An Alternative to "Staying the Course"

While there is virtually no chance that a president incapable of recalling even a single mistake made during his first term or unwilling to even spend an hour with Cindy Sheehan is going to seriously consider a change of course that involves admitting that his basic policy, strategy and tactics are fatally flawed, that does not detract from the strength of the case made by Scott Ritter.

Instead of focusing on issues such as "speed up the training of more Iraqi police and security personnel" or "simply withdraw and let the Iraqi's work out their own future even if it means civil war," democrats and non-ideologically emasculated republicans would do well to embrace an alternative strategy such as the one Ritter has articulated.

Does Ritter's proposal have flaws. Undoubtedly it does.

Is it likely to be implemented in the short term. Highly unlikely.

But this proposal could be the basis for a robust and urgent public debate about policy alternatives rather than a power struggle over when will we withdraw our troops. 

You can read Ritter's full proposal on AlterNet at the following location:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/24599/?cID=28298#c28298

Achieving 'Total Victory' in an Unwinnable War

By Scott Ritter, AlterNet. Posted August 26, 2005.

"So long as I am President, we will stay, we will fight and we will win the war on terrorism," President Bush recently declared. "I made a decision. America will not wait to be attacked again," he added. "We will confront emerging threats before they fully materialize."

These comments, made to an audience of Idaho National Guardsmen, echoed rhetoric from a day earlier before a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in which Bush underscored the foundation of his strategy for Iraq: "We will accept nothing less than total victory over the terrorists and their hateful ideology."

These are noble words, uttered at a time of increasing difficulty for a President beleaguered at home, where a groundswell of anti-war sentiment has driven his popularity ratings to an all-time low, and in Iraq, where the process of Iraqi self-governance has proved incapable of producing a viable constitution. At the same time, an increase in the intensity of the ongoing insurgency in Iraq has taken a marked toll on Americans and Iraqis alike.

But the fact is, noble words void of a coherent strategy to achieve the stated goals accomplish nothing more than to continue to propel the United States, together with Iraq, down the path of collective chaos, devastation and ruin.

[snip]

If President Bush wants to add substance to his rhetoric, then he must first be willing to re-evaluate, in its totality, where the United States is going vis-à-vis Iraq and the entire Middle East. The politics of regional transformation, so boldly underscored with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the subsequent removal from power of Saddam Hussein, have floundered catastrophically inside Iraq before they could be applied to other targeted regimes in Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. As an antidote for the festering that produced the anti-American sentiment that Osama Bin Laden and others feed off of, the goal of imposing democracy on the region has backfired.

Today, the policies of the Bush administration have bred far more terrorists than have been eliminated, and the world, including the United States and its allies, is a much more dangerous place to live. The attacks in Madrid and London should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that there is a direct correlation between the American-led invasion of Iraq and the decision by Al Qaeda to strike those two European cities.

The failure of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government to ratify a constitution worthy of the name provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to shift gears in Iraq and the Middle East. It allows for the achievement of stability inside Iraq, and as a result, a meaningful reduction in the ability of anti-American terrorists to recruit and train followers to wage Jihad in Iraq and abroad.

Rather than continuing to reinforce failure by supporting a fatally flawed process, the Bush administration should allow the current government in power in Baghdad to collapse, walk away from the policy of direct meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq, and seek a more nuanced approach to achieving stability inside Iraq through a strategic shift in overall American policy in the Middle East as a whole.

The key reasoning behind the impetus for a radical departure from the current policy is the reality that the Bush administration has gotten it fundamentally wrong regarding Iraq from the very beginning, and as such lacks a foundation upon which to build any lasting achievements in that troubled nation. In its rush to achieve regime change in Iraq, the Bush administration disregarded years of expert opinion, which held that before one seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power, one had better have a good idea about who or what will rule in his place.

Instead, policy formulators acted on ideologically-driven revisionism that held that an invading American military would be greeted by "song and flowers," and that Western-style democracy could flourish in Iraq, despite centuries of historical grievances among those who populate that country. This ideologically-motivated theory deviated so far from reality that the damage incurred by the Bush administration in trying to force an outcome is irreparable.

The list of mistakes made by the Bush administration after the invasion of Iraq is long and noteworthy, starting with dismantling the Iraqi army and internal security apparatus, and dissolving and disenfranchising the Ba'ath Party. By removing the infrastructure of security and stability while simultaneously eliminating the sole source of self-governance available to the Iraqi people, and failing to replace either with anything of substance, the Bush administration sowed the seeds of its own post-invasion doom. The U.S. military forces occupying Iraq were too few in number to provide for the day-to-day security of the Iraqi people, let alone hold a fragile nation-state together once the glue of Saddam and the Ba'athist Party had been removed.

[snip]

The harsh reality is that if left to run its own course, a civil war in Iraq would result in a hard-line, radical Islamic mini-state in southern Iraq, with extremely close ties with Iran; a Kurdish state in the North engaged in its own internal civil war between rival factions; and Baghdad reduced to a modern-day Beirut, divided into fortified Shi'a and Sunni communities at war with one another. It would all be "governed" by a weak central authority lacking the means to effect any meaningful change.

Worst of all, from the American perspective, is that the Sunni population of Iraq, disenfranchised and impoverished, would be compelled to embrace radical Islam, providing a perfect recruiting and training ground for the forces of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

This is the future of Iraq should the Bush administration continue to "stay the course," as the President recently promised to do. There is no elegant solution to offer up as an alternative. The fact is, the number-one threat faced by the United States from Iraq today is the creation of a lawless, non-state entity among the Iraqi Sunni that serves to feed a regional and global anti-American Jihad.

The current policy of the Bush administration -- advocating a "winnable" strategy in Iraq that involves keeping American forces in that country -- virtually assures such an outcome. What is required to avoid it is a policy that empowers the secular Sunni of Iraq and minimizes the influence of those who promulgate either Kurdish independence or Shi'a theocracy.

The United States needs to disengage from trying to resolve the problems of post-Saddam Iraq through internal interference, and instead fall back to a posture that uses external forces to shape events in a manner that mitigates against anything that facilitates the expansion of an Al Qaeda recruitment base in Iraq.

American relations with Turkey should be revamped, centering our diplomacy within Europe on Turkish membership in the European Union while giving the Turks a green light to retard Kurdish independence movements both in Turkey and Iraq. America should foster increased ties between the Turkish government and secular Sunni elements inside Iraq in order to prevent the Kirkuk oil fields from being absorbed by any independence-minded Kurdish faction in Iraq. It is important that a semblance of Kurdish autonomy be preserved in Iraq, and expanded in Turkey, but the notion of a unified, independent Kurdistan must be quashed once and for all.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia should become the conduit of support, both financial and political, for a strong Sunni center in Iraq. American assistance -- material, fiscal and diplomatic -- should be filtered through these two governments, instead of being provided directly, so as to minimize the American footprint in Iraq. Relations with Syria should likewise be re-worked, trading American acceptance of the Ba'athist regime in Damascus for Syrian assistance in strengthening a secular Sunni presence in Iraq.

All of these initiatives must be implemented in conjunction with a rapid, yet phased withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq. A lasting ceasefire with the insurgents, combined with the strengthening of a secular Sunni base inside Iraq, can only happen without the presence of American and coalition forces inside Iraq.

Lastly, and more complicated, is the issue of Iran. The United States needs to stop confronting Iran about a non-existent nuclear weapons program, and accept as a reality the full-scope of the desired Iranian nuclear energy program, provided it is carried out in accordance with international law and carefully monitored by international inspectors. Lifting economic sanctions and fully recognizing the government in Tehran, in exchange for Iranian agreement to exerting a moderating influence on the Shi'a of Iraq, is the best possible hope for the United States in minimizing the spread of radical, anti-American Islam in the Middle East.

Such a policy would produce a strong, secular, Sunni-based government in Baghdad that 1) controls the borders of Iraq, its armed forces and its oil resources; 2) presides over an autonomous Kurdistan and Shi'a South where local governance, including matters of family and domestic law (enabling some form of Shari'a-based rule where desired), is left to the respective autonomous authority; 3) retains authority on national security and the economy. This represents the best deal the United States can hope for.

Gone would be any notion of a "transformed Middle East" imposed by America. In its stead would be a tenuous alliance of powers, in and around Iraq, united in the common goal of preserving political stability in order to benefit from the natural oil resources they control.

[snip]

Scott Ritter was U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998 and is author of 'Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy,' to be published by I.B. Tauris (London) in the summer of 2005.

Another William O. Douglas is too much to hope for

Of course I would love to have another William O. Douglas on the Supreme Court but I recognize we have to win the White House and probably hold a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in order for that wish to be fulfilled.

Although I continue to have concerns about some of the things I read and some of the positions he has taken in the past, the more I learn about John Roberts, the more I tend to think he may be the best we could hope for considering the occupant of the White House and the composition of the Senate.

I am hoping he will turn out to be another Earl Warren who surprises his original supporters with his independence and his willingness to follow the Constitution rather than attempting to impose on the Constitution a conservative ideology.

I still think the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask the hard questions and demand documents from the White House. If the hearings raise more questions, I hope our Senate Democrats will at least vote against the nomination and, if the facts warrant, attempt a filibuster, even if they fail.

My thoughts.

John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., Moderator

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/A_Better_Future/

"Let's tell the American people the truth, that there are no gains without pains, that this is the eve of great decisions, not easy decisions -- like resistance when you're attacked, but a long, patient, costly struggle which alone can assure triumph over great enemies of men: war and poverty and tyranny -- and the assaults upon human dignity which are the most grievous consequences of each."  Adlai Stevenson

The following story from the Washington Post can be read at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402032.html?referrer=email

In Private Practice, Roberts's Record Is Mixed

Some Cases Run Counter to Conservative Image, but Activists on the Right Say His Past Is Irrelevant

By Jo Becker and Michael Grunwald

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 5, 2005; Page A02

As a private lawyer, John G. Roberts Jr. represented homeless Washingtonians who had lost their government benefits because of city budget cuts. He advocated environmental protections for Lake Tahoe, Glacier Bay and the Grand Canyon. He spent 25 hours assisting a convicted murderer with a death penalty appeal. He even helped gay rights activists win a landmark Supreme Court anti-discrimination case.

At first blush, these cases would seem to complicate any image of the Supreme Court nominee as a down-the-line conservative. But as details have emerged in recent days, conservative groups have been busy spreading the word to their members and the broader public about what they should think of Roberts's work in private practice: Pay it no mind.

At second blush, Roberts's role is hardly surprising, say people who have worked with him or studied his career. For more than a decade, he practiced appellate law at the Washington firm Hogan & Hartson in a distinctly non-ideological fashion. Now, as liberal and conservative activists pick over his career for evidence of his political and legal philosophy, neither side seems to attach much importance to his diverse practice. And some activists on both sides remain secure in their conviction that he is an emphatic conservative who will move the high court to the right -- never mind his client list.

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that in 1996, as part of his firm's pro bono program, Roberts offered limited aid to opponents of a Colorado referendum that allowed discrimination against gays. The case led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling that protects people from discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

But Nan Aron of the liberal Alliance for Justice said that Roberts's involvement "doesn't say anything about his judicial philosophy." And Sean Rushton of the conservative Committee for Justice called the Colorado case "a red herring meant to divide the right."

"I don't think this is serious," said Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. "Most conservatives are very pleased. . . . He has a long record, and has been very consistent."

The prevailing view of Roberts as a reliable conservative initially emerged from his résumé as a clerk to then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, aide to President Ronald Reagan, deputy to then-Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr and nominee of President Bush. That view was solidified by the release of forceful memos he wrote while serving in the Reagan administration, during which he helped shape policies opposing affirmative-action quotas and busing of schoolchildren to achieve desegregation. During the administration of George H.W. Bush, he signed a brief that called Roe v. Wade "wrongly decided."

In recent days, the White House and its allies have grown concerned that the documents released so far have painted Roberts as a rigid ideologue, and they have sought to provide a more complete portrait. Yesterday, the Bush administration released two Reagan-era documents sought by The Washington Post and others under the Freedom of Information Act. The Post request included thousands of other documents, which were not released.

In one memo, Roberts argued that Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the other, he wrote that the bomber of an abortion clinic should not receive any special consideration for a pardon. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals," Roberts wrote.

Advisers to the White House have been urging the Bush team to be more aggressive about providing its own narrative of Roberts.

"There needs to be a good branding effort," said one Republican strategist involved in pro-Roberts strategy. "We do need to get out and start defining who this guy is."

Neither side has focused much attention yet on his work from 1986 to 1989 and from 1993 to 2003 at Hogan & Hartson, where he sometimes took on cases that clashed with conservative orthodoxy. For example, he once defended racial preferences for Native Hawaiians -- a case he lost to Theodore B. Olson, a prominent Republican in the appellate bar. On the other hand, Roberts assisted Republican Gov. Jeb Bush at no charge during the Florida presidential election recount in 2000.

[snip]

The Bombs of August: In Remembrance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

THE BOMBS OF AUGUST

<http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bombs_of_august.html>

In Remembrance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

When the bombs were dropped I was very happy. The war would be over
now, they said, and I was very happy. The boys would be coming home
very soon they said, and I was very happy. We showed `em, they said,
and I was very happy. They told us that the cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki had been destroyed, and I was very happy. But in August of
1945 I was only ten years old, and I was very, very happy.

[I, too, was ten years old, and I was very, very happy.]

The crew of the B-29 was so young and heroic, and in the photo they
also looked very happy. For some reason, I clearly remember the name
of the pilot, Paul Tibbets. Of course I remember the name of the
plane, the Enola Gay. And oh yes, I remember the name of the bomb.
It was called Little Boy. That made me smile.

I was so proud to be an American that day because we had done
something so remarkable. They said we were the first. We were
Americans. We were powerful. But they didn't say that Little Boy had
killed 66,000 people with its huge fireball that fateful day in
August. They didn't say that Hiroshima was not a military target, but
a city filled with men and women and children and animals who had no
idea they were about to die so horribly. When you're ten, they don't
always tell you everything.

I don't think anyone made as big a fuss over the second plane, or its
crew. Are they even in the Smithsonian? Second best doesn't count, I
suppose, but I remember wondering why they had done it again. Wouldn't
the war be over anyway, like they said? Weren't the boys coming home
very soon? Hadn't they already showed `em how strong we were in
Hiroshima? So they told me that the second bomb was called Fat Man,
and that made me smile.

So I was even prouder to be an American that second day. They said
this would be the end for sure, and after all, these people were the
enemy and you kill the enemy when you can. But they didn't tell me
that Fat Boy had killed 39,000 human beings with another fireball on
another day in August. They didn't tell me that Nagasaki was not a
military target, but a city filled with…well, you know. They didn't
even tell me that there were horses trapped in the flames of Nagasaki,
because I loved horses and that would have made me sad. But when
you're ten, they don't tell you everything.

Today I'm no longer ten, and I am no longer happy when bombs fall. And
the names Big Boy and Fat Man no longer make me smile because I now
know the devastation and horror of burned bodies and twisted metal
that result from the mushroom clouds. And I am ashamed that on this
day Americans don't stop to remember what was done. And I am
horrified that my government has just killed thousands of defenseless
men and women and children and animals who were not the enemy, and
that the silence of America is deafening.

Today, I am so very sad that many young people don’t even know about
the Enola Gay and the mission of its crew. And I am so terribly
ashamed that the war we have just waged has been so devoid of the
reality of death and pain. They haven’t told us about the thousands
of civilians they have killed. They haven’t shown us the devastation
they have caused. They withhold the true numbers of our own military
who die each day. They never mention the hundreds who have been
terribly wounded. War is surgical and sanitized, they tell us, and a
very effective way to liberate people. They speak to us as if we all
were ten.

George W. Bush is not ten. He has announced to the world that he, as
the leader of this great nation, has the right to use nuclear weapons
once again. This time, he says, he has the right to char men and
women and children and animals if he “suspects? their leaders of
being a threat to us. He is not ten. He really isn’t. Then why is he
so very happy? And why, please tell me, is he still smiling?

For more, go to:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/bombs_of_august.html

Isn't it time for a Real Counter-Terrorism Plan?

Wanted:  A Real Counter-Terrorism Plan from the White House

August 5, 2005

It's been four years since President Bush received the ominously entitled Presidential Daily Briefing ("Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.") that preceded the deadly terrorist attacks on 9/11.  Although there have been no additional attacks within the U.S., the multiple bombings in London and Europe and ongoing terrorist attacks on U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq have the clear mark of al Qaeda planning and execution.  After two wars, hundreds of billions of dollars in spending and relentless politicization of terror and browbeating of critics, the White House has little to show for its much heralded "war on terror."  No bin Laden; terrorist attacks tripling worldwide; and a counterproductive war in Iraq.  It's time to change direction.

• Attack global terrorist networks using the full arsenal of American power.  America must move beyond a one note approach to fighting extremism.  We need to create a credible exit strategy from Iraq and redeploy and enlarge our military to fight terrorists in multiple and shifting locations.  We must also go well beyond military engagement to reengage the Middle East peace process; enhance cooperative intelligence and law enforcement capabilities with our allies; go after the financiers of terrorism; and engage in real and long-lasting public diplomacy to combat distorted images of the U.S. and its intentions. 
  
• Lock down loose nuclear weapons and materials to prevent terrorists from acquiring them. This is not done by invading countries like Iraq that have no nuclear capabilities.  It is done by focusing on known sources of the problem in Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.  It is done by devoting clear presidential leadership to resolving the bureaucratic and legal underbrush that is preventing Nunn-Lugar and other global nuclear security programs from achieving their full potential.  It is done by stopping research on ineffective nuclear weapons such as the bunker buster, which frustrate our efforts to marshal support for enforcing existing nonproliferation obligations.
  
• Provide total security and genuine energy independence at home to free us from foreign threats.  We need complete intelligence cooperation across governmental agencies to ensure the proper flow of information about dangers, as well as improved congressional oversight.  We need regional Homeland Security Operations Centers to coordinate and execute preventative and reactive security measures across the country.  We need real action to secure ports, railways, chemical plants, and nuclear facilities.  And we need a forward looking, high technology energy plan to cut our reliance of foreign oil by 40 percent by 2025.

         <progress@americanprogressaction.org>

What others are saying

More relevant information (not that it matters to the majority on the state board) on the subject of Intelligent Design and the schools courtesy of the American Progress Action Fund.

 John

John E. Cleek, Ph.D., President

Board of Education, USD 416

Louisburg, Kansas

johncleek@mac.com

 "What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all its children. Any other idea for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy."  John Dewey

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE: "American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints," the American Association for the Advancement of Science correctly notes. And while this diversity unquestionably enriches students' educational experiences, it is of critical importance that our educators distinguish between information acquired through rigorous scientific methods and those founded upon belief systems. As President Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, acknowledges, "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Although its proponents often point to supposed empirically based "gaps" in the science of evolution, intelligent design theory also necessarily involves positing extra-natural (if not religious) phenomena. "Outside the precincts of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is very close to unanimous." The National Academy of Sciences, "the nation's most prestigious scientific organization," declares evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." A recent National Geographic ran a cover story asking, "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then provided the answer in the subhead: "No. The Evidence for Evolution Is Overwhelming." Evolution is, to again quote Bush science advisor John Marburger, "the cornerstone of modern biology."

SCIENCE CLASSES SHOULD TEACH SCIENCE: Commenting on President Bush's remarks, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said, "Whatever your belief, it should be respected. But the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism." O'Reilly added: "There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. ...  Just state the facts, whether it be science or any other subject." This is a red herring. For one, despite the widespread confidence in evolution theory, virtually all involved in the debate believe that teachers must present a thorough, probing analysis of its scientific merits and demerits. Moreover, many believe that intelligent design could play an important role in public school curricula. Students should be and are taught about theories like intelligent design -- they learn of various belief systems in philosophy and humanities classes, and of the levels of religious belief in our society in sociology classes. (Indeed, consider the recent struggle over evolution in Dover, PA: the school board candidates who opposed the teaching of ID in science classes also strongly supported its inclusion in humanities curricula. "Paradoxically," the New York Times observed, "that may mean that if [those candidates] win, intelligent design would be examined more thoroughly, and critically, than under current policy," which was crafted by ID proponents.) But, contrary to O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.

BELIEF IN GOD AND EVOLUTION ARE NOT INCOMPATIBLE: As physics professor Lawrence Krauss observes, "One can choose to view chance selection as obvious evidence that there is no God, as Dr. Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and uncompromising atheist, might argue, or to conclude instead that God chooses to work through natural means." In the latter case, he notes, "the overwhelming evidence that natural selection has determined the evolution of life on earth would simply imply that God is 'the cause of causes,'" as Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated when he presided over the church's International Theological Commission. Indeed, "when a researcher from the University of Georgia surveyed scientists' attitudes toward religion several years ago, he found their positions virtually unchanged from an identical survey in the early years of the 20th century. About 40 percent of scientists said not just that they believed in God, but in a God who communicates with people and to whom one may pray 'in expectation of receiving an answer.'"