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.