"Last Friday" protest
29 Dec 06

FUMCOG member

Our "Last Friday" protest consisted of Gold Star Mother Celeste Zappala and FUMCOG, PRAWN and Delaware Valley Veterans for America, and now the Brandywine Peace Community and the Philadelphia Veterans for Peace decided to throw their hats in as well.  The more the merrier!

Saddam Hussein's execution: Consensus on the blogs is that the verdict was fair and correct.  Had he been tried in the correct place, i.e. the International Criminal Court, the verdict would have been the same.  That said, was the trial itself fair and correct?  No, it was a complete travesty that degrades and dishonors these who took part in it. 

2

Senator Joe Lieberman (CFL-CT) (Please note that I did NOT specify that Lieberman is a Democrat, he is instead a Senator from the Connecticut For Lieberman party.)  wrote an op-ed wherein he describes the two sides in Iraq thusly:

"On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States."

The article which perfectly describes Lieberman's language here was written a few years back by one of my favorite writers in Z Magazine, Ed Herman.  The terms "moderates and democrats" are "purr" words, words meant to soothe and relax and make one feel pleasant and comfortable.  "Snarl" words such as "extremists and terrorists" are designed to do the exact opposite.  The charge against Iran is interesting, but nowhere in the op-ed does Lieberman describe Iran's exact role or provide any evidence that it's done anything.  Over the last few years, I've seen many accusations that Iran is behind the Iraq insurgency.  Problem with that theory is that the insurgents are perfectly explainable by facts that we already know for a certainty to be true.  It was known well before the US invasion of 2003 that Iraq was absolutely flooded with AK-47s and it's known now that the other main weapon of the insurgents, the improvised explosive device, or IED is easy to manufacture.  It was also well known that Iraqis and many other Middle Easterners don't take kindly to being occupied by foreigners.

Del Val Vets

There's simply no need to pose questions like "Who is playing North Vietnam to the insurgency's South Vietnamese Viet Cong?" or "Where is Iraq's version of the Ho Chi Minh Trail?"  Iran could very well be playing a role, but there's no indication that eliminating Iran from the picture would affect the insurgency in any meaningful way.  Before taking pro-Bush Administration spokespeople too much at their words, one might remember Quday and Usay and how their deaths shortly after the fall of Baghdad was supposed to be a decisive turning point, after which violence would decrease to negligable levels and the occupation would go smoothly. 

Vets for Peace #31

What the "snarl" and "purr" words do NOT specify is what exactly the "extremists" and "moderates" believe.  We know from polls that "More than 80 percent of Iraqis want us to leave, and nearly half of Iraqis believe it is acceptable to kill American troops."  The percentage of those Iraqis who think killing American troops is a legitimate act has since increased. What is an Iraqi who wants Americans to leave?  Obviously, Lieberman would have us believe that such a person would be an "extremist".  But if such people are in the majority, then the word "moderate" would come closer to describing the truth. 

Lieberman's states that:

"How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001."

Al Qaeda can hardly be the subject of a "worldwide war" as in 2004 "The Institute of Strategic Studies estimate[ed] that al Qaeda's total strength exceed[ed] 18,000 terrorists." In a world containing around 6.5 billion souls, al Qaeda is obviously not a serious component in a "worldwide war."  It may properly be the subject of a worldwide police action, but clearly not a war. 

more

According to Lieberman, bloodshed in Iraq "...is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center."  Many people through the last several years have attempted to measure the number of fighters in Iraq who have come over from foreign countries.  Last year, the Christian Science Monitor estimated that the total number of foreigners was somewhere between 4% and 10% of the total insurgency.  Most estimates that I've seen agree that about 5% is the proper number.  Allegedly, the foreigners (Obviously not all of whom are al Qaeda or funded by Iran) caused a great deal of the violence, but  it's difficult to credit the idea that "al-Qaeda and Iran" are seriously important factors, let alone just as important as the US "failure to ensure basic security."

final

"If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran."

Will an American defeat benefit "al-Qaeda and Iran"?  Sure, let's go with that interpretation.  But would an American victory constitute a defeat for them?  Not really.  The Iraqi "battlefield" only contains the assets and resources that these two put into it.  Anything they don't commit to the fight is not vulnerable to being lost in the fight.  The US is in a classic "Heads, you win; tails, I lose" position. 

"To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops..." 

Lieberman fails to even guess how many troops will be needed, but Juan Cole figures the number to be around 500,000.  Are the American people prepared to make a commitment of that scale?  Obviously not, as Lieberman fails to even mention the possibility of a draft. 

Lieberman tells us a fairy tale appropriate for little children, a pleasing, comforting tale devoid of substance and lacking the truly difficult choices that must be made.  Lieberman is not a member of the reality-based community.