U.S. In Iraq--Blind leading the Blind?

I watched with interest General Abazaid's testimony before Congress, especially his comments that the U.S. military will not provide security in Iraq, but will train Iraqis to do so. That is like the blind leading the blind--since we haven't succeeded in securing Iraq how are we to show the Iraqis how to provide security? Numbers alone won't do it it seems since we have 140,000 troops there now and the Iraqis now have 350,000 trained troops--that is nearly half a million troops. With a good plan that ought to be enough to deal with the insurgents and provide law and order. Something is clearly wrong and the "wrong" is obviously "the Plan". As it is "the horse got behind the cart" somehow. The proper plan would have been to provide security first, then transfer political control--not transfer political control, then try to establish security.
It is our obligation, because we invaded their country, to provide security--enough at least that their government can do the rest. So far they never had enough security to be able to govern their own country. Letting militiamen to roam the streets at will is letting everyone know that the government isn't in charge of the country--and that the U.S. lacks the will to confront them.
The mess we are in in Iraq is one of our own making and we don't have a clue as how to solve it.

How Long Does Israel Have?

Kofi Annan just stated the obvious--the Israeli-Arab conflict is what is driving the problems of the Middle East and elsewhere; and the United States is right in the middle of it all. Israel can't keep it up forever--the Arabs birth rate alone will swamp the Israelis right out of office. The Israelis have so far been able to maintain their style of democracy by restricting and limiting the Arab vote but that can't last forever; nor can Israel depend on the U.S. to continue to finance Israel forever. The U.S. itself is facing some serious problems, such as oil depletion, over-population, shipping jobs overseas, importing cheap labor, discouraging its own citizens by limiting high paying jobs, lack of educational opportunities--and the list goes on. Government and corporate corruption is also a serious problem, threatening entrepreneurship and retirees pensions. Out of control government spending is another serious problem. Someone is going to be stuck with the bill. Spend and borrow is more of a problem than tax and spend for when you borrow interest on the debt adds to the debt. What with all these problems coming home to roost something has got to give and Israel may have to shift for itself before too long. When will that be? My calculations are that the world will be out of economically obtainable oil by 2025. The U.S. will be out by 2015. When that happens it will be every man for himself.

Precedent--Good or Bad?

The fall-back position for would-be despots is the use of precedent to justify their own actions. Take the case of Bush and the suspension of habeas Corpus. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, denying the accused the right to question government arrest and confinement, during the Civil War--and I think in that particular case his argument that the situation merited suspension of Constitutional Rights. You couldn't determine a Southern sympathizer from the Northern one in Washington DC and elsewhere--and there were many of them right in our own government. Lincoln was a well-educated and intelligent man--I would have been inclined to trust his judgment in protecting my interests and the country's. Our country was in great peril and lacked resources that were necessary to protect it from internal threats. Not so in our case today.
We are subject to attack, yes, but our survival is not threatened. We have great resources to deal with potential threats--a great standing military, computers, the FBI, CIA, the Media, and the list goes on.
So using a precedent that was used during different circumstances to justify present circumstances is like trying to justify an action without precedent. Analysis and debate are therefore paramount to determining a justifiable need. Executive powers are temporary and a stop-gap measure that was designed to enable the government as a whole to act expediciously during a crisis. We have a government system that was designed to check and balance power--not to allow one branch to assume dictatorial powers; justifying its actions by stating an emergency existed where one doesn't. Where is the War? We had more conflict during the Korean Police action than we are having now. We had more conflict during the Vietnam war--yet didn't feel that we were being threatened at home. We didn't feel as threatened as we are today when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. Rhetoric seems more of a threat than anything else. Our own ineptitude certainly is a great threat to us, for everyone in the world is seeing what a mess we are making of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our Hawks speak of winning and Victory. Their apparent strategy to win and obtain Victory is to continue to bleed and spend lots of money. What have we gained so far?
A Democracy that is not working--it is a government that governs very little--and because we gave it "sovereignty" have tied one hand behind our backs in dealing with the developing Civil War. Yes, by definition it is a civil war--"a conflict between opposing groups in the same country". It is not full blown as the opposing groups are scattered and the U.S. and British presence restricts it somewhat but it is still a civil war. We have sided with the wrong faction it seems. Any faction that is likely to side with Iran is the wrong side and the Shiites fit that category. Diplomacy, if not backed by ruthless determination, is not going to work. We need to get in a Middle Eastern mindset. We are not going to win anyone's mind and heart. That is self-delusional. The only thing possible to gain in the Middle East is respect.

Victory in Iraq?

What is victory, winning, etc. in Iraq, or any place else for that matter? We didn't win in Korea (stalemate) and we didn't "win" in Vietnam so we can't use them as examples of "win". We did "win" during World War I and II. Winning those wars meant completely pulverizing the enemy and destroying their will to fight on. Winning against Japan was the most dramatic--we completely annihilated two cities--burnt them to a crisp. So what is the most likely scenario to winning in Iraq?
Since resentment is growing in Iraq against the U.S. and Britain it doesn't appear that we are winning hearts and minds very fast in that country; nor is it likely to occur at all. The gratitude we expected from removing Saddam was brief and is now forgotten. It appears we depended on that gratitude to "win". Now how do we win and declare victory? We can't fight all factions and hope to win. Siding with the irrational Shiites is a no win situation, so we are back to using the old tactic that the British used--pick a faction and let them rule. Sun Tzu would be proud! So if Muqtada Al-Sadr wants to give us trouble back the Sunnis. We certainly don't want the Iranians to take over by proxy, do we? We would then split the Muslim world and would be allied to half rather than be enemies with all. The Saudis are Sunnis, as well as the Syrians--and they are a little more rational in their dealings with the West. Israel is still left hanging however. How long can Israel hang on that is the big question? How long can the U.S. continue to support and subsidize Israel? So who is winning and what constitutes victory? No one has explained or defined either so far.
Winning in Iraq would mean that only one entity would rule over all the factions that now exist in Iraq and so far no plan has been implemented that would accomplish that. Tribal affiliations would have to be subordinate to the central government. Since those tribal affiliations have existed over hundreds of years I don't see how, in a short period of time, that they would be set aside merely to create a country that never existed in the first place.
Since the role of the U.S. has been prematurely diminished in favor of a so-called Iraqi sovereignty we gave up all hope of providing security that is necessary for the government to function and for us to "win" the peace. With such a mish-mash of bureaucratic confusion there is little hope of doing anything constructive. Win? Forget it, it will never happen.

Kerry--The Perfect Strawman?

Strawman fallacy--when an arguer's (Kerry) position is misrepresented by being misquoted, exaggerated, or otherwise distorted. Kerry said that anyone who studies, works hard in school will do well, if not they might end up stuck in Iraq. He was talking to college students, not potential troops; for we don't have a draft. He didn't mention troops in any way. Those who misunderstood what Kerry was talking about must think the troops are stuck in Iraq? The last time I heard troops rotated after 12 to 18 months, so I would say they are not "stuck" in a literal sense--being somewhere where they shouldn't be is a good candidate for being stuck however. If anyone should apologize for their comments it should be those who misinterpreted what Kerry said. I understood right away that Kerry meant G.W. Bush as being the one who hasn't done much reading of history, anthropology, philosophy and the like and is figuratively speaking "stuck" in Iraq. Anyone who misinterpreted Kerry to mean that our troops are ignorant and dumb and stuck in Iraq should analyze their own thinking processes and abilitities for there was nothing in the setting and what he said that would, or should, lead anyone to think that he was talking about our troops; especially when you consider that he himself was an officer in the military.