The Reveal!

For anyone who cares, my real name is Dylan Emerick-Brown. I figured I'd say that because there's no point in living behind a pseudo name forever. Well, there it is. Bye.

And for my friends in India:
फॉर अन्योने व्हो कारेस, मय रियल नामे इस द्य्लन एमेरिक-ब्रोवं। ई फिगुरेड ई'डी सय ठाट बेकाउसे तेरे'एस नो प्वाइंट इन लिविंग बेहिंद अ प्सयूदो नामे फोरेवेर। वेल्ल, तेरे इत इस। बाय।

Long Live Democracy!

Congress has set hopes that by Memorial Day weekend they will have a new bill for the funding of the war in Iraq that the president will accept. There can be no argument that this bill needs to get passed and the troops need to get their long-awaited support from the government. The question is whether or not there will be another veto. The Democrats have said that they wish to compromise with the president but they refuse to give him a clean bill with no restraint on the war. Thank God.
Bush cannot continue to run this war like an unchallenged dictator with no concept of the consequences to his actions. He thinks that he and his administration are above the law and above the people but they are subject to the law and subjects of the people! Long Live Democracy!

War Czar? Why Not? Anyone Else With An Opinion?

Today, Bush has finally chosen a war czar. Or to be more accurate, a person willing to be war czar finally chose Bush. After having the job turned down by several top military officials and criticism already facing the new war czar even before he accepted the position, Bush has found his scapegoat. And the name of that unfortunate victim of a shortened career is Lt. General Douglas Lute.
With an extensive military background, he is just the man the Bush Administration needs to sparkle up his bureaucratic efforts to save his war. While the rest of the world is screaming for diplomacy, Bush has placed a three star general in charge of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there's a catch: the war czar has to be loyal to Bush's plans.
Now that this country has a war czar in place--the one link missing in the victory chain--we can all rest assured that soon we will have total victory in Iraq. As an assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor...wait a minute! An assistant to the who?! This isn't a job that is actually going to provide anything new. It's just a flashy title that all of the blame can fall on when things continue to go sour.
The president and the deputy national security advisor already have assistants. If they want the opinion of a three star general they can just ask. But instead, they've decided that by taking something they already had in the first place, repositioning it within Washington's bureaucracy and giving it a new title everything is going to change. I give up! This country is being led by a bunch of g*d d#&m imbeciles. What else is there to say?

Spiral Dynamics As They Apply To Iraq

The following is a comment made on my article, "Iraq: The American Tarpit". I feel that it has something valuable hidden within the message that I want to address afterward. Thank you, Anonymous.
mullah cimoc say him warning ameriki people in 2003 when bush the invading iraq.
mullah cimoc then tell all ameriki saying please to reading the books of him chairman mao tse tung on guerilla warfare strategies and tactical.
mullah cimoc say in 2003 him insurgent running the enrage the bear tactical.
bear so ferocious, but running to and fro and the lunging to and fro, finally getting tired and the weaker and finally after the tormenting after the exhaustion him wanting to be killed just for ending the suffering.
this usa now in iraq. so the weaken, now the guerilla more aggressive but still the so careful. the bear still roar but hearing now the weakness.
in this time now all muslim knowing that in new iraq only him who killing so many ameriki soldier having the status and the power.
the collaborator him to die and all the family too, unless so torture by ameriki.
only one kind of the voting to count in new iraq. this ballot him calling the body bag containing the ameirki soldier ballot. if not have the this ballot, not having him vote.
this new man in new iraq him true warrior face every day adversity. him only man with political power in new iraq.
for this reason now the killing for starting so much against ameriki soldier. the wife telling the husband, “Omar, you needing for killing three ameriki now so our children him going the college and have good job in new iraq”. Also, “you not my husband if not killing ameriki soldier.”
this new kind of gold rush, but this rush him calling this the rush for kill ameriki soldier.

This comment uses the analogy of a bear to represent the United States in a clever story reflecting the conflict between the views of the Iraqis and our views. The best way I can explain this is in the terms of spiral dynamics. A good link to go to for more information would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics.
Basically, spiral dynamics is a concept model of how human cognitive development evolves--much like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Using colored levels, we can elevate our cognitive development to new "tiers" of consciousness.
Now, this applies to the above comment in that Iraqis are thinking on a "blue" tier while we are thinking on a "green" tier. What this means is that while we are planning a democracy, which is a pretty complicated and in-depth concept to fully understand and implement, the Iraqis are thinking in more of a tribal sense of sects and power. And it is this gap between where we are, cognitively, and where the Iraqis are that is creating an obstacle for democracy in Iraq.
The blue tier is a more simple level consisting of basic codes and laws, a need to follow a path to right or truth, thinking in a sense of fundamentalism and traditionalism--occasionally extremism. This tier is where the insurgents are thinking on a cognitive level. They are only interested in tradition, authority, morals and the punishments for disobeying them. This is a tier in which many Islamic extremists worldwide are operating. Codes of conduct and tradition as well as purpose, right, wrong and consequences of straying from the set path are all parts of religious teachings such as in the Qur'an. And on this tier, understanding, creating and holding onto a concept such as democracy is beyond their reach. While some Iraqis have moved up to a higher tier, the vast majority are simply not cognitively ready for the responsibilities of sustaining a democracy--a western concept that is mostly unfamiliar in Middle East culture and is only recently starting to prosper in such countries as, ironically, Iran.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is thinking on the green tier which understands the global picture, decisions from the head and not the heart, equality, acceptance and cooperation--all concepts interwoven within democracy. These two tiers, while not that far spaced apart, are still two completely different ways of looking at things. Not just democracy, but these two different cognitive brains would look at everything differently from culture and society to the environment and economics.
What all of this comes down to is another fundamental factor in the many factors of why Iraq is failing to meet U.S. goals. This is something that needs to be much more seriously looked into by the Bush Administration and other politicians worldwide. We simply cannot expect such results from Iraq at the pace we are heading and our military presence in the country is likewise hindering the process by creating a "competing tribe" for power in the minds of the Iraqi citizens.

A Civil War By Any Other Name...

First of all, I would like to address that I made some changes to a previous post: Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America. I felt that parts of it were unclear and so I found better ways of explaining my view. I understand that this is a journal and I am not really supposed to do that but...who cares?
This journal entry has to do with the civil war controversy over Iraq. Many Americans feel that Iraq is in a civil war while some still feel that they are not. Well, for anyone who cares--they are in a civil war.
One argument I've heard is that only 10-20% or so of the country is actually fighting and so it isn't really a civil war. But our civil war in the 1860s only killed 3% of the population. Not many more could have been actually fighting. A civil war doesn't bring all of the population to arms. Everyone is enveloped in the civil war but only a few are physically fighting it.
Some people who think Iraq is in a civil war, even suggest that we continue to remain there. No one got involved in our civil war. And if someone did, then it wouldn't have remained civil. The point of a civil war is that it is domestic. A foreign entity has no place militarily in another nation's civil war.
And it is too easy for historians to judge past civil wars and determine whether or not someone should have intervened. But policies aren't made in retrospect. No one can play fortune-teller and assume who is going to take power and if that is going to be a good thing for the U.S. And if it is good for the U.S. does that mean that it is good for Iraq? It is unfair to involve oneself militarily in the domestic matter of another nation.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what you call IT as long as IT is acknowledged. I think that people don't like to admit that it is a civil war because that implies that the war is out of U.S. control and that is an unsettling thought. But that is the reality of it like it or not. You can call it a "civil war" or you can call it, "a whimsically violent parade of explosive sectarian balloons" for all I care. Just don't pretend that nothing is happening over there.

Iraq: The American Tarpit

In an ambush about 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya this morning, five were left dead and three missing among a patrol of U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter. Despite the military's best efforts, the three missing soldiers' whereabouts are still unknown. This is yet another tragedy in the ongoing larger-scale tragedy that is the war in Iraq.

In other news today, Vice President Dick Cheney visited the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah in an effort to gain support for the war. The king, who gave Bush much support in the beginning of the war has now declared the U.S. troops in Iraq as being an "illegal foreign occupation".

Also, Abdullah has criticized Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq and refused to see him on his tour for support around the Middle East. Prime Minister al-Maliki is a Shiite leader while King Abdullah is Sunni. There has been much tension over these differences throughout the Middle East and it has turned one of Bush's strongest allies against the war.

King Abdullah is the leader of the most oil-rich nation in the world and also head of a primarily Sunni culture. Iraq is led by a Shiite leader and holds possibly the second largest natural reserves of oil in the world. It is no wonder that Abdullah's support has dwindled to criticism when it looks like an economic competitor is run by a Shiite leader. And the thought of Iraq siding with Iran is too much to bear.

Despite the highly unlikely possibility that Iraq will somehow form a vigilante alliance against the west in oil exportation, one thing remains certain; that oil is a primary factor in the Iraq equation as well as the sectarian differences between Sunnis and Shiites. The Sunnis, who control most of the Middle East (Saddam was Sunni), would like to see Iraq stay ethnically allied with them against neighboring Shiite Iran. The Shiites in Iraq believe that now is their time to represent themselves from the ashes of oppression but face overwhelming challenges ahead.

The real question here is whether or not the Middle East is willing to compromise and allow both sects to rule democratically in the new nation of Iraq? More importantly--are the Iraqis? In such a sensitive geopolitical and religious environment, that Utopian democracy Bush envisioned might be a little too far out of reach. The best strategy for Iraq at this point is to pull the U.S. troops out of the country, assist diplomatically and allow Iraq to be run by Iraqis. Foreign policy should not become domestic policy. But do our leaders have what it takes to bring our troops home and let Iraq go or are we trapped in the oil?

Iraq: An American Frankenstein!

With poll ratings incredibly low for both Congress and the president, things are looking dismal for the direction the United States is headed. The Democrats in Congress have nothing to show for their time in power except a veto by the president while many other issues need to be addressed. And in the same boat is the president, who despite the concern of the American people, has continued his stubbornness and led this country further into the war with no hope of getting out soon.
The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has said that Iraq needs about two to three more years before he is confident that Iraqi forces will be able to take over for the U.S. troops. Whether this is true or simply a made-up figure, it may be too little too late. In Congress's latest bill, Congress will fund the war in installments in order to view progress made in Iraq and vote on whether or not or how much to spend in the next installment of funds.
This scenario seems to be quite fair even by Talabani's standards. As long as the Iraqis continue to make scheduled progress, the funding will continue until the country can stand on its own feet. But Bush has continued his vow to veto this bill because it shows a glimpse of U.S. forces at some point leaving Iraq.
Congress, as unsuccessful as it may be, merely wants Iraqis to be held accountable for Iraq. They have had over four years to do it. There seems to be no logical reason for funding the war indefinitely without setting up goals to be reached. And if the funding continues despite the scenario if the Iraqis fail to meet those goals is downright irresponsible of U.S. policy makers.
The Bush Administration's lack of concern for the consequences of this war show that they have been leading this country down the wrong path for far too long. Unfortunately, due to the terrible handling of the war in its early phases there is the chance that even after we leave what may appear to be a healthy Iraq, the Iraqi people could face another genocide. All we are doing is delaying an inevitable civil war for who will control Iraq. This is not our decision to make and the sooner we realize that the better. These harsh facts of life--that terrible things will happen despite all efforts--are facts that need to be accepted. We cannot successfully police the world on our own.
If the Iraqis fought their civil war and forged their own government, it would be the first step they've made on their own towards a sovereign nation. It is a simple inevitability that the Iraqis will only be content when they have created a country of their own without the influence of a foreign entity.
It is not fair for the U.S. to dictate how another country should be run and the American people are seeing that. We need to focus on our own domestic issues and leave the Iraqis with a country post-Saddam. There are more important things than intimidating Iran, which is one of the most democratic nations in the Middle East if only Republicans could look beyond the leadership and at the actual culture, society and base of Iranian government. If you don't believe me, look it up. And there are more important things than rebuilding Iraq in America's image.
War is not an acceptable result of adequate foreign policy. And no matter how much we may want it, Iraq will never survive as an American experiment; it will fall into a violent socio-political void unless it is allowed to grow into the nation it was always meant to be, like it or not--Iraq.

Another Bill, Another Veto

The president is once again on a a stubborn mission to veto any bill that doesn't bear his hallmark short-sighted failure stamp on it. A new bill passed by Congress willing to compromise with the White House allows $42.8 billion to be spent on the war until August 1. Then, over summer Congress will vote whether or not to end the fiscal year with another $52.8 billion to last until September 30.
President Bush said, "We reject that idea. It won't work."
Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress, Bush has stubbornly defied every idea that has come to his desk and has shown an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate with Congress on a spending bill for the war. If Bush truly wanted to help our troops he would fund them. The caution in Congress's bill is to allow the Iraqi forces to take over and relieve some of the stress from U.S. troops. This would be the first step in the United States' acceptance of a sovereign Iraq without U.S. occupation. But Bush will not allow any bill to pass into law that does not go along with his totalitarian view of complete and absolute compliance. He is showing the signs of a dictator and not the president of a democratic nation.
Even the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, compared Bush to Hitler in a recent speech given in Red Square. Putin criticized the U.S. for " disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”
I do not understand how people can support the president. I support the troops but this war is unjustifiable and our president is a spoiled little child who cannot agree to share power with the Democrats who happen to be supported by the majority of the American people.
Our troops need to be supported through action and not just through words. Bush's words are cheap and he throws them out over the airwaves with no regard to the consequences they forge; the neglect of our troops to salvage what's left of a miserable presidential legacy.

Saddam's Iraq Will Not Become Our America

We, as Americans, are in danger of being subjected to the same sort of law that the Iraqis were held under during the regime of Saddam Hussein. If we are not careful, our own politicians may turn our Constitution against us and give the government more unrestrained power than was ever intended.
U.S. citizens have the Sixth Amendment right which states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall been committed..."
But in a senate hearing in January of 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said to Senator Arlen Specter, "...the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas."
As found on Wikipedia, habeas corpus is the "legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment." In other words, U.S. citizens can NOT be unlawfully imprisoned.
The only exceptions to that are spelled out in the U.S. Constitution in Section 9 of Article One: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."
To simplify things, look at the Sixth Amendment as a positive and habeas corpus as a double-negative. They both state the same thing but in inverse statements. The Sixth Amendment says that U.S. citizens have the right to be lawfully imprisoned if they are to be imprisoned at all. While habeas corpus says that U.S. citizens are not to be unlawfully imprisoned.
So, by Gonzales saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of habeas corpus, he is inversely saying that U.S. citizens do not have the right of the Sixth Amendment. If, per Gonzales, I can be unlawfully imprisoned then I can't invoke my sixth amendment right. And that is illegal.
But there can be arguments that the "detainees" referred to in the definition of habeas corpus are not defined as the same as the "accused" in the Sixth Amendment, thus rendering my argument insufficient. These definitions were gathered from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Detainee--"a person who is detained; especially: a person held in custody prior to trial or hearing." Accused--"a person who has been arrested for or formally charged with a crime: the defendant in a criminal case."
Both definitions refer to a trial for the individual in question which prevents "unlawful imprisonment". And if that person is not charged, then they must be released within 24-hours as stated by law. If they are charged, which would allow the person to be held as long as the investigation is run, then that implies a trial will be held. And holding someone charged for a crime indefinitely is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Eighth Amendment and is illegal.
All people of the United States are considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Taking away habeas corpus from the American people because the Constitution never fully grants it to U.S. citizens and not for reasons listed in the Constitution is illegal as proven above. The state of the nation is not in rebellion and the U.S. is not under invasion and so our government cannot suspend habeas corpus to U.S. citizens.
And though the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 may be considered an invasion--it is not. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines invasion as "the act of or an instance of invading". The United States is not under the act of invasion and the instance of the attack occurred over 5-years prior to the attorney general's statement rendering the instance of the attack void in today's view. In addition, a terrorist attack is by no means an invasion by definition; rather it is a violent means of political and/or religious coercion through the act of harming innocent civilians. Let us not be confused.
Do not allow habeas corpus to be suspended or eliminated all together as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has implied that it can. This is America, we are Americans and we will not be abused by our own politicians--not now nor ever!

Debit? Credit? Or National Debt?

One of the reasons the war in Iraq is still going on has to do with perception. But not only perception; most notably the perception of the majority populace. The power of the people is evident not only in a democracy but every form of government because in the end, they outnumber the politicians and run the nation. So what perceptions are fueling this war?
One of the perceptions deals with why the terrorists are attacking innocent civilians all over Iraq. In today's car bombing in Kufa that killed sixteen people left many wondering why they had to be targets. “We are poor people looking for anything to secure our livelihood and we have nothing to do with politics. Why do they do this to us?" said Firas Abdul-Karim, a wounded man from the explosion.
Unfortunately, he and everyone else around him have everything to do with politics. In his case, the terrorists would call them collateral damage. It is the theory of the terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, that if they attack the people, they will feel like the path they are on is not leading them anywhere safer. It is a strategy to turn the people against their government for not providing adequate protection. And in a nation rebuilding itself, that is not easy to do.
But the perception of the people from the Iraqis' perspective is one of two factors keeping this war in motion. They feel the pain on a daily basis and thus the healing can never fully begin. The fear is always in the back of their minds thus life cannot return to normal. They don't believe that their government is strong enough to protect them. And they continue getting blown back to square one, diminishing hope and moral.
The second factor here is the perception of the American people. America is no doubt the prime nation involved in the Iraq war other than Iraq itself. The reason the war is still going on is in part due to the fact that the American people have not voiced themselves loud enough to get the politicians, especially on the Republican side, to react. The polls will only go so far in convincing politicians.
Congress has approved over $609 billion since September 11, 2001 for the war on terror. And yet no one feels a tug on their pocket. This is because of the tax cuts of the Bush Administration and the no-spending limit on America's credit card a.k.a. our national debt. We don't feel the economic effects of war like we used to. There is no rationing going on or food stamps.
But the problem lies in future generations. Bush said in a speech, "This war started on my watch, but it's going to end on your watch." And that is more true than most things he's said during his presidency.
The fact is, when America needs to worry about social security, medicare, support for war veterans and so on, we are going to need to stick our hands into the cookie jar but this war will have drained everything out of it. This war was not meant to be paid for during this generation as a means of gaining support. If the American people's quality of life is not affected, then the war will go on mostly unnoticed. And so our children and our children's children will be paying out of their pockets for a war they never even lived through in the form of government program and funding cuts.
It was a sly move on the Bush Administration but they understood that ever since the Crimean War when the first reporters came back home with news from the front lines, that wars are fought only with the support of the people behind them. And the best way to keep up support for a war is to adjust the people's perception so that it doesn't even feel like a war is even going on at all. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, they're reminded every day at the cost of human lives.

Peace Was Outbid Again

For those people who are under the impression that the violence in Iraq occurs only in Baghdad (and there are those people out there), take a look at the map provided. Today, two suicide bombers killed around twenty people on the outskirts of Ramadi. Yesterday, roadside bombs killed eight American soldiers in the province of Diyala. An ambush by ground forces and accompanied bombing in Baqouba killed two U.S. soldiers and two policemen. And the tortured and shot body of an Iraqi policeman was found in Kirkuk. Here are three locations in two days where violence occurred that are not Baghdad.

In a more interesting story of how war is a business and profits are being made off of this one, NBC News is looking into why last September an Israeli-made weapon for destroying rocket-propelled grenades in mid-flight, dubbed Trophy, was denied by the U.S. Army for production. Our troops have been plagued by constant attacks by these weapons and here is a device that can put an end to that. The Trophy was tested nearly 400 times successfully with no failures on almost every type of RPG and anti-tank guided missile known. And the Pentagon even tested it and said it was 30 for 30. And yet with these astounding figures, the U.S. Army chose to give the contract to Raytheon so that they could build one from scratch. Even in the summer of 2005, the Pentagon Office of Force Transportation did a test of six systems and found that Trophy was the best of all of them.

Adam Ciralsky, Lisa Myers and the NBC News Investigative Unit had this to say, "Pentagon sources tell NBC News--and internal Army documents seem to confirm--that Army officials came to see Trophy as a threat to the Army's effort to field an RPG defense as part of the biggest procurement program in Army history, the $200 billion Future Combat System (FCS)."

This is just another pathetic example of how people are making money off of war and business comes before our own troops. U.S. soldiers are being killed by RPGs when a device that can save them already exists but the military would rather give the contract to a company that doesn't even have one yet.

Let's learn a little more about Raytheon. William H. Swanson is the Chairman and CEO of Raytheon. And despite Raytheon's values of ethics as stated on their website, Swanson was found by The New York Times to have plagiarized his booklet, "Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management". First of all, if it is in a booklet it is written. Second of all, I found it ironic that one of the sources he plagiarized his work from was, "...from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld..." said Wikipedia. Ah, Donald Rumsfeld and ethics. He was forced to resign not too long ago for his mishandling of the war in Iraq!

Also, Swanson is a trustee of the Association of the United States Army or AUSA. As stated in another Wikipedia article, "...(AUSA) is a private, non-profit organization which primarily acts as an advocacy group for the United States Army."

Well, it seems like Raytheon is certainly making a profit from having their CEO as a trustee of a group that influences the Army. This is war profiteering and it is wrong. How can the government condone such an action when American lives are on the line? A congressionally-mandated review is looking into the situation and I hope that someone goes to prison for making such a greedy and deadly decision.

America is not a corporation that uses politics and foreign relations as instruments to make money. And yet I continue to see blatant abuses of power and influence where corruption and profit triumph over common sense and right. It looks like the American eagle on the back of the dollar bill has found its olive branch too heavy to hold and now its just arrows and money.

We're Not Gonna Take It?

When it comes to the war in Iraq there are three things that I know: 1) the reason for going to war given to the American people and the international community (WMDs) was proven to be false. Despite the Republicans who are sick of people mentioning this factor, it is the key deceit that led to this war and should not be ignored. 2) The link to terrorism with Iraq is sketchy at best with the main thrust of terrorists flowing into Iraq after we invaded. Iraq was not a vital player in the war on terror and leaving Afghanistan has lifted the pressure off al-Qaeda and placed it on our stretched out troops. And 3) the profits from this war have been directly linked to White House officials such as Dick Cheney who still holds onto hundreds of thousands of shares in Halliburton despite claiming that he has severed all ties to his former company. Whether Halliburton has an instrumental role in going to war, I don't know. But what I do know is that there is a financial bias for the Vice President to lead this country into thinking that a war with Iraq was necessary. Again, this connection cannot be ignored. This is a direct example of war-profiteering and I suggest anyone interested in this matter read my article on Halliburton published earlier titled, "Bush: CEO Of America".
The media has the job of providing the people with the dots. It is up to the people to connect them. All of these factors show that not only is the war unjustifiable (as is the view of most Americans based on recent polls) but that our very own politicians who got us into this war are making money off of it. The Vice President should not have a personal financial gain in war.
I am trying to work on ways of getting this information out to the people but I fear that not enough people read my blog. And while my articles on Zimbio have received some comments, I don't believe that it is enough. Those responsible for this war and profiting from it when their interests should be in American security should be brought to justice. Bill Clinton nearly got impeached for getting "pleasure" from someone other than his wife but Bush and Cheney are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of lives and are showing that they have been making money from it. Is America really that f%#ked up?! How can they be allowed to get away with this and leave it up to us and future generations to clean up their mess?
The American people need to demand justice be served and not stand for anything less. This is our country and we deserve to have a say in how it is run. We need to come together and see to it that the Bush Administration doesn't get away with this so that it sends a message to future would-be presidents that the American people will not accept needless wars. Patriotism is not a shield to be used by politicians to disguise their true intentions. Patriotism is a sword that should be wielded in the face of all those who oppose this nation's security, even if that means pointing it at our own presidential administration. No longer should Americans feel scared into believing that this war is for our security and anyone who opposes it is less of an American. Stand up and demand your country back!

Bush Running This War Alone

With the president's approval ratings in a recent Newsweek poll dipping to an all-time low at 28%, there is little for him to be happy about these days, much less the war in Iraq. But I am sure the president is seeing the glass as half full and thinking about how nice it is that his disapproval ratings are at 72%. But the problems go further than simply the military failures of this war and even the treatment of the soldiers as stated in my last article. The problems have surfaced as a question of whether or not the strain and heavy burden placed on our troops overseas is creating a moral handicap in their judgment.
In a recent study, over 40% of soldiers supported the concept of torture on civilians in the hope that it would provide valuable information. Even more shocking was that less than half of Marines said that they would report a fellow Marine if they wounded an innocent civilian. And 10% admitted that they had been responsible for personally abusing innocent Iraqis.
An article by the Associated Press said, "The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines in Haditha, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family in Iraq and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison."
Our troops are stretched out too thin on the battlefields and the immense pressure placed on the soldiers is blurring the lines between defense and offense; ethical decisions and unethical decisions; right and wrong. It is understandable that under these high-pressured and violent conditions where life and death hang in the balance, decisions can become split-second and difficult. But our troops are beginning to show signs of mental fatigue. The scale of sanity is losing its balance and tipping to an unethical sense of preemptive defense and indiscriminate persecution. What our troops need is to come home and remember what peace feels like. Because while we like to believe that our troops are these invincible, perfect machines of justice and elitism--they're not. They are human beings just like everyone else and no training can prepare the mind for the things they face. No soldier is infallible but all are accountable. And so let's take our soldiers out of these hellish environments where some of our children as young as 18-years-old are forced to play judge, jury and executioner with real lives.
All the meanwhile, Bush is ridiculed at home for his handling of the war. Though many Republicans feel that he is brave in standing up for his beliefs, many Americans simply do not share that view. In a recent Newsweek poll of 1,000 American adults the conclusion by Marcus Mabry of Newsweek was, "A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 55 percent vs. 40 percent. And nearly two out of three Americans (62 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is 'stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes,' compared to 30 percent who say Bush's actions demonstrate that he is 'willing to take political risks to do what's right.'"
It is about time that Americans start seeing the truth behind this war and begin taking steps to end it. This war is not healthy for anyone. I can only hope that soon the horrors of war will be stopped and those accountable will be brought to justice so that peace can grow where violence has reigned for far too long.

A Mind Wasted: A War Mishandled

When "musical artist" Kanye West was on television in 2005 concerning Hurricane Katrina and the poor response by the government in New Orleans he said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." He was way off. Our president doesn't care about ALL people. This even goes toward the troops he claims to be supporting in every speech he makes.
A fourteen-member panel created by the Pentagon found that 38% of soldiers and 31% of marines coming back from Iraq have either traumatic brain injury and/or post-traumatic stress disorder. The figures are 49% in members of the National Guard and all of these numbers are expected to increase over time. These task force members of the Pentagon want more adequate screening processes in the military instead of relying on the soldiers to come forward. This is because soldiers are often afraid of being singled out and having their professional or personal lives negatively affected.
An article by the Associated Press stated, "In recent weeks, several U.S. senators have pointed to problems in the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs' mental health care, citing the Army's Fort Carson in Colorado where some troops have said their pleas for mental health care went unanswered or were met with ridicule."
This follows the Walter Reed scandal and further shows the government's neglect of its own troops who are possibly of no more use in the field. A Veterans Affairs director of education, Jan Kemp, estimated that nearly 1,000 veterans within the system commit suicide every year.
Another quote from an Associated Press article said that, "A recent investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that just 22 percent of U.S. troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who showed signs of PTSD were being referred by Pentagon health care providers for mental health evaluation..."
It is absolutely disgraceful and unacceptable that our troops who are fighting overseas are being neglected of the mental disorders they obtain from the violence they're exposed to. I, as all Americans should be, find this to be appalling and unacceptable that our patriots are faced with such a lack of support from the government that sent them overseas in the first place. Our soldiers, Marines, Airmen, sailors and National Guard members are more than just bodies that fight wars. They are people--regular American citizens--when they return home and should never be considered second class citizens as our government is treating them. Their mental health is as, if not more, important than their physical health and should be treated with concern and care. Though the president may no nothing of post-traumatic stress disorder other than what the photo-ops with grieving families will allow, he certainly has shown that he has the judgement of someone with failing mental capabilities.

Send The Gears Turning

With so many Americans thinking with their hearts patriotically and not with their heads sensibly, not enough people are listening to the facts and considering the realistic global consequences of this war. And in addition to the ridiculous nature of U.S. politics these days, our foreign policy concerning Syria is nothing short of hypocritical. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Walid Moallem of Syria in the near future to discuss diplomacy between our two nations. But not even a month ago, Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Damascus and faced harsh criticism from the Bush Administration. It took a risky move by Pelosi to open Bush's eyes to the fact that diplomatic isolation is no long term solution. And now, the Bush Administration is going to take credit for re-opening the doors between Washington and Damascus.

Back to Iraq: in a recent speech by President Bush, he said, "For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11."

This seems to be the first time since the war in Iraq started that Bush is concerned about defeating al-Qaeda. And I would like to point out to a few Republican war hawks that even Bush has admitted to this being a "civil war". If al-Qaeda is really our prime enemy in the war on terror, then what are we doing in Iraq--a country with no proven links to terrorism until we invaded?

Bush also had this to say in an April 21, 2007 speech, "...we are trying to help a young democracy survive in the heart of the Middle East, and at the same time prevent our stated enemies [al-Qaeda] from establishing safe havens from which to attack us again."

As reported by CNN, "Terrorist organizations behind the violence [in Iraq] are setting up along Pakistan's northwest frontier in safe havens...this has led to more fighters pouring into Afghanistan..."

If eliminating al-Qaeda's safe havens is our goal then why did we leave our mission in Afghanistan? The United States' disorganized micromanaging and split loyalty agendas cannot compete with al-Qaeda's dedicated, single-minded and goal-orientated structure. With a new base in the mountains of Pakistan, world-wide publicity gaining followers (U.S.'s mishandling of war is no help), investments in Iraq and prospects in a looming war with Iran al-Qaeda is in a much better position than before we went to war with Iraq. This is not a very good realization.

What makes war-hawk Republicans think that invading Iran is defeating terrorism? al-Qaeda, has been supporting a U.S.-led war with Iran for some time now. Think about it: the U.S. goes to war again, Iran is a Shiite nation, al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group. It is a win-win for al-Qaeda if we go to war with a Shiite country that has even been expressing interest in meeting with Secretary Rice for a while now in attempts for a diplomatic solution to our differences.

CNN wrote on April 30, 2007 that, "Iraq's sectarian warfare fueled a sharp increase in global terrorism in 2006, the U.S. State Department reported...The total number of terrorist attacks was up more than 25% from the previous year..."

If anyone thinks that this war has made the world a safer place, they are very wrong. War is what our enemies want and that is what we are giving them. While al-Qaeda formulates another 9/11-scale plot in the caves of Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are bickering in Washington about sending more troops into Iraq! It was America's legacy as the precedent of representative democracies to reason and see above the needless violence through diplomacy that placed us at the head of the pack. But now, we are nipping at the heels like all the rest and have given in to a far much simpler and undignified method of dealing with foreign policy.

The American People Have Been Vetoed But Not Silenced!

President George W. Bush has officially vetoed the bill funding U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq that was also attached to a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Democrats in Congress do not have the 2/3 majority vote to overturn that veto. The president has made it official that he is going solo on his plans for the war in Iraq without the support of the majority of Americans. Our very own leader has purposefully and stubbornly neglected the will of the American people to bring an end to this war. By now you know how I feel about this. What happens next...

The Oval Office Held Together With Heart: Heart In The Wrong Place

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been asked to step down from his position in the Israeli government due to his handling of the war with Lebanon last year. The war started after a constant barrage of rockets from Hezbollah killed numerous Israeli civilians and topped off with the killing of three soldiers and capture of two others in a cross-border guerrilla attack on July 12. The war began with overwhelming support by the Israeli people. A government probe investigation, though, revealed that, "The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one. All of these add up to a series of failure in exercising judgement, responsibility and prudence."
Soldiers often returned from the front lines with news that they weren't even given enough water or ammunition. There were other reports of a disgraceful mishandling of the war which finally brought a fellow Labor Party minister, Eitan Cabel, to resign. In addition, the vast majority of Israelis, horrified at the way Prime Minister Olmert rushed into the war and neglected key factors, have demanded his resignation. Despite the overwhelming number of protesters, Olmert has no plan on resigning.
Let's see: an elected leader rushing into war with falsified support, mishandling of the war and a stubborn defiance amidst the voices of his own people. Sounds a lot like a parallel to Bush if I may be so bold. Too bad we aren't demanding his resignation as diligently as the Israelis are of their prime minister.
And bad news for those that believe terrorism and the insurgency in Iraq are the same thing. I have heard so many times people saying that the terrorists are taking over Iraq but here is an example of what I have been saying for quite some time: the Iraqis do not want the terrorists in their country just as much as us. In a battle today, al-Qaeda leader in Iraq Abu Ayyub al-Masri was killed in a gun fight. But the gunfight wasn't between al-Qaeda and the U.S. troops. The battle was fought between al-Qaeda and the insurgents!
"This was not an operation by the security forces, it was an internal battle that led to his death," said Brigadier General Abdul Kareem Khalaf.
An MSNBC article wrote, "There has been increasing friction between Sunni Islamist al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni Arab insurgent groups, particularly over al-Qaida in Iraq’s indiscriminate killing of civilians."
This is a sure sign of progress in that the Iraqis are willing to take back their own country not only from the U.S. occupiers but from the terrorists gaining foot holes in Iraq. They are more than just one people against the U.S. They are a complex group of differing sects all joined in Iraqi unification. And while many Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting for dominant control of the country, they all agree that it is an Iraqi fight and not one for foreigners. And while the death of al-Masri has been denied by al-Qaeda, it is in the best interest of peace that they are lying for propaganda purposes. If anything this event goes to show that Iraq is multi-layered and this war must be seen from more than just the black-and-white perspective the Bush Administration has been looking at it with. It is about time the Iraqis have shown signs of stepping up to the plate. Now all we have to do is get off the field and let them swing away.
And on a side note: I have found in my personal debates with people on the war in Iraq that one thing always remains a constant variable. For those supporting the war, I have noticed that their judgement is often clouded by a sense of patriotism and passion. They think with their hearts more so than with their heads. I am yet to find sufficient evidence justifying this war but everyone I meet who is in favor of it only meets my facts with words of patriotic pride. It is a shame that something like 9/11 could bring so many Americans together only to have something like this war in Iraq divide them so zealously.

Does Peace Feel Lucky...Well, Does It?

As the death toll for American soldiers passes 100 for this month, there is word from Iraqi as well as U.S. officials that sectarian loyalties have been interfering with military operations within Iraq. It is a scandal reminiscent of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys for their lack of cooperation in republican party loyalties. This administration seems to be rubbing off a little too much on Maliki's government in Iraq.

"Although some of the officers appear to have been fired for legitimate reasons, such as poor performance or corruption, several were considered to be among the better Iraqi officers in the field. The dismissals have angered U.S. and Iraqi leaders who say the Shiite-led government is sabotaging the military to achieve sectarian goals," said Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post.

Even American Colonel Ehrich Rose, the chief of the Military Transition Team who has trained multiple foreign armies including Iraq's was appalled by the sectarian loyalties of some of the Iraqi officers. "The Iraqi army, as far as capability goes, I'd stack them up against just about any Latin American army I've dealt with. However, the politicization of their officer corps is the worst I've ever seen," he said.

This sectarian loyalty is not much different than the party loyalty President Bush has demanded since taking office in 2000. I suppose the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Meanwhile, I have read in the newspaper a continuous flow of editorials about how the Democrats want the U.S. to lose in Iraq or how the Democrats will fail America if we pull out now. Okay, I've heard enough of this overly simplistic crap for too long. If we are going to lose in Iraq by pulling out, then how can we win in Iraq? I have only heard the one negative side of the argument on how we will lose. Well, if the Republicans are so smart, then how are we going to win? Are we going to remain in the country until every Iraqi citizen raises an American flag and sings our National Anthem? Are we going to wait until the insurgents get tired of fighting and decide to put down their guns, kiss and make up? Or are we waiting for a conventional peace treaty from some unconventional enemy lurking in the shadows of Baghdad? I have listened to people say how we can "lose" this war but since the beginning no one has had half a clue on how to "win" it. At least the Democrats are trying to support the troops by bringing them home so that they can stop being killed or maimed in a country we have no reason being in nor any plan for what to do tomorrow.

Republicans, and now apparently Bush's brain child--the Iraqi government, has put peace up against the wall until their blood-thirst is satisfied. President-pretender Bush and Prime-example-of-what-not-to-do Minister Maliki feel that not until all opposition is eliminated will there be peace and consensus among the people. Saddam's iron fist did command stability even though it harbored mounting tensions between the two sects. And that is the direction both of these governments are headed toward--the iron fist. But that is no way to support a democracy and that is no way to help a people.

Bush: CEO Of America

It is getting increasingly difficult to take our government seriously amidst the constant barrage of scandals and leaks but one thing remains consistent--American government never turns its back on the green.

Inspectors recently reviewed multiple facilities throughout Iraq to determine if the buildings were operating at their full capacity. At a recruiting center, sewage was backed up because the holding tanks were on the other side of a concrete barrier wall. At a maternity and pediatric hospital more sewage backups were found. And at one police station razor wire was held down by sand bags and other signs of poor work by contractors was found. A $79,000 generator wasn't being used because no one knew how to use it. And with further information coming to light about poor contracting work, I turn my head toward Halliburton, the single winner in a noncompetitive bid for contracting in Iraq by the U.S. government. Halliburton is known for mismanagement of their operations in Iraq, citing its most well-known: "We now know Halliburton paid $25,000 per month per truck to haul fuel into Iraq and got paid even when those trucks sat idle in Kuwait [due to high-risk security issues]," said a director of the Postconflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Fredrick D. Burton, "For this cost you probably could have flown the fuel in."

Another scandal was in September of 2005 when members of Congress found out that Halliburton was continually feeding spoiled food and contaminated water from the Euphrates River to our troops in Iraq as testified by former KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) employees Rory Mayberry, Ben Carter and Ken May.

And in the monopoly Halliburton holds over contracts in Iraq, it was discovered in October of 2006 by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) that Halliburton was hiding contract details from the public. SIGIR said Halliburton, "marks almost all of the information it provides to the government as...proprietary data." This data marked "proprietary" allows the military to keep this information from the public. The only problem is that that is not allowed to be done after the bidding for contracts is over. As a result of Halliburton gaining and holding onto the only contract for Iraq there have been about $108 million in overcharges. And to drill in the fact that war equals money, Halliburton contracts between 2000 and 2005 increased by over 600 percent.

And who is in charge of Halliburton? Currently, David J. Lesar is the CEO of the company after taking over the reins from none other than Dick Cheney, our current vice president. As found on the Halliburton Watch website, there are many interesting parallels between what Vice President Cheney said and what he did. "We [Halliburton] have not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that," said Cheney. Between 1997 and 2000, while Cheney was still head of Halliburton, his company sold over $73 million in "oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq," as found out by Halliburton Watch.

"And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years," said Cheney.

Halliburton Watch reported that, "As vice president, Cheney continues to receive a salary of over $150,000 each year from Halliburton while maintaining 433,333 shares of unexcersised stock options in the company."

While many republicans may consider Halliburton Watch merely a Cheney-bashing website, I stress that the facts speak loudest and should not be overlooked. For those who claim that this war has nothing to do with oil, consider that Halliburton's own description of itself is, "Halliburton adds value through the entire lifecycle of oil and gas reservoirs, starting with exploration and development, moving through production, operations, maintenance, conversion and refining, to infrastructure and abandonment."

Oil has been the backbone of this entire war and if the American people cannot see the parallels between oil profits and the Bush Administration by now then there is no hope.

Either Step Up Or Sit Down: Enough Name Calling

As a result of the debates I have been having with various people on the war in Iraq, I feel that it is important to mention that I do understand there are reasons for and against this issue. I have heard many emotional arguments for the war in Iraq filled with passion and patriotism. But I have also heard many arguments against the war filled with the same passion and patriotism. From all of the information that I have gathered--all of the facts, data, statistics and witness accounts--I have come to the conclusion that this war is unjust and wrong. All the while, I accept other people's opinions that differ from mine and take as much into consideration as possible. There have been many individuals who have been insulting and disrespectful for lack of a better argument and it is a shame that so many people cannot be civil in their debates. We are all Americans and we all love this country. It hurts me to see so many Americans fighting each other over this war when we are all on the same side. But in the end, I will stand by my beliefs and defend them to my last breath. Because while my views may change over time in light of a constant flow of new information, my unwavering stance by them will not. I refuse to be threatened or intimidated into believing that we should be in Iraq. And it sounds like many people are frightened by this administration's scare tactics that compel people to believe that if we do not have total victory in Iraq, Osama will be hiding under our beds in those quiet suburban slices of Americana. Throughout all of my debates with people, I have never heard any clear justification for the war in Iraq. I have heard a lot of slander about the treason of Democrats. I have heard a lot about al-Qaeda taking over the world starting with Iraq. I have even heard that Iraqis wanted to hurt American citizens long before the war even took place. But I am yet to hear a single fact emerge from the pile of war-hawk crap that truly justifies our presence in Iraq from the beginning. If you've got one, let me hear it. Because what it all comes down to in the end is that anyone can insult someone else for their beliefs, but no one can justify this war in Iraq.

Burqa Of Iraq: The Truth Concealed

The war in Iraq has become shrouded beneath a veil of lies and corruption since the beginning and while the cost of human life is clear, the reason for us being there is not. In the war on terror, which includes Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. was once again reminded about that little country they left behind. Taliban fighters seized control of a province in eastern Afghanistan after killing the district mayor and four policemen including the police chief. Women were forced to don their burqas (Muslim garment to cover women's bodies) in fear of strict Taliban rule. The town was later retaken by Afghan troops but this sort of temporary take-over by the Taliban is not uncommon throughout Afghanistan. While our forces are concentrated heavily in Iraq, we have forgotten that the war on terror started in Afghanistan. We left the country just as they were starting to get onto their own two feet leaving them with the means for a Taliban revival as seen here. Also, because we have poorly chosen to invade Iraq, al-Qaeda has received less pressure from U.S. forces in Afghanistan, found more recruits in Iraq and have all around benefited from the war in Iraq as they have taken the offensive against U.S. troops on the ground. Why then, are we in Iraq?
Well, if you read my last article, "George Puts The Oil Back In Toil" you would see my views on how oil is the prime factor here. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't weapons of mass destruction like the Bush Administration had claimed. And to further back that up, former CIA Director George Tenet wrote in his new book, "At the Center of the Storm" that the meeting he attended with the president was to simply find out what information could be used publicly to get Americans behind the coming war.
Tenet said, "I'll never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of the war. Never!"
Tenet felt that there was overwhelming pressure on him prior to the meeting to push the country into war. And most of this pressure came from who else but Beelzebub himself, Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House has dismissed these criticisms brought on by Tenet but in the end, it is just one more nail in the coffin for George W. Bush's war in Iraq.
I would imagine that if the real reason we went to war was because we honestly felt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to national security, then Bush would have made an apology to the American people when the WMDs were found to be nonexistent. After all, it was a noble enough cause that could have been the mistake of anyone lower in the chain of command. But the president's insistence that the war is still justifiable even after the prime reason for going to war was proven to be false tells me that WMDs were just a convenient cover over his hidden agendas.
The real victims here are the Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam's regime and must now suffer from the mediocre planning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And while we continue to occupy the country in the middle of their civil war, we only stall the peace process and make needless victims of our troops. This war has seen some ugly atrocities but none as despicable as the lies told by the Bush Administration that led to such unnecessary death.

George Puts The Oil Back In Toil

I am becoming increasingly fatigued by this war in Iraq. In a recent poll by NBC News and Wall Street Journal it was found that 56% of Americans polled agree with the Democrats in Congress about placing a deadline on the bill and only 37% of Americans sided with Bush. And in the same poll 55% of Americans said that they do not believe that victory is possible in Iraq and only 37% said there was still a chance. While the president continues to ignore the American people, construction of a wall in the Sunni populated Baghdad neighborhood, Azamiyah, was stopped due to overwhelming protests by the residents. When confronted about the situation, Brigadier General Qasim al-Moussawi said, "We expected this reaction by some weak-minded people."
The only weak-minded people I have been listening to are people like Brigadier General al-Moussawi and our president. I would venture a guess that the average height of the war hawk republican in the White House is about three and a half feet tall because they all have their heads up their asses. We need politicians who can set aside their agendas and represent their people. After all, that is what a democracy is for.
Also, I know that I have been saying that oil is the main reason for this war in Iraq and while many people agree that oil has something to do with it, I feel like I haven't really explained the details. So here it goes. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration Iraq holds "the world's second largest proven reserves [of oil]." In December of 2002, there were 2,000 oil wells in Iraq. In December of 2002, there were nearly 1 million oil wells in...where else...Bush Country (Texas). Interestingly, the Bush family including our president, are good friends with the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producing nation. I don't want to come off as a conspiracy buff for lack of evidence but the coincidences here are clearly suspect. War in oil-rich regions raise the price of oil across the board. No doubt, the Saudis have made a lot of money from the risen prices.
On a side note, there is the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and yet we have invaded two Middle Eastern countries not Saudi Arabia; one of which really had nothing to do with al-Qaeda until we invaded--Iraq. It is strange that we are friends with the nation that bred the terrorists but enemies to adjacent nations in the war on terror. But I am sure that George W. Bush, who was involved in the Texas oil industry prior to becoming president, has good reasons to remain close friends to the largest producer of oil in the world despite that nation's direct link to al-Qaeda. And I am sure it has nothing to do with oil.
And while Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, it is barely a contender for exports because of the poor condition of the production and refinement systems in the country. And where did our troops head for first once touching ground in Iraq? The oil fields. Securing the oil is clearly an extremely valuable factor that was taken into consideration for the war plan far much more seriously than an exit strategy. At this point, we are merely trying to protect our oil interests so that Iran cannot have any influence in Iraq's economy.
And in February, the Iraqi Cabinet met and passed a draft law backed by the U.S. to place the nation's oil fields under control of the central government. The Kurds in the north have objected to this saying that it is unconstitutional and unfair. They fear that the revenue from the oil will not be distributed fairly citing that the Iraqi government is already behind in payments for various endeavors. Also, the Kurds, who hold the northern oil fields in the country, do not want to be neglected nor abused as was such during Saddam's regime. So much for capitalism. It seems that if the central government controls the oil reserves, the U.S., which still has an overwhelming presence in Iraq, can have a much more influential say in how that oil is used.
While I do not feel that oil was the only reason we went to war with Iraq, due to a lack of WMDs, solid links to al-Qaeda as a strong ally to Saddam and other weak or downright false arguments, oil seems to be one of the strongest motivators for this war. Perhaps George W. should look into creating an engine that runs on human blood. Based on his lack of consideration for human life it would probably be cheaper for him to drive around his ranch that way.

Building A Wall With Nonbinding Mortar

After forty-six people were killed throughout Iraq today, the day closes on an equally somber note: the proposed solution. The wall that the U.S. military is building around Azamiyah is continuing to be built despite orders from the Prime Minister to halt construction. The wall is being built to protect the Sunni minority in a Baghdad neighborhood but protests by hundreds of citizens showed that the residents felt like they were being walled in and not that the terrorists were being walled out. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said that the purpose of the wall was “to try and identify where the fault lines are and where avenues of attack lie and set up the barriers literally to prevent those attacks.”

I don't know too much about suicide bombers but I am pretty sure that they are in no way related to earthquakes. Violence due to suicide bombing doesn't have "fault lines". You cannot simply build walls to keep out the suicide bombers. They are mobile people who have penetrated even the Green Zone within Baghdad. All a wall will do is represent a target of U.S. occupation to be blown up. Building a wall to thwart suicide bombers from attacking civilians is like building a dam out of coffee filters.

Also, I understand that in politics there is a certain gift from...well, somewhere...called a nonbinding resolution. The only question I have is: what is that term doing in a bill that can not only fund our troops abroad but bring them back home thus ending our occupation in a country which despises our presence in the middle of their civil war. By having the timetable for troop withdrawal as a goal and not a deadline, Bush could sign the bill into law and then ignore the pullout date. The beauty of a nonbinding resolution is that in addition to being an oxymoron, it is a way of achieving political success without really accomplishing anything. The republicans get to have their war and the democrats can say they tried to end it. The only people suffering are our soldiers and the Iraqi civilians unable to move forward.

With politics getting in the way of diplomacy, everyone is worried about their images and the legacies they will leave behind. This war is about politics and power and if you believe anything else, you have been misled along the way by the propaganda forged by the politicians. The only way real progress is going to come about if politicians do the unthinkable and put aside their own agendas and focus on the people. Nonbinding resolutions and 3-mile long walls are merely illusions in the political theater meant to misdirect the public while the real trick is played on us. The sad truth: in a democracy who is to be blamed for those ignoring the will of the people but the people themselves who ignore their responsibilities to that democracy.

Iraq's Reality: Viewer Discretion Advised

photo: www.prisonplanet.com/
Quote from Associated Press on 4/22/07 obtained by msn.com

"Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a tour abroad to ask the mostly Sunni-led governments of the Arab world to help his struggling government stop the violence in Iraq, said he told Egypt’s president that Iraq’s reality is 'not a civil or sectarian war.'"

Then what is it--a bicycle ride through the park? I don't think so. Only when we can admit that there is a problem can we solve it. And while this image is extremely graphic, this is what war looks like. Perhaps if people realized how real war truly was, they would be less likely to start them.

The Grass Grows Greener Where People Water It

The new environment that scientists are looking to discover life in is Iraq--political scientists, that is. While the president offers the job of War Czar to probably anyone with self-esteem low enough to handle being Bush's new Iraq scapegoat, the rest of the country is thinking what all of a sudden made the president think that his current strategy wasn't working? Could it have been the climbing death toll of American soldiers, the even higher death toll of Iraqi civilians, the increase in suicide bombings in Iraq, the fact that none of his previous strategies have worked or that even his top generals whom he relies on in Iraq are even losing optimism over the war? Either way, the job of War Czar has been turned down by four U.S. generals so far and if that tells you anything it's that the president's new strategy is just a little short of brilliant.
Even the U.S. top commander in Iraq, General David H. Petraeus takes solace in even the slightest signs of normality in Baghdad. While flying in his helicopter over a Baghdad neighborhood, Patraeus was filled with glee when he saw a man taking care of a soccer field. "He's actually watering the grass!"
I find it incredibly sad when a man watering grass is a sign of progress. Meanwhile, suicide bombs killed 13 people today at an Iraqi police station. One survivor had this to say: "All our belongings and money were smashed and are gone. What kind of life is this? Where is the government? There are no jobs, and things are very bad. Is this fair?”
The situation in Iraq has not improved and the top generals on the ground wonder if a troop surge would even work. While they all agree that it could bring down the sectarian violence somewhat in Baghdad, signs of increased violence have risen elsewhere throughout the country. Even our own top soldiers in the military are doubting whether or not their presence in Iraq is helping. And now, once the Bush Administration has exhausted every other means of bringing about peace through war are they beginning to see that diplomacy is how stability in the region will be reached. But I wonder if even now, Bush will do as he has done in the past and ignore all advisers with differing views than his while he blunders through the war led by false hopes of absolute victory. His overly simplistic view on this war and his incapacity to understand its repercussions in the global theater has cost tens of thousands of people their lives and lost this government its credibility to both foreign nations as well as his own people. When the peace returns to Iraq, so will the trust to the U.S.

The New Symbol Of Oppression

In the community of Azamiyah in Baghdad, the U.S. military has begun implementing their new strategy to protect the minority Sunnis in that area: building a three-mile wall around it. That's right. The Bush Administration seems to think that building a wall will solve anything. I suggest you read my other article published sometime earlier called, "Masonry Of The Mind". I can't even think of where to begin on how stupid of an idea this is. If anything it will symbolize U.S. occupation and authority thus becoming yet another target of bombings.
In addition, the wall has begun construction and much to the surprise of the neighbors being walled in. Without even asking the residents how they feel about the dramatic new plan, the U.S. military decided that it had the authority to do whatever it wanted and started building anyway. Dawood al-Azami, head of the council in Azamiyah did say that the military asked him to sign a document allowing the construction of the wall but according to him, “I told the soldiers that I would not sign it unless I could talk to residents first. We told residents at Friday prayers, but our local council hasn’t signed onto the project yet, and construction is already under way.”
Many Sunnis in the neighborhood see this wall as a prison and even further separates their support from the U.S. military. If they didn't feel like we were enough of an occupation force in their country, they sure as hell do now. I just wonder if George W. can tell the difference between Iraqis and Mexicans?

Revelation Of A Revolution

A word rarely heard among Americans, except when conversing about the birth of the nation, is revolution. A revolution is the means to a swift change in society as well as government. And while I feel that there is no need to overthrow our form of representative democracy, I do feel that there is a need to make a swift change. Our government has become too comfortable in its way of thinking that they can do whatever they want once elected to power. We, Americans, have become too comfortable in our way of thinking that once they are elected, our government officials can do whatever they want. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it?"

Americans who defend the war in Iraq claim that freedom is not free. And while I argue that this war was never about freedom from the beginning, the price of freedom here in America has been reduced to nearly zilch. We have forgotten that the price of freedom and democracy is not in terms of money or loss of life of our soldiers; the price of having a democracy is the willingness to use it. Because when democracy is no longer used by the people for the people, it will devour itself in the form of tyranny.

From the Patriot Act to the mild voter turnouts across the country, our democratic rights given to us by the Constitution that remain the rock of this nation are slowly being taken away from us because we are too lazy to open our eyes and protest. And if this country continues down this path of idle democracy while politicians quietly edit out the parts of the Constitution they don't like, revolution may be a word used more often in this society. Without participating in a democratic government the people make themselves obsolete and then open to direct abuses. And who will speak for the people once the people have something to say and yet their voices have become numb from lack of use?

We are not at that point yet, but I urge all Americans to get involved in government; if not directly, at least vote and speak out. A protest every now and then is healthy if a democracy is going to survive. And how can we say that we are fighting for democracy in Iraq when we are amateurs ourselves? It won't be until the situation is at its most dire hour when the word "revolution" spills from the people's tongues and dampen their lips like Pavlov's dogs reacting toward freedom from the other side of the cage. With the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq already at 3,311 and climbing, one day Americans will have had enough of the death brought about by this war. Unfortunately, though, the seeds of revolution grow only in well fertilized soil.

Iraq: A Self-Devour

Iraq is a lone fighter, who

blinded by His light,

with his sword

cuts his own wrists while hacking away

at his most potent enemy.

A War Without A Reason

Today, the death toll in Iraq again has peaked in the three digits and so I asked myself what is going on? And as I thought of this three things came to mind. One of them was that this entire war on terror started with our focus on al-Qaeda--a Sunni terrorist organization. And we were doing a good job in Afghanistan. But then, for some unknown reason, Bush decided that Iraq needed to be invaded. So, he made up some bullshit, got the country behind him and went to war. Now our focus has shifted from our original enemies to the new ones we created in Iraq. And as if irony wasn't enough of a bitch, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq because since we stretched out our forces and put all of our energy into Saddam, the terrorist organization gained in strength and followed us.
Also, I have realized that we have our military--the strongest and most well-trained in the world--in a country without a war. What the hell are they going to do? There is no war. Armies are trained to fight wars and now that the war is over, they remain in Iraq with nothing more to do than defend themselves from the insurgents who want them to leave.
And one of the biggest problems is that because we have in office a thick-headed authoritarian Billy Bob Hitler, our government has been cursed with the inability to adapt to the changing scenarios in Iraq. Thanks to Bush's tunnel-vision tactics, our military is fighting a war that doesn't exist and we are waiting for a victory that will never come. It would have also been great if this administration had planned for more than a few days when it came to preparing for war.
If I sound a little...I don't know...distraught over the war in Iraq, perhaps it is because it was the brain child of a brainless man who had no concept of action and consequences and even less regard for human life! When are we going to leave? If George is waiting for Judgement Day, it may very well come sooner than later the way he's running things. I can't...no, I refuse to imagine a world that is more screwed up than the one Bush created when he bumbled into the White House. Why don't we give every psychopath with delusions of violence without repercussion a job in U.S. politics? I can't seem to stress how wrong this war is. I apologize if I'm simply ranting on at this point but I need some sort of pressure valve to release my frustrations at this administration and its worthless foreign policies or else I'll blow up. Hey, maybe that's why there's so many people exploding in Iraq?

Blind Man Lead Thyself

It was announced that religious leaders from the Shiite and Sunni sects within Iraq have met with each other and have agreed that they need to band together as one nation in the name of peace. One religious leader, though, who has been very controversial since the beginning of the war has been neglected in the talks for peace--Muqtada al-Sadr. Now, I may seem by now to be an advocate of his but in fact I am an advocate of peace and I do not see why someone with such religious importance as well as political has been left out of the equation. And to prove that this situation in Iraq is not as black and white as most people think, here are some of the facts I learned from picking up a Time Magazine and reading it.
I wonder if our soldiers, some of whom have not even graduated high school and are yet given the responsibility of pulling a trigger, even know the differences between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Other than the historical differences they have certain names that appear in only one of the two sects, they pray in different mosques, they pray in different fashions, depending on a predominantly one-sect region they can have differing accents and also their cars can give away signs. One such sign would be a picture of a holy figure belonging to one of the sects or a license plate from a region with a large Shiite or Sunni population. This can be helpful at security checkpoints.
Also, there is validity to the Shiite grudge that they have been oppressed. The predominantly Sunni Middle East has treated the Shiites as a lower class with what Time said as being, "institutionalized prejudice". And Iraq is right in the middle of some of these grievances. Ali ibn Abi Talib, the person Shiites believed to be the next to follow in the prophet Muhammad's footsteps and later became the fourth Caliph of the Muslim faith was killed in 661 in none other than what is today, Iraq. It is time now for a change to the unequal distribution of power and rights and time for Muslims to come together in Iraq as nothing less than Iraqi citizens.
And even in 1991, after the Gulf War, Shiites attempted to rebel against Saddam but without any backing from outside forces the rebellion was quickly stopped and nearly 300,000 Shiites were killed. Another factor in this current scenario is that Iran is a Shiite nation and coincidentally an enemy of the United States. It is also worth mentioning that though many organizations such as Hezbollah and other terrorist groups may praise those such as the Madhi Army in Iraq, they are two separate people fighting for two separate causes and should not be confused. And in case anyone was wondering, al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group.
When al-Sadr's Mahdi Army of Shiites fought the U.S. early in the war they were celebrated by even the Sunni insurgents. al-Sadr himself was praised as a hero for Iraqis and not just Shiites. But in the end, the current government in Iraq chose to side with the U.S. who helped them gain power and hold onto it. This created a common enemy in al-Sadr. And it is this choosing of U.S. support over the people of Iraq that has fueled the ongoing fighting in violence. This is why six ministers of the Cabinet resigned yesterday who were followers of al-Sadr.
Originally the fighting was between Sunnis and Shiites to fill in the newly formed power vacuum. But because of the U.S.'s poor planning for the war and stubborn leadership in the White House, the common enemy between Iraqis became the U.S. occupation itself. And now the sectarian violence is more between Iraqis and government supporters of U.S. occupation than it is Sunni vs Shiite. And while both sects continue their violent acts against each other throughout Iraq, it is clear that one thing they all agree on is that this is their fight and we are merely getting in the way.
And while those who may suggest that Time Magazine, the source of most of this information, may be a liberal magazine I will not suggest alternative sources for other people. This was a source I decided to use and none of the facts were incorrect though you might disagree with my ideology concerning their nature. For those who wish to learn more about this intricately complex issue, I suggest that you do your own research. Do not listen to people who say that this source is unbiased or that source is right. Only you can make up your own mind and educating yourself is a monumental step in being an individual voice and not just another follower.

Mr. al-Sadr Leaves Baghdad

If I sound like I am repeating myself in these articles at times it is for two reasons: 1) the information being repeated needs to be emphasized and 2) the same stupid shit keeps happening. So today, six ministers of the Iraqi Cabinet who are loyal followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resigned in protest to the government's refusal to support a pull-out date for the U.S. With tens of thousands of Iraqis marching only a couple of weeks ago in protest to the U.S. occupation and now the resignation of six ministers of the Cabinet, the Iraqi people are getting fed up with us being there. And the majority of Americans recently feel the same way. The U.S. military has become yet another road block in Iraq's progress toward peace.
With the resignation of those six ministers, al-Sadr has shown he still has a firm grip on the Shiite community as a powerful leader. The U.S. has brushed this off suggesting that it will go fairly unnoticed and the government will remain intact. Meanwhile, Iraqis within the government fear that this is a huge setback. As al-Sadr continues to defy the U.S. and Iraqi government for supporting the occupation, he has been slandered more now by these two governments than ever before. The Associated Press wrote that "Forty-two victims of sectarian murders were found in Baghdad the past two days...U.S. and Iraqi officials have blamed much sectarian violence on Shiite death squads associated with the Mahdi Army [of al-Sadr]." But also, "The brazen nature of the targets of the attacks are similar to previous assaults that blamed on al-Qaida fighters..." With so much violence in Iraq, it is difficult to determine who is to be blamed for what.
I hope that al-Sadr is not merely blamed for the violence because he defies the "powers that be". After all, al-Sadr helped Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki get to power and now that he is in that position he has turned his loyalties from his people and toward the U.S. which is helping him keep that power. We should all hope that bias on politics does not promote slanderous propaganda on al-Sadr and that focus aim more toward diplomacy. Though al-Sadr is an enemy of the U.S. occupation he is a pivotal ally in peace within Iraq.