Complete and Immediate U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq
by Jerome Grossman
On March 16, the U.S. Senate rejected a Democratic resolution calling for the President to “commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq no later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution…” The vote was 48 to 50, divided mostly along party lines.
Especially noteworthy was the provision that all United States combat forces be redeployed except for a limited number essential for 1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and infrastructure, 2.) Training and equipping Iraq forces, and 3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
These exceptions to complete withdrawal of U.S. forces are important. Right now there are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. How many will be required to fulfill the three exceptions and for how long? One estimate is 80,000 troops remaining and that may be too low if counter-terrorism operations are organized on a broad scale.
Protecting the vast U.S. embassy in the Green Zone, as large as a city, will require thousands of defenders. The U.S. trainers of Iraqi troops will be exposed to attach by insurgents and nationalists dedicated to changing the Iraq government and ending the American occupation. Reducing the U.S. garrison is likely to make the remainder more vulnerable to the attacks of those seeking revenge for prior wounds, killings, and Abu Graib.
Arab nationalists and religious Muslims are likely to be suspicious of a partial withdrawal, especially a withdrawal that leaves a puppet government in power and buttresses it with military support.
The opponents of the U.S. will not be reassured by the American record of previous foreign occupations. Significant numbers of U.S. troops have been in Germany since 1944, in Japan since 1945, in South Korea since 1953, in Bosnia since 1995. In addition, the U.S. has bases and troops in hundreds of other foreign places, and there are no plans for them to leave. Moreover, the leading Democratic candidates for President, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have clearly stated that they will keep some G.I.s in Iraq to deter Al Qaeda and Iran.
If our country wishes to rebuild its reputation and the trust of other nations after the lies, misrepresentations and illegal acts in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it must withdraw its forces immediately and completely. That will decrease the threat to America by reducing the number of those determined to exact revenge for our actions.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Scooter Libby and the Sixteen Words
Scooter Libby and the Sixteen Words
by Jerome Grossman
Irving Lewis Libby has been found guilty by a federal jury on four of five counts: guilty of obstruction of justice, of making false statements to the FBI, of committing perjury while under oath before a grand jury. The rule of law has been upheld. A high-level official, a person who was the top aide to the Vice President of the United States is not above the law. Irving was Cheney’s Cheney, the enforcer of Cheney’s will and policies, grim-faced distributor of the Vice President’s opinions driving the nation to a failed and mistaken war and the occupation of Iraq.
Irving’s alter ego is called Scooter, a nickname that cries out for intimacy and pleasantry, for easy smiles and gossip. Nobody named Scooter could possibly harm anyone. Scooter is receiving a tremendous wave of sympathy from those who condemn Irving: the jurors who convicted him, the media that reported the trial, and the partisans of the right and left.
The right minimizes the crimes, calls the accusations political even though they were undertaken by the Bush administration at every level. Support for Scooter seems to translate into support for the Iraq War. President Clinton was impeached for perjury: Martha Stewart and Alger Hiss went to jail for perjury; millions of citizens have been punished for lying under oath but Scooter is a victim who ought to be pardoned.
From the left, Scooter looks like an errand boy. The real criminals are the promoters of the Iraq War, those who lied and misrepresented the intelligence that persuaded the Congress and the American people to authorize the President.
The greater crime has been ignored: the fateful sixteen words spoken by President George W. Bush on January 28, 2003 in his State of the Union address that was crucial in the drive to war. “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Those sixteen words were false. The CIA knew it, told the President, and had the words stricken from the President’s speech in Cincinnati the previous December. The International Atomic Energy Agency said the documents were not authentic, that the accusation was unfounded.
In the legal, political and emotional turmoil about Libby, these sixteen words are ignored. Yet they were the basis for the original investigation about uranium in Niger. That caught the Scooter. The conviction of Libby should remind us of the ultimate swindle – the sixteen words.
Did Cheney and Libby insert them? Will we ever know?
by Jerome Grossman
Irving Lewis Libby has been found guilty by a federal jury on four of five counts: guilty of obstruction of justice, of making false statements to the FBI, of committing perjury while under oath before a grand jury. The rule of law has been upheld. A high-level official, a person who was the top aide to the Vice President of the United States is not above the law. Irving was Cheney’s Cheney, the enforcer of Cheney’s will and policies, grim-faced distributor of the Vice President’s opinions driving the nation to a failed and mistaken war and the occupation of Iraq.
Irving’s alter ego is called Scooter, a nickname that cries out for intimacy and pleasantry, for easy smiles and gossip. Nobody named Scooter could possibly harm anyone. Scooter is receiving a tremendous wave of sympathy from those who condemn Irving: the jurors who convicted him, the media that reported the trial, and the partisans of the right and left.
The right minimizes the crimes, calls the accusations political even though they were undertaken by the Bush administration at every level. Support for Scooter seems to translate into support for the Iraq War. President Clinton was impeached for perjury: Martha Stewart and Alger Hiss went to jail for perjury; millions of citizens have been punished for lying under oath but Scooter is a victim who ought to be pardoned.
From the left, Scooter looks like an errand boy. The real criminals are the promoters of the Iraq War, those who lied and misrepresented the intelligence that persuaded the Congress and the American people to authorize the President.
The greater crime has been ignored: the fateful sixteen words spoken by President George W. Bush on January 28, 2003 in his State of the Union address that was crucial in the drive to war. “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Those sixteen words were false. The CIA knew it, told the President, and had the words stricken from the President’s speech in Cincinnati the previous December. The International Atomic Energy Agency said the documents were not authentic, that the accusation was unfounded.
In the legal, political and emotional turmoil about Libby, these sixteen words are ignored. Yet they were the basis for the original investigation about uranium in Niger. That caught the Scooter. The conviction of Libby should remind us of the ultimate swindle – the sixteen words.
Did Cheney and Libby insert them? Will we ever know?
Monday, March 5, 2007
The CTB Treaty and President Bill Clinton
The CTB Treaty and President Bill Clinton
By Jerome Grossman
One day in August 1999, my nephew Steven Grossman, then Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on which I had represented Massachusetts from 1972 to 1980, telephoned with an interesting proposal. “You visit Washington, D.C. regularly to lobby senators on behalf of Council For a Livable World. I visit regularly in connection with my duties on the DNC. Let’s meet there for a leisurely dinner away from family and business responsibilities to catch up.” I accepted and set the date, Sept. 11.
Right after Labor Day, Steven called again. “There is a problem with that date. The President is dining with a group of billionaires and I must attend. But wait. Why don’t you come to the dinner? We can talk afterwards.”
I refused. Yes, I had voted for Clinton but had not made a political contribution. As a relentless liberal, I regarded him as too centrist for my politics. But, hey, if I can attend without paying, if I can ask him a question, why not? The matter was checked and cleared at the White House.
About 5:30 pm, I made my way to the Sheraton-Carleton Hotel and found at least 30 billionaires milling on the street. The hotel was being “cleaned” for the President’s visit, every inch of the building inspected, panels, closets, ducts taken apart and put together again.
Drinks and dinner were served at a large rectangular table. We were halfway through the filet mignon when the President appeared and began to work his way around the table, not spending much time with his old friends beyond greeting them warmly. When he got to me, I realized that this was my opportunity to ask my question without involving the other guests.
“Mr. President, your achievement in 1996 negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide was historic and will be long remembered, particularly because the predecessor Bush administration declined to participate when in power. However, you have not submitted the Treaty to the Senate for ratification so it will go into effect without U.S. participation in setting up the seismic and other technological capabilities to maintain confidence in the system. I urge you to send the Treaty to the Senate at once.”
The President agreed with the importance of the Treaty in discouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He knew that the technical concerns raised, particularly that low yield tests could not be measured, had been effectively rebutted. But he said the main problem was insufficiency of votes, that there were not 67 votes for passage.
“Mr. President, I know that. But we must begin the process of educating the nation on the seriousness of the dangers of nuclear weapons. If you start the debate, the scientific community will back you up, raising public consciousness on this all important issue of planetary and human survival. You may not win the vote but you will have begun a process that must be completed for our country and the world.”
The President said that I was right and that he would submit the Treaty promptly. And he did so within two weeks. After debate, after much testimony, the Treaty failed.
The system set up by the CTB is working effectively at all levels but without U.S. participation. Today the Senate has before it more than two dozen treaties submitted for approval by President Bush and his predecessors – as far back as the Eisenhower administration. Action on the treaties is needed to repair America’s image as a responsible nation.
“President Clinton was gracious and interested throughout our conversation, even though I was not a billionaire and an uninvited guest. He did not rush the conversation but allowed it to run its natural course. In my enthusiasm for my subject, I took hold of his arm while making my point. How do I know this? His staff took our picture at that moment and mailed it to me. The Secret Service must have flinched.”
“ The unwillingness of the United States to conform to treaties leads other nations to believe that we regard ourselves as an exceptional country uninhibited by international law.”
By Jerome Grossman
One day in August 1999, my nephew Steven Grossman, then Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, on which I had represented Massachusetts from 1972 to 1980, telephoned with an interesting proposal. “You visit Washington, D.C. regularly to lobby senators on behalf of Council For a Livable World. I visit regularly in connection with my duties on the DNC. Let’s meet there for a leisurely dinner away from family and business responsibilities to catch up.” I accepted and set the date, Sept. 11.
Right after Labor Day, Steven called again. “There is a problem with that date. The President is dining with a group of billionaires and I must attend. But wait. Why don’t you come to the dinner? We can talk afterwards.”
I refused. Yes, I had voted for Clinton but had not made a political contribution. As a relentless liberal, I regarded him as too centrist for my politics. But, hey, if I can attend without paying, if I can ask him a question, why not? The matter was checked and cleared at the White House.
About 5:30 pm, I made my way to the Sheraton-Carleton Hotel and found at least 30 billionaires milling on the street. The hotel was being “cleaned” for the President’s visit, every inch of the building inspected, panels, closets, ducts taken apart and put together again.
Drinks and dinner were served at a large rectangular table. We were halfway through the filet mignon when the President appeared and began to work his way around the table, not spending much time with his old friends beyond greeting them warmly. When he got to me, I realized that this was my opportunity to ask my question without involving the other guests.
“Mr. President, your achievement in 1996 negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty worldwide was historic and will be long remembered, particularly because the predecessor Bush administration declined to participate when in power. However, you have not submitted the Treaty to the Senate for ratification so it will go into effect without U.S. participation in setting up the seismic and other technological capabilities to maintain confidence in the system. I urge you to send the Treaty to the Senate at once.”
The President agreed with the importance of the Treaty in discouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He knew that the technical concerns raised, particularly that low yield tests could not be measured, had been effectively rebutted. But he said the main problem was insufficiency of votes, that there were not 67 votes for passage.
“Mr. President, I know that. But we must begin the process of educating the nation on the seriousness of the dangers of nuclear weapons. If you start the debate, the scientific community will back you up, raising public consciousness on this all important issue of planetary and human survival. You may not win the vote but you will have begun a process that must be completed for our country and the world.”
The President said that I was right and that he would submit the Treaty promptly. And he did so within two weeks. After debate, after much testimony, the Treaty failed.
The system set up by the CTB is working effectively at all levels but without U.S. participation. Today the Senate has before it more than two dozen treaties submitted for approval by President Bush and his predecessors – as far back as the Eisenhower administration. Action on the treaties is needed to repair America’s image as a responsible nation.
“President Clinton was gracious and interested throughout our conversation, even though I was not a billionaire and an uninvited guest. He did not rush the conversation but allowed it to run its natural course. In my enthusiasm for my subject, I took hold of his arm while making my point. How do I know this? His staff took our picture at that moment and mailed it to me. The Secret Service must have flinched.”
“ The unwillingness of the United States to conform to treaties leads other nations to believe that we regard ourselves as an exceptional country uninhibited by international law.”
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton took the oath of office as United States Senator from New York in January 2001. Three months later she delivered her maiden speech in the Senate. That same day Council for a Livable World had an appointment with her to discuss our issues and concerns. The meeting was held in the crowded conference room adjacent to the Senate chamber where senators meet with constituents, lobbyists and friends and still be readily available for roll calls and votes.
We took command of a corner of the room for a semblance of privacy, lined up chairs for the Senator and her staff, also for me as the spokesperson and council staff. Hillary appeared, resplendent in a light blue shiny pants suit, flushed with the glowing experience of her first speech, much more feminine and handsome than I had expected.
“Senator, thank you for your time on this important day. We congratulate you on your election and are proud that we were able to raise…” She interrupted, “Your endorsement was more important.” Touche.
Then I asked for her support on four legislative matters due to come before the Senate, including National Missile Defense, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, etc. We discussed each in detail. She was well informed on the details and the political problems of each. In every case she agreed to support our position.
Finally, I thanked her for the meeting and said, “Senator, we are overwhelmed by your cooperation, that you have agreed with our position on all four items.” Senator Clinton responded, “Mr. Grossman, I am putty in your hands.” General laughter. End of meeting. Everybody impressed by the Senator’s knowledge, wit and social grace.
We took command of a corner of the room for a semblance of privacy, lined up chairs for the Senator and her staff, also for me as the spokesperson and council staff. Hillary appeared, resplendent in a light blue shiny pants suit, flushed with the glowing experience of her first speech, much more feminine and handsome than I had expected.
“Senator, thank you for your time on this important day. We congratulate you on your election and are proud that we were able to raise…” She interrupted, “Your endorsement was more important.” Touche.
Then I asked for her support on four legislative matters due to come before the Senate, including National Missile Defense, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, etc. We discussed each in detail. She was well informed on the details and the political problems of each. In every case she agreed to support our position.
Finally, I thanked her for the meeting and said, “Senator, we are overwhelmed by your cooperation, that you have agreed with our position on all four items.” Senator Clinton responded, “Mr. Grossman, I am putty in your hands.” General laughter. End of meeting. Everybody impressed by the Senator’s knowledge, wit and social grace.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
What It Really Means to Support the Troops
What It Really Means to Support the Troops
by Jerome Grossman
I don’t know a single American citizen or a single Member of Congress who does not support and sympathize with the US soldiers in Iraq. They have an impossible task, one for which they have not been adequately trained or prepared.
Each day US soldiers go door-to-door, breaking into homes, searching bedrooms, bathrooms, and closets looking for weapons and young men. Their trigger fingers are alert for the possibility of resistance. The next closet could hold a bomber or an insurgent. The women, children, and old folks are scared as the foreign soldiers rummage through the homes, conducting police work without knowledge of the local language or customs. The terrified inhabitants are unlikely to furnish intelligence about insurgents: if they cooperate with the invaders they will be punished, tomorrow or whenever the occupiers leave.
What a way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis!
Some National Guardsmen and women are on their third and fourth tours of duty, away from their families and businesses and jobs. They must be thinking of the inequality of sacrifice. They must fear that it is not recognized at home.
To some who support the war, supporting the troops has become a sacred mission in itself, a reason for continuing the war. “Support the troops” is an emotional rallying point intended to stifle debate.
No president or Member of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- should be making policy in this manner. Asking soldiers to risk their lives requires the clearest threat to all 300 million Americans. The mission must be constantly reevaluated to determine if it is in the national interest, particularly when popular opinion polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake and initiated on a pattern of government lies and misrepresentations.
In Time Magazine on February 19, Joe Klein, a war supporter, analyzed what it really means to support the troops. “Politicians have a sacred mission, too. Their duty is threefold: to be judicious about sending the troops off to war, to give the military everything it needs to complete the mission and, if it appears that mission is futile or compromised, to change or end it.”
Amen.
The best way to support our troops is to elect a president, a vice president, and a Congress who will not order them to fight an unnecessary and unwinnable war.
Jerome Grossman is the author of “Relentless Liberal” and Chairman emeritus of Council for a Livable World
by Jerome Grossman
I don’t know a single American citizen or a single Member of Congress who does not support and sympathize with the US soldiers in Iraq. They have an impossible task, one for which they have not been adequately trained or prepared.
Each day US soldiers go door-to-door, breaking into homes, searching bedrooms, bathrooms, and closets looking for weapons and young men. Their trigger fingers are alert for the possibility of resistance. The next closet could hold a bomber or an insurgent. The women, children, and old folks are scared as the foreign soldiers rummage through the homes, conducting police work without knowledge of the local language or customs. The terrified inhabitants are unlikely to furnish intelligence about insurgents: if they cooperate with the invaders they will be punished, tomorrow or whenever the occupiers leave.
What a way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis!
Some National Guardsmen and women are on their third and fourth tours of duty, away from their families and businesses and jobs. They must be thinking of the inequality of sacrifice. They must fear that it is not recognized at home.
To some who support the war, supporting the troops has become a sacred mission in itself, a reason for continuing the war. “Support the troops” is an emotional rallying point intended to stifle debate.
No president or Member of Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- should be making policy in this manner. Asking soldiers to risk their lives requires the clearest threat to all 300 million Americans. The mission must be constantly reevaluated to determine if it is in the national interest, particularly when popular opinion polls indicate that a majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake and initiated on a pattern of government lies and misrepresentations.
In Time Magazine on February 19, Joe Klein, a war supporter, analyzed what it really means to support the troops. “Politicians have a sacred mission, too. Their duty is threefold: to be judicious about sending the troops off to war, to give the military everything it needs to complete the mission and, if it appears that mission is futile or compromised, to change or end it.”
Amen.
The best way to support our troops is to elect a president, a vice president, and a Congress who will not order them to fight an unnecessary and unwinnable war.
Jerome Grossman is the author of “Relentless Liberal” and Chairman emeritus of Council for a Livable World
Monday, February 26, 2007
Outside Pressures Snapped Korean Deadlock
Outside Pressures Snapped Korean Deadlock
NY Times 2/13/07 by David Sanger
….For Mr. Kim, the nuclear explosion – more of a fizzle – that he set off in the mountains not far from the Chinese border in October turned out to be a strategic mistake. The Chinese, who spent six decades protecting the Kim family dynasty, responded by cutting off his military aid, and helping Washington crack down on the banks that financed the Cognac-and-Mercedes lifestyle of the North Korean leadership. “As a political statement, that test was a red flare for everyone,” said Robert Galucci…
NY Times 2/13/07 by David Sanger
….For Mr. Kim, the nuclear explosion – more of a fizzle – that he set off in the mountains not far from the Chinese border in October turned out to be a strategic mistake. The Chinese, who spent six decades protecting the Kim family dynasty, responded by cutting off his military aid, and helping Washington crack down on the banks that financed the Cognac-and-Mercedes lifestyle of the North Korean leadership. “As a political statement, that test was a red flare for everyone,” said Robert Galucci…
Counterinsurgency Warfare As Military Malpractice
Counterinsurgency Warfare As Military Malpractice
By Edward N. Luttwack – Harper’s Magazine, February 2007
Modern armed forces continue to be structured for large-scale war, but advanced societies whose small families
lack expendable children have a very low tolerance for casualties…Fortunately, this refusal to sell blood needed to
fuel battles diminishes the likelihood that advanced societies will deliberately set out to fight one another unless
they are somehow able to convince themselves that a war could be entirely or very largely aerial and naval. Such
wars, however, are difficult to imagine … air and naval forces can certainly be employed advantageously against
any less advanced enemies incautious enough to rely on a conventional defense, but …there must be severe doubts
about the continued usefulness of the ground forces of advanced countries that are intolerant of casualties…
By Edward N. Luttwack – Harper’s Magazine, February 2007
Modern armed forces continue to be structured for large-scale war, but advanced societies whose small families
lack expendable children have a very low tolerance for casualties…Fortunately, this refusal to sell blood needed to
fuel battles diminishes the likelihood that advanced societies will deliberately set out to fight one another unless
they are somehow able to convince themselves that a war could be entirely or very largely aerial and naval. Such
wars, however, are difficult to imagine … air and naval forces can certainly be employed advantageously against
any less advanced enemies incautious enough to rely on a conventional defense, but …there must be severe doubts
about the continued usefulness of the ground forces of advanced countries that are intolerant of casualties…
Officially Introduced Senate Legislation
Officially Introduced Senate Legislation
S.121 Sponsor: Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Introduced January 4, 2007
Co-Sponsors Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Bernard Sanders (Ind – VT)
Summary: Calls for redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq no later than 180 days after the date of enactment while leaving a minimum level of U.S. forces to “engage directly in targeted counterterrorism activities, train Iraq security forces, and protect U.S. infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.
S.121 Sponsor: Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Introduced January 4, 2007
Co-Sponsors Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Bernard Sanders (Ind – VT)
Summary: Calls for redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq no later than 180 days after the date of enactment while leaving a minimum level of U.S. forces to “engage directly in targeted counterterrorism activities, train Iraq security forces, and protect U.S. infrastructure and personnel in Iraq.
What it Really Means to Support The Troops
From an article in Time Magazine 2/19/07 by Joe Klein
What it Really Means to Support The Troops
Politicians have a sacred mission too. Their duty is threefold: to be judicious about sending the troops off to war, to give the military everything it needs to complete the mission and if it appears the mission is futile or compromised, to change or end it.
What it Really Means to Support The Troops
Politicians have a sacred mission too. Their duty is threefold: to be judicious about sending the troops off to war, to give the military everything it needs to complete the mission and if it appears the mission is futile or compromised, to change or end it.
Letter to John Kerry
January 30, 2007
Senator John Kerry,
Dear John,
I was shocked and surprised to read in the Boston Globe and the New York Times that you claim to have been Chairman of the Committee to Elect Father Drinan in 1970. You know that I was Chair for all five of his campaigns, hired the managers, raised the money, organized the caucus and the peace workers, etc. You had no role. By altering history, you are swiftboating me the way you were swiftboated in the 2004 election. It isn’t fair and I don’t like it. You should correct the record with the newspapers and on your resume.
Jerry
Senator John Kerry,
Dear John,
I was shocked and surprised to read in the Boston Globe and the New York Times that you claim to have been Chairman of the Committee to Elect Father Drinan in 1970. You know that I was Chair for all five of his campaigns, hired the managers, raised the money, organized the caucus and the peace workers, etc. You had no role. By altering history, you are swiftboating me the way you were swiftboated in the 2004 election. It isn’t fair and I don’t like it. You should correct the record with the newspapers and on your resume.
Jerry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
