplomacy.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Axis of Evil
Axis of Evil
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush has decided to abandon his long-standing position that his administration would not meet face-to-face with Iran until Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment program. A senior American official recently participated in talks with Iranian officials, the first such meeting since the seizure of the US Embassy by Iranian militants in Tehran in 1979.
This policy shift followed President Bush's announcement in late June that the United States would remove North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. This was in response to progress in the effort with Asian nations to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then met with the North Korean Foreign Minister.
In late July, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malakai insisted that the United States agree to a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. President Bush and General Petraeus agree with him in principle although not on a precise date.
These dramatic changes in administration policies have astonished the world and infuriated hard-liners -- many of whom once worked for Bush. The harsh rhetoric, the name calling, the military threats made against these nations have diminished. The "Axis of Evil" used by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address is no longer part of his vocabulary.
The invasion of Iraq is now almost universally regarded as a mistake. The diplomatic maneuvers with North Korea and Iran are clearly the better road to solutions of long-standing differences, solutions with low cost in lives and treasure.
As Winston Churchill remarked at a White House luncheon in 1954 at the height of the Cold War, "It is better to jaw - jaw than to war - war."
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush has decided to abandon his long-standing position that his administration would not meet face-to-face with Iran until Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment program. A senior American official recently participated in talks with Iranian officials, the first such meeting since the seizure of the US Embassy by Iranian militants in Tehran in 1979.
This policy shift followed President Bush's announcement in late June that the United States would remove North Korea from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. This was in response to progress in the effort with Asian nations to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then met with the North Korean Foreign Minister.
In late July, Prime Minister Nuri al-Malakai insisted that the United States agree to a timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. President Bush and General Petraeus agree with him in principle although not on a precise date.
These dramatic changes in administration policies have astonished the world and infuriated hard-liners -- many of whom once worked for Bush. The harsh rhetoric, the name calling, the military threats made against these nations have diminished. The "Axis of Evil" used by Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address is no longer part of his vocabulary.
The invasion of Iraq is now almost universally regarded as a mistake. The diplomatic maneuvers with North Korea and Iran are clearly the better road to solutions of long-standing differences, solutions with low cost in lives and treasure.
As Winston Churchill remarked at a White House luncheon in 1954 at the height of the Cold War, "It is better to jaw - jaw than to war - war."
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Obama and McCain on Iraq
Obama and McCain on Iraq
By Jerome Grossman
Whether Barack Obama or John McCain is elected president, it is difficult to imagine a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
McCain insists on complete victory, refuses to ask Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their own future, and has completely changed his own stated position that he would leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask us.
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has indeed asked for a set timetable for US withdrawal but the silence from Bush, McCain and Obama has been deafening. McCain has forsworn deadlines for troop withdrawal without support for al-Maliki's position.
Obama's reaction is loaded with hedges:” If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground."
Obama approaches his consultations with the military in a defensive position. “Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform." Does this sentiment weaken the historic civilian control of the US military?
MSNBC's crack reporter David Gregory interprets Obama: "When Obama says we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that's the line, that's a signal that says he's not yanking (troops) out right away." Careless is a gross understatement, leaving unsaid the misrepresentations and lies on intelligence, on weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US ignoring the refusal of the Security Council of the United Nations to give legal sanctions to the US invasion.
In any case, both McCain and Obama plan for a residual US military force to fight Al Qaeda and insurgents, to train the Iraqi military, and to protect the US Embassy and US military bases in Iraq. That is the likely key to US policy in Iraq under either administration. The US is the dominant military, economic and political power on the planet and surely wants to remain in that position. It is inconceivable that the US would give up its control of the Middle East, an area that contains more than 40% of the oil reserves on earth. We now know that the supply of oil is finite, that modern society cannot function without oil, that the price of oil can be stretched to extraordinary heights. We cannot and will not walk away from the trillions of dollars involved and the power over all other nations we can exercise by control of oil.
After the investments the US has made in life, treasure and reputation, after the incompetence of the Bush administration in destroying the system it had in place for dominating the area without US troops, the American empire is surely not going to divest itself of this incalculable asset. No other empire in human history has done that. We won't either.
By Jerome Grossman
Whether Barack Obama or John McCain is elected president, it is difficult to imagine a full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
McCain insists on complete victory, refuses to ask Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their own future, and has completely changed his own stated position that he would leave Iraq when the Iraqis ask us.
Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki has indeed asked for a set timetable for US withdrawal but the silence from Bush, McCain and Obama has been deafening. McCain has forsworn deadlines for troop withdrawal without support for al-Maliki's position.
Obama's reaction is loaded with hedges:” If current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground."
Obama approaches his consultations with the military in a defensive position. “Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform." Does this sentiment weaken the historic civilian control of the US military?
MSNBC's crack reporter David Gregory interprets Obama: "When Obama says we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that's the line, that's a signal that says he's not yanking (troops) out right away." Careless is a gross understatement, leaving unsaid the misrepresentations and lies on intelligence, on weapons of mass destruction, as well as the US ignoring the refusal of the Security Council of the United Nations to give legal sanctions to the US invasion.
In any case, both McCain and Obama plan for a residual US military force to fight Al Qaeda and insurgents, to train the Iraqi military, and to protect the US Embassy and US military bases in Iraq. That is the likely key to US policy in Iraq under either administration. The US is the dominant military, economic and political power on the planet and surely wants to remain in that position. It is inconceivable that the US would give up its control of the Middle East, an area that contains more than 40% of the oil reserves on earth. We now know that the supply of oil is finite, that modern society cannot function without oil, that the price of oil can be stretched to extraordinary heights. We cannot and will not walk away from the trillions of dollars involved and the power over all other nations we can exercise by control of oil.
After the investments the US has made in life, treasure and reputation, after the incompetence of the Bush administration in destroying the system it had in place for dominating the area without US troops, the American empire is surely not going to divest itself of this incalculable asset. No other empire in human history has done that. We won't either.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Cost of Iraq War
The Cost of Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
Long-term estimates of the financial costs of the Iraq war range from one trillion to three trillion dollars. That is not a misprint. The number is actually" trillion," that is one thousand billion, an astronomical number difficult to comprehend when translated into dollars.
Here are some of the costs components: soldiers pay, cost of equipment and military materiel, subsidies for training and equipping the Iraqi military, reconstruction of destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, replacement of U.S.military equipment destroyed or worn out in combat, extended care of U.S. wounded soldiers that may last a lifetime, bribery of the Sunni Sheiks, no-bid contracts to favored companies and much more.
After more then five years of warfare, invasion and occupation without resolution, American taxpayers should be angry about this waste. Eighty percent of Americans believe the war was a mistake. Two thirds believe American troops should leave Iraq. Why aren't they acting out as their ancestors did in 1776 against the stamp tax and the tax on tea? For the first time in U.S. history, there is no war tax. As a consequence, people do not see the vast amount of GDP that goes to the war as the lost output that it is. Nor do they feel the cost of the borrowing that will be paid in years to come. If every American was required to pay a war tax for the Iraq War, the war would end tomorrow.
The question naturally arises of what else our country could have done with the money. Barack Obama told voters in West Virginia" that the war was costing each American household $100 a month. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war."
Hillary Clinton said in Indiana recently that the war was costing $12 billion a month "and was crowding out urgent national needs. We've got to begin not only to withdraw our troops, but bring that money back home."
On the other hand, John McCain says repeatedly that success in Iraq justifies any cost and that overspending in other areas is causing the strain on the federal budget. He says that the government can afford whatever the war costs as well as a big corporate tax cut if it reins in wasteful federal spending.
Whether the cost of the war is current or deferred, Obama and Clinton are correct. Bring home the troops. Bring home the money. Care for the veterans. Care for the American people. Rebuild America's infrastructure. Restore America's reputation. It can be done and will be done.
By Jerome Grossman
Long-term estimates of the financial costs of the Iraq war range from one trillion to three trillion dollars. That is not a misprint. The number is actually" trillion," that is one thousand billion, an astronomical number difficult to comprehend when translated into dollars.
Here are some of the costs components: soldiers pay, cost of equipment and military materiel, subsidies for training and equipping the Iraqi military, reconstruction of destroyed Iraqi infrastructure, replacement of U.S.military equipment destroyed or worn out in combat, extended care of U.S. wounded soldiers that may last a lifetime, bribery of the Sunni Sheiks, no-bid contracts to favored companies and much more.
After more then five years of warfare, invasion and occupation without resolution, American taxpayers should be angry about this waste. Eighty percent of Americans believe the war was a mistake. Two thirds believe American troops should leave Iraq. Why aren't they acting out as their ancestors did in 1776 against the stamp tax and the tax on tea? For the first time in U.S. history, there is no war tax. As a consequence, people do not see the vast amount of GDP that goes to the war as the lost output that it is. Nor do they feel the cost of the borrowing that will be paid in years to come. If every American was required to pay a war tax for the Iraq War, the war would end tomorrow.
The question naturally arises of what else our country could have done with the money. Barack Obama told voters in West Virginia" that the war was costing each American household $100 a month. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war."
Hillary Clinton said in Indiana recently that the war was costing $12 billion a month "and was crowding out urgent national needs. We've got to begin not only to withdraw our troops, but bring that money back home."
On the other hand, John McCain says repeatedly that success in Iraq justifies any cost and that overspending in other areas is causing the strain on the federal budget. He says that the government can afford whatever the war costs as well as a big corporate tax cut if it reins in wasteful federal spending.
Whether the cost of the war is current or deferred, Obama and Clinton are correct. Bring home the troops. Bring home the money. Care for the veterans. Care for the American people. Rebuild America's infrastructure. Restore America's reputation. It can be done and will be done.
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
The Ignored Costs of the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
By Jerome Grossman
Five years into the war in Iraq, the nation awaits the day of reckoning for the enormous cost of this misbegotten adventure, conceived in ignorance, conducted in arrogance and staining our democracy. The saddest costs are suffered by American soldiers, 4000 deaths and 40,000 wounded; the millions of Iraqis killed or wounded or displaced; and the monetary cost to the U.S. taxpayer now estimated at $3 trillion.
But there are many other hidden costs damaging to our nation that President Bush ignores when he describes this cruel war as "noble, necessary, and just", contrary to world opinion, contrary to friend and foe.
The Costs Ignored:
• U.S. intelligence has been discredited as inaccurate and politicized
• U.S. Is known worldwide as a nation that uses torture as an instrument of policy
• The war has increased the military power and political influence of Iran
• The war has put internal and external pressure on key U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan
• The war has affected Israel by weakening the governments of Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel
• The war has diminished the reputation of the U.S. in every country and dramatically increased hostility to the U.S. in the Muslim world, affecting the sales of American products
• The war has driven up the cost of oil
• The war has indicated the vulnerability of the U.S. military to guerrilla strategy and tactics
• The war cost is curtailing our country's ability to solve urgent domestic problems of infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc...
The war in Iraq is a costly failure at every level. It must be ended at the earliest possible time to save lives and money in order to establish a sane and sensible foreign policy that will truly protect our country and rebuild U.S. relationships and reputation.
It won’t be easy for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Resistance will come from imperial ambition, domestic political advantage, and oil business interests.. The argument will be made that withdrawal from Iraq without victory might stimulate similar demands in the 130 countries where the U.S. has a total of 737 bases.
And finally, we should remember the experience of other great powers. From 1882 until 1922, the British promised the international community 66 times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did until they were forced out.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Obama Style
The Obama Style
By Jerome Grossman
The Almanac of American Politics writes about Barack Obama, “Politics always seems to have been on his mind. In 1992 he worked on voter registration for the Democratic ticket. In 1996 he ran for the state Senate and was unopposed in the decisive Democratic primary. Next came a political misstep: in 2000 he ran in the primary against First District Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush...... Rush was endorsed by Bill Clinton and won 61% to 30%......... In October 2002 he made a public statement opposing the Iraq war resolution. ' I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.............. “Perfect. Obama clearly understood the dangerous situation. He was absolutely correct in resisting the drive to war.
Obama was not a native of Chicago but his wife was. Given his political ambitions, it was easy to understand why he joined the largest African - American church in the city; a church led by the most charismatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. For twenty years Obama attended, grew close to Wright, absorbed his sermons, and asked him to officiate at his marriage and the baptisms of his daughters. Whether or not Obama agreed with Wright in his attacks on racism in America that also included AIDS as an American conspiracy, class warfare rants, awards to anti-Semite Farrakhan, and "God damn America" diatribes, Obama did not object or even try to modify the pastor's actions and rhetoric. And he did not leave the church and the associations that have helped his political career. Was that the political compromise?
Obama has proven repeatedly by his actions and his rhetoric that he is a natural conciliator so his failure to try to modify the explosive situation in his church is unsettling. There is a parallel in the way he acted out his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, one would have expected that he would have used his position to advance his deeply held views on this matter of life and death for so many Americans and Iraqis, the way freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia did, as Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and African-American Congressman John Conyers of Michigan do, day by day, bill by bill. Obama did nothing wrong. His votes on Iraq were fine, no complaints there, but he did not seize the initiative, there for the asking, to insist, to dramatize, to demand, to be a center of dissent on Iraq. Was that a political decision to stay with the party consensus while exploring a run for the presidency? Is this the pattern of Obama's political style: political safety in a swirl of brilliant rhetoric and analysis but avoiding decisive action? Is politics always on his mind? At the church in Chicago, at the Senate in Washington, it was and is a question of leadership.
By Jerome Grossman
The Almanac of American Politics writes about Barack Obama, “Politics always seems to have been on his mind. In 1992 he worked on voter registration for the Democratic ticket. In 1996 he ran for the state Senate and was unopposed in the decisive Democratic primary. Next came a political misstep: in 2000 he ran in the primary against First District Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush...... Rush was endorsed by Bill Clinton and won 61% to 30%......... In October 2002 he made a public statement opposing the Iraq war resolution. ' I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. “I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to dumb wars.............. “Perfect. Obama clearly understood the dangerous situation. He was absolutely correct in resisting the drive to war.
Obama was not a native of Chicago but his wife was. Given his political ambitions, it was easy to understand why he joined the largest African - American church in the city; a church led by the most charismatic pastor, Jeremiah Wright. For twenty years Obama attended, grew close to Wright, absorbed his sermons, and asked him to officiate at his marriage and the baptisms of his daughters. Whether or not Obama agreed with Wright in his attacks on racism in America that also included AIDS as an American conspiracy, class warfare rants, awards to anti-Semite Farrakhan, and "God damn America" diatribes, Obama did not object or even try to modify the pastor's actions and rhetoric. And he did not leave the church and the associations that have helped his political career. Was that the political compromise?
Obama has proven repeatedly by his actions and his rhetoric that he is a natural conciliator so his failure to try to modify the explosive situation in his church is unsettling. There is a parallel in the way he acted out his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, one would have expected that he would have used his position to advance his deeply held views on this matter of life and death for so many Americans and Iraqis, the way freshman Senator James Webb of Virginia did, as Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and African-American Congressman John Conyers of Michigan do, day by day, bill by bill. Obama did nothing wrong. His votes on Iraq were fine, no complaints there, but he did not seize the initiative, there for the asking, to insist, to dramatize, to demand, to be a center of dissent on Iraq. Was that a political decision to stay with the party consensus while exploring a run for the presidency? Is this the pattern of Obama's political style: political safety in a swirl of brilliant rhetoric and analysis but avoiding decisive action? Is politics always on his mind? At the church in Chicago, at the Senate in Washington, it was and is a question of leadership.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. This week, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced Senate Bill 2633 to redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq. It requires that after 120 days, funding in Iraq be limited to the following: conducting targeted military operations against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, training Iraq security forces, providing equipment and training to U.S. troops, and continuing to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.
The activities listed in Senate Bill 2633 essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
While calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress, including Senators Clinton and Obama, are actually providing for an American residual military force in Iraq that will have responsibilities there for many years to come. Is that what the American people want?
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. This week, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced Senate Bill 2633 to redeploy U.S. combat troops from Iraq. It requires that after 120 days, funding in Iraq be limited to the following: conducting targeted military operations against Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure, training Iraq security forces, providing equipment and training to U.S. troops, and continuing to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.
The activities listed in Senate Bill 2633 essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
While calling for the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, the Democrats in Congress, including Senators Clinton and Obama, are actually providing for an American residual military force in Iraq that will have responsibilities there for many years to come. Is that what the American people want?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Costs of the Iraq War
The Costs of the Iraq War
By Jerome Grossman
About two thirds of Americans now regard the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq as a serious mistake. The mistake was planned and organized by President George W. Bush and his administration with the help of too many Democrats who went along with his imperial fantasy. Too many Americans, carried away by superpower imperial glory, expected an easy victory at low cost.
They were wrong. Whether or not military victory will have been achieved at some future time, the costs have been high and far more than the anticipated benefits.
Some of the costs are painfully obvious. About 4,000 U.S. military deaths, about 40,000 U.S. military wounded, Iraqi insurgents and civilians killed and wounded estimated at one million; Iraqis who have fled their homes and their country to foreign lands estimated at two million; cost to the U.S. taxpayer estimated at one or two trillion dollars depending on eventual length of the war; the dramatic decline in U.S. reputation among the 1.3 billion Muslims and most nations, a decline that is harming U.S. business and diplomatic interests.
Some of the costs are less obvious. The power and influence of Iran in the Middle East has been greatly increased. The Sunni regime in Iraq that was a buffer to Iranian expansion was overthrown and succeeded by a Shiite regime friendly to Shiite Iran. If and when the U. S. military leaves Iraq, the new Shiite bloc might threaten traditional U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
Perhaps the most important costs to the U.S. have been the increase in the price of oil which has doubled since 2002, driven up by the Iraq war to $90-$100 per barrel. As the American consumer increases his insatiable consumption of oil and gasoline, the flow of these liquids is matched by the flow of U.S. dollars to oil suppliers.
When the oil producers were buying U.S. Treasury bonds, the effects were minimal. However, the oil royalty have modified their financial strategy by using their U.S. dollars to buy U.S. assets, taking large positions in Citigroup, News Corp., Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, Pepsi, Time Warner, and Walt Disney, to name only a few. Land, real estate, and skyscrapers are also targets. And the sophisticated investors have hired prominent American bankers, media experts and Washington lobbyists to protect their interests in the U.S. This represents an historic transfer of wealth, unprecedented in human history, financial conquest without firing a shot.
By Jerome Grossman
About two thirds of Americans now regard the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq as a serious mistake. The mistake was planned and organized by President George W. Bush and his administration with the help of too many Democrats who went along with his imperial fantasy. Too many Americans, carried away by superpower imperial glory, expected an easy victory at low cost.
They were wrong. Whether or not military victory will have been achieved at some future time, the costs have been high and far more than the anticipated benefits.
Some of the costs are painfully obvious. About 4,000 U.S. military deaths, about 40,000 U.S. military wounded, Iraqi insurgents and civilians killed and wounded estimated at one million; Iraqis who have fled their homes and their country to foreign lands estimated at two million; cost to the U.S. taxpayer estimated at one or two trillion dollars depending on eventual length of the war; the dramatic decline in U.S. reputation among the 1.3 billion Muslims and most nations, a decline that is harming U.S. business and diplomatic interests.
Some of the costs are less obvious. The power and influence of Iran in the Middle East has been greatly increased. The Sunni regime in Iraq that was a buffer to Iranian expansion was overthrown and succeeded by a Shiite regime friendly to Shiite Iran. If and when the U. S. military leaves Iraq, the new Shiite bloc might threaten traditional U.S. allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.
Perhaps the most important costs to the U.S. have been the increase in the price of oil which has doubled since 2002, driven up by the Iraq war to $90-$100 per barrel. As the American consumer increases his insatiable consumption of oil and gasoline, the flow of these liquids is matched by the flow of U.S. dollars to oil suppliers.
When the oil producers were buying U.S. Treasury bonds, the effects were minimal. However, the oil royalty have modified their financial strategy by using their U.S. dollars to buy U.S. assets, taking large positions in Citigroup, News Corp., Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, Pepsi, Time Warner, and Walt Disney, to name only a few. Land, real estate, and skyscrapers are also targets. And the sophisticated investors have hired prominent American bankers, media experts and Washington lobbyists to protect their interests in the U.S. This represents an historic transfer of wealth, unprecedented in human history, financial conquest without firing a shot.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
Will the U.S. ever Leave Iraq?
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. The exact wording is listed below.
While public opinion is dominated by opposition to this military adventure and by desire for withdrawal, few Americans read the fine print that allows continued occupation. Democratic office holders and presidential candidates do not discuss the details and agree on the maintenance of the residual force. And the media do not inform Americans about this key section.
In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal of November 12 writes, “U.S. digs in to guard Iraq oil exports. Long-term presence planned at Persian Gulf terminals viewed as vulnerable. While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking any time soon.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Bill H.R. 4156, November 13, 2007
Title 1 – Policy on redeployment and conduct of operations in Iraq
Section 105 (e)After the conclusion of the reduction in transition of the United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:
1. Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed Forces, and American citizens.
2. Conducting limited training, equipping, and providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security forces.
3. Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al- Qaeda, al- Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The activities listed in H.R. 4156 section 105 (e) essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
Given the importance to U.S. world hegemony of Middle East oil and gas reserves, protection of U.S. client states (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel), current construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq (the largest in the world), the refusal of the leading Democratic candidates for president and the Democratic Congress to commit to full withdrawal, it is most likely that Iraq will have a permanent American garrison of considerable size for the indefinite future.
By Jerome Grossman
Since achieving majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats in Congress have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only one bill was passed by both bodies and that was vetoed by Bush.
However, every one of the 40 bills contained a special section providing for a residual U.S. military force to remain in Iraq with no time limit to perform the military tasks U.S. forces are now doing. The exact wording is listed below.
While public opinion is dominated by opposition to this military adventure and by desire for withdrawal, few Americans read the fine print that allows continued occupation. Democratic office holders and presidential candidates do not discuss the details and agree on the maintenance of the residual force. And the media do not inform Americans about this key section.
In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal of November 12 writes, “U.S. digs in to guard Iraq oil exports. Long-term presence planned at Persian Gulf terminals viewed as vulnerable. While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking any time soon.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Bill H.R. 4156, November 13, 2007
Title 1 – Policy on redeployment and conduct of operations in Iraq
Section 105 (e)After the conclusion of the reduction in transition of the United States Armed Forces to a limited presence as required by this section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following missions:
1. Protecting United States diplomatic facilities, United States Armed Forces, and American citizens.
2. Conducting limited training, equipping, and providing logistical and intelligence support to the Iraqi Security forces.
3. Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al- Qaeda, al- Qaeda affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations in Iraq.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The activities listed in H.R. 4156 section 105 (e) essentially cover the current programs of the U.S. military in Iraq. These programs are now carried out by 162,000 troops. A continuation as specified in the bill would require approximately the same number of troops. Any reductions are likely to be token in size and cosmetic in purpose.
Given the importance to U.S. world hegemony of Middle East oil and gas reserves, protection of U.S. client states (Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Israel), current construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq (the largest in the world), the refusal of the leading Democratic candidates for president and the Democratic Congress to commit to full withdrawal, it is most likely that Iraq will have a permanent American garrison of considerable size for the indefinite future.
Friday, November 2, 2007
It’s the Oil, Stupid
It’s the Oil, Stupid
By Jerome Grossman
While President Bush praises the invasion of Iraq as spreading freedom, while the Democrats in Congress are overcome with admiration for the U.S. troops installing democracy by the barrel of a gun, the rest of the world is saying, “It's the oil, stupid.”
The U.S. is stuck in the Middle East, just where it wants to be, without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave, not as long as the area contains 60% of world oil reserves and 40% of world natural gas reserves.
Do the math. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, more than five times the total in the United States. In addition, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. It has been estimated that Iraq has 300 billion, yes billion, barrels of undiscovered oil. U.S. forces are now occupying in Iraq one quarter of the world's oil reserves. And these forces are now in position to protect the oil of Saudi Arabia and to threaten the oil of Iran.
At today's prices, which may be low given that consumer demand is growing in China, India, etc., the value of Iraqi oil would be about $30 trillion. The projected cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation is about $1 trillion. I won't try to evaluate the 4000 U.S. dead soldiers and 90,000 U.S. wounded.
Was the strategy of invading Iraq for its oil reserves developed at the secret meeting of the Energy Task Force in late 2001 organized by Vice-President Cheney? The oil and energy executives attending discussed the world situation at length but the administration refuses to release the details. But they can't fool Alan Greenspan, who was clear on the matter in his new book: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraqi War is largely about oil.”
While the immense profits were certainly part of the overall plan together with eliminating a dedicated opponent of Israel, neither the money nor Israel was decisive. Probably more important was control of the oil as a tool, or perhaps a weapon in support of U.S. world hegemony. Modern industrial nations require oil for productivity and consumer satisfaction. Crossing the interests of the U.S. will carry the risk of being shut off from the indispensable liquid. The invasion/occupation of Iraq was more than a defensive measure for oil supplies; it gave the U.S. a potent offensive tool to keep other nations in line with American policies.
By Jerome Grossman
While President Bush praises the invasion of Iraq as spreading freedom, while the Democrats in Congress are overcome with admiration for the U.S. troops installing democracy by the barrel of a gun, the rest of the world is saying, “It's the oil, stupid.”
The U.S. is stuck in the Middle East, just where it wants to be, without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave, not as long as the area contains 60% of world oil reserves and 40% of world natural gas reserves.
Do the math. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves, more than five times the total in the United States. In addition, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. It has been estimated that Iraq has 300 billion, yes billion, barrels of undiscovered oil. U.S. forces are now occupying in Iraq one quarter of the world's oil reserves. And these forces are now in position to protect the oil of Saudi Arabia and to threaten the oil of Iran.
At today's prices, which may be low given that consumer demand is growing in China, India, etc., the value of Iraqi oil would be about $30 trillion. The projected cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation is about $1 trillion. I won't try to evaluate the 4000 U.S. dead soldiers and 90,000 U.S. wounded.
Was the strategy of invading Iraq for its oil reserves developed at the secret meeting of the Energy Task Force in late 2001 organized by Vice-President Cheney? The oil and energy executives attending discussed the world situation at length but the administration refuses to release the details. But they can't fool Alan Greenspan, who was clear on the matter in his new book: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraqi War is largely about oil.”
While the immense profits were certainly part of the overall plan together with eliminating a dedicated opponent of Israel, neither the money nor Israel was decisive. Probably more important was control of the oil as a tool, or perhaps a weapon in support of U.S. world hegemony. Modern industrial nations require oil for productivity and consumer satisfaction. Crossing the interests of the U.S. will carry the risk of being shut off from the indispensable liquid. The invasion/occupation of Iraq was more than a defensive measure for oil supplies; it gave the U.S. a potent offensive tool to keep other nations in line with American policies.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Better to Jaw-Jaw Than to War-War
Better to Jaw-Jaw than to War-War
By Jerome Grossman
In the last five years we should have learned that military intervention in the Middle East is difficult, bloody, and expensive. The enormous advantages of the U.S. in equipment and trained personnel have not brought victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The indigenous unorganized resistance has found ways to counter the awesome organized superpower.
Nevertheless, as incredible as it may appear, the Bush administration is moving our nation closer to another costly invasion in the Middle East, this time against Iran. It will be billed as virtually cost free; fire-power from the naval battle groups now in the Persian Gulf, B-2 bombers flying in from Missouri, primed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq and any people who get in the way.
Also destroyed will be what is left of America's reputation. For the 1.3 billion Muslims world- wide, attacking three Muslim nations simultaneously will have all the earmarks of another crusade against them. They can be expected to attack U.S. interests everywhere. To the rest of the world of other faiths or no faith, a third war will be conclusive evidence of the determination of the U.S. to crush any challenge to its world hegemony.
Already, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has told his soldiers to prepare for more “unconventional” wars, that is, wars where the weak resisters become guerrillas with homemade weapons and tactics. Will this take the rest of the century?
This scenario is not in the long-term interests of the United States. Our quarrels with Iran over its nuclear programs can be negotiated through the International Atomic Energy Agency in a manner similar to the current successful solution to North Korea's nuclear program. Our objections to Iran's influence in Iraq can and should be negotiated by the so-called free and democratically elected government of Iraq, supported by the U.S.
Diplomacy should be the initial response to international arguments before sanctions and international pressure. Military action is a last resort and then only with the broadest international support, hopefully with the blessing of the United Nations. The government of Iran has repeatedly asked for meetings and negotiations but the U.S. response has been military threats and Congressional resolutions so harsh that they have been described on the floor of the U.S. Senate as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
The stakes for the U.S. and the entire world are enormous. Let us remember the advice of a warrior, Winston Churchill, “Better to jaw-jaw, than to war-war.”
By Jerome Grossman
In the last five years we should have learned that military intervention in the Middle East is difficult, bloody, and expensive. The enormous advantages of the U.S. in equipment and trained personnel have not brought victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. The indigenous unorganized resistance has found ways to counter the awesome organized superpower.
Nevertheless, as incredible as it may appear, the Bush administration is moving our nation closer to another costly invasion in the Middle East, this time against Iran. It will be billed as virtually cost free; fire-power from the naval battle groups now in the Persian Gulf, B-2 bombers flying in from Missouri, primed to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq and any people who get in the way.
Also destroyed will be what is left of America's reputation. For the 1.3 billion Muslims world- wide, attacking three Muslim nations simultaneously will have all the earmarks of another crusade against them. They can be expected to attack U.S. interests everywhere. To the rest of the world of other faiths or no faith, a third war will be conclusive evidence of the determination of the U.S. to crush any challenge to its world hegemony.
Already, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has told his soldiers to prepare for more “unconventional” wars, that is, wars where the weak resisters become guerrillas with homemade weapons and tactics. Will this take the rest of the century?
This scenario is not in the long-term interests of the United States. Our quarrels with Iran over its nuclear programs can be negotiated through the International Atomic Energy Agency in a manner similar to the current successful solution to North Korea's nuclear program. Our objections to Iran's influence in Iraq can and should be negotiated by the so-called free and democratically elected government of Iraq, supported by the U.S.
Diplomacy should be the initial response to international arguments before sanctions and international pressure. Military action is a last resort and then only with the broadest international support, hopefully with the blessing of the United Nations. The government of Iran has repeatedly asked for meetings and negotiations but the U.S. response has been military threats and Congressional resolutions so harsh that they have been described on the floor of the U.S. Senate as “tantamount to a declaration of war.”
The stakes for the U.S. and the entire world are enormous. Let us remember the advice of a warrior, Winston Churchill, “Better to jaw-jaw, than to war-war.”
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
? Divide Iraq into Three States?
? Divide Iraq into Three States?
By Jerome Grossman
For several years, Senator Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been promoting a division of Iraq into three separate states, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, linked by a weak federal government. The theory is that the separation will allow each group to organize itself in accordance with its own traditions and objectives, to adopt separate policies, to elect its own leaders, thereby minimizing conflict and ending the civil war now raging for power and resources.
The plan needs to be taken seriously, because in September the U.S. Senate formally voted approval by 77 Democrats and Republicans. However, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately criticized the Biden plan as ineffective and unworkable.
Although each of the three groupings dominate particular areas, in many cities and towns they had been living together for years. Separation would require mass migrations involving loss of homes, jobs, as well as schools and associations that would be painful for all concerned and would certainly lead to local conflict in the very process of separation as people are forced to dispose of their assets.
How would the borders of each state be set? There are no natural divisions and the resolution of the border problem would surely lead to conflict.
How would the oil revenues be divided? Iraq lives off its oil with no other significant assets. In the likely Sunni area, there is no oil. Would they receive a fair division of the revenues? Would it be on a population basis, on area of land, on needs? How much would be stolen by people in the other two states?
Will each area have its own defense forces, or its own police? Would one area import enough arms and foreign soldiers in an attempt to conquer the other two? Would an arms race develop for defensive or offensive purposes?
Could each area afford the inevitable triplication of services notably more expensive than services by a single, unified government? Could each state support itself?
Would these three little weak countries be dominated or absorbed by powerful neighbors Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Would Turkey allow an independent or semi -- independent Kurdistan? The Kurds are the largest ethnic group, 25 million, in the world without their own country. They are anxious to unite their scattered people now residing in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Those nations refuse to surrender any part of their territory to the Kurds. Right now, Turkey has many troops on the border of Kurdish Iraq to prevent Kurdish infiltration.
The fact that the U.S. Senate promotes the Biden plan is additional evidence of the dominance of the U.S. in Iraqi affairs. The U.S. has the controlling military power, as well as the political power through the puppets the U.S. selected, installed and supports. However, the Bush administration is unlikely to adopt the Biden plan. The practical difficulties are too great and partition is contrary to the prime U.S. interests in the Middle East. The U.S. needs Iraq as a military base to dominate the area where 60% of the Earth's oil reserves and 40% of the natural gas are located. Control of those reserves will give the U.S. another tool to influence the policies of other nations. The U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave. The continuing occupation will have fewer problems with a unified Iraq. With 737 military bases already in 130 countries, control of Iraq will add another region to U.S. hegemony.
By Jerome Grossman
For several years, Senator Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been promoting a division of Iraq into three separate states, Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, linked by a weak federal government. The theory is that the separation will allow each group to organize itself in accordance with its own traditions and objectives, to adopt separate policies, to elect its own leaders, thereby minimizing conflict and ending the civil war now raging for power and resources.
The plan needs to be taken seriously, because in September the U.S. Senate formally voted approval by 77 Democrats and Republicans. However, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately criticized the Biden plan as ineffective and unworkable.
Although each of the three groupings dominate particular areas, in many cities and towns they had been living together for years. Separation would require mass migrations involving loss of homes, jobs, as well as schools and associations that would be painful for all concerned and would certainly lead to local conflict in the very process of separation as people are forced to dispose of their assets.
How would the borders of each state be set? There are no natural divisions and the resolution of the border problem would surely lead to conflict.
How would the oil revenues be divided? Iraq lives off its oil with no other significant assets. In the likely Sunni area, there is no oil. Would they receive a fair division of the revenues? Would it be on a population basis, on area of land, on needs? How much would be stolen by people in the other two states?
Will each area have its own defense forces, or its own police? Would one area import enough arms and foreign soldiers in an attempt to conquer the other two? Would an arms race develop for defensive or offensive purposes?
Could each area afford the inevitable triplication of services notably more expensive than services by a single, unified government? Could each state support itself?
Would these three little weak countries be dominated or absorbed by powerful neighbors Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Would Turkey allow an independent or semi -- independent Kurdistan? The Kurds are the largest ethnic group, 25 million, in the world without their own country. They are anxious to unite their scattered people now residing in Iraq, Turkey, Iran and Syria. Those nations refuse to surrender any part of their territory to the Kurds. Right now, Turkey has many troops on the border of Kurdish Iraq to prevent Kurdish infiltration.
The fact that the U.S. Senate promotes the Biden plan is additional evidence of the dominance of the U.S. in Iraqi affairs. The U.S. has the controlling military power, as well as the political power through the puppets the U.S. selected, installed and supports. However, the Bush administration is unlikely to adopt the Biden plan. The practical difficulties are too great and partition is contrary to the prime U.S. interests in the Middle East. The U.S. needs Iraq as a military base to dominate the area where 60% of the Earth's oil reserves and 40% of the natural gas are located. Control of those reserves will give the U.S. another tool to influence the policies of other nations. The U.S. invaded and occupied Iraq without an exit strategy because it never intended to leave. The continuing occupation will have fewer problems with a unified Iraq. With 737 military bases already in 130 countries, control of Iraq will add another region to U.S. hegemony.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
George W. Bush is Happier
George W. Bush is Happier
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush enjoys off - the - record lunches with favored journalists from time to time. One of the rules for the occasion provides for absolutely no direct quotations, but allows for reference to the matters discussed. At a recent lunch, Bush seemed more buoyant and especially interested in presidential politics and the 2008 election. He expects Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and probably the general election. He did not seem too perturbed by the prospect. He indicated that the Democratic candidates were coming around to his point of view on the Iraq war and that Hillary would continue his Iraq policy once she appreciates the dangers and difficulties. What may have caught Bush’s attention was Hillary’s statement that she “hoped” to withdraw troops by 2013 as well as her plan for a residual US military force. Here is Hillary's latest plan for a residual U.S. force of undetermined size in Iraq with no time limit: To protect the U.S.Embassy and other U.S. installations: to train the Iraqi army, to fight insurgents, and to deter Iran.
Bush thinks that a Democratic President continuing the occupation would validate his Iraq policy and restore his reputation and standing in history. His model is President Harry Truman, like Bush lowly regarded at the end of his presidency, now a hero of the Cold War in some history books. Bush hinted at some back channel advice emanating from the White House to the Clinton campaign.
Could it be from Bush to his father to buddy Bill Clinton to Hillary?
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush enjoys off - the - record lunches with favored journalists from time to time. One of the rules for the occasion provides for absolutely no direct quotations, but allows for reference to the matters discussed. At a recent lunch, Bush seemed more buoyant and especially interested in presidential politics and the 2008 election. He expects Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and probably the general election. He did not seem too perturbed by the prospect. He indicated that the Democratic candidates were coming around to his point of view on the Iraq war and that Hillary would continue his Iraq policy once she appreciates the dangers and difficulties. What may have caught Bush’s attention was Hillary’s statement that she “hoped” to withdraw troops by 2013 as well as her plan for a residual US military force. Here is Hillary's latest plan for a residual U.S. force of undetermined size in Iraq with no time limit: To protect the U.S.Embassy and other U.S. installations: to train the Iraqi army, to fight insurgents, and to deter Iran.
Bush thinks that a Democratic President continuing the occupation would validate his Iraq policy and restore his reputation and standing in history. His model is President Harry Truman, like Bush lowly regarded at the end of his presidency, now a hero of the Cold War in some history books. Bush hinted at some back channel advice emanating from the White House to the Clinton campaign.
Could it be from Bush to his father to buddy Bill Clinton to Hillary?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Hillary Isn't President Yet
Hillary Isn't President Yet
By Jerome Grossman
My blog on September 22 warned that President Hillary might find it necessary to prove that a woman is tough enough, resolute enough, to be commander-in-chief in time of war. It took only four days for her to prove me prescient.
On September 26 she voted in the U.S. Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization based on intelligence offered by the Bush administration that furnished the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, argued that designating part of Iran's government as a terrorist group represents a de facto declaration of war on Iran.
This amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill was written by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Senator John KYL, D-AZ, and was adopted 76 -- 22. The original version was much more provocative, actually calling for using all military instruments against Iran, but cooler heads prevail.
Presidential candidates Biden and Dodd voted NAY, Obama was not present but said he would have voted NAY, Edwards criticized Hillary for her vote saying "You cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted." Amen.
Hillary defended her vote:" it gives us the options to impose sanctions... to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran." Tough talk, There are strong rumors in Washington and around the world that the U.S. is preparing a massive air strike on Iran. Then we will be fighting three wars against Moslem countries simultaneously, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, with a worn out military 10,000 miles from home, and a purpose that has been rejected by almost all other nations. Let's see know-it-all Hillary manage that as President.
In another in -your -face to the American people, Hillary staked out some hawkish ground on Iraq in the presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover New Hampshire, on September 26. She refused to commit, but “ hopes” to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 - that is no misprint - 2013. And she was echoed by her main rivals, Edwards and Obama. Only the also-rans, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel gave answers that would satisfy the voters who gave the Democrats control of Congress in 2006. So much for the Democratic Party commitment to end the war.
Basking in her political sunshine with a 20 point lead, President Hillary is already sounding like President Lyndon Johnson did on Vietnam-and she is not even nominated or elected yet. Where is Gene McCarthy now that we need him to talk peace and political courage? Dead and buried, that's where, but remembered as the hero who began the political process that got us out of Vietnam But if a worthy successor springs up, watch out Hillary, you aren't President yet.
By Jerome Grossman
My blog on September 22 warned that President Hillary might find it necessary to prove that a woman is tough enough, resolute enough, to be commander-in-chief in time of war. It took only four days for her to prove me prescient.
On September 26 she voted in the U.S. Senate to brand the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization based on intelligence offered by the Bush administration that furnished the faulty intelligence that took us into Iraq. Senator Jim Webb, D-VA, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, argued that designating part of Iran's government as a terrorist group represents a de facto declaration of war on Iran.
This amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill was written by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn, and Senator John KYL, D-AZ, and was adopted 76 -- 22. The original version was much more provocative, actually calling for using all military instruments against Iran, but cooler heads prevail.
Presidential candidates Biden and Dodd voted NAY, Obama was not present but said he would have voted NAY, Edwards criticized Hillary for her vote saying "You cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted." Amen.
Hillary defended her vote:" it gives us the options to impose sanctions... to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran." Tough talk, There are strong rumors in Washington and around the world that the U.S. is preparing a massive air strike on Iran. Then we will be fighting three wars against Moslem countries simultaneously, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, with a worn out military 10,000 miles from home, and a purpose that has been rejected by almost all other nations. Let's see know-it-all Hillary manage that as President.
In another in -your -face to the American people, Hillary staked out some hawkish ground on Iraq in the presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover New Hampshire, on September 26. She refused to commit, but “ hopes” to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2013 - that is no misprint - 2013. And she was echoed by her main rivals, Edwards and Obama. Only the also-rans, Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel gave answers that would satisfy the voters who gave the Democrats control of Congress in 2006. So much for the Democratic Party commitment to end the war.
Basking in her political sunshine with a 20 point lead, President Hillary is already sounding like President Lyndon Johnson did on Vietnam-and she is not even nominated or elected yet. Where is Gene McCarthy now that we need him to talk peace and political courage? Dead and buried, that's where, but remembered as the hero who began the political process that got us out of Vietnam But if a worthy successor springs up, watch out Hillary, you aren't President yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
