The Fulcrum
Friday, November 07, 2003
"A Long, Hard Slog"
Through Atrios, I found this graph. It shows the number of U.S. soldiers' deaths, by month since the beginning of our little escapade in Iraq.
It seems to put the lie to aWol's assertions that it's getting better over there. The death rate appears to be on a steady, nearly linear climb. As someone in the comments to Atrios' post said: it doesn't seem that the Iraqis are desperate, more like they are well organized and determined.
But don't take my word for it. Go look at the graph - and notice the source of the data: it's all official. Oh, and while you're there, take a look in the lower right hand corner to see how much this "slog" is costing us in dollars.
It seems to put the lie to aWol's assertions that it's getting better over there. The death rate appears to be on a steady, nearly linear climb. As someone in the comments to Atrios' post said: it doesn't seem that the Iraqis are desperate, more like they are well organized and determined.
But don't take my word for it. Go look at the graph - and notice the source of the data: it's all official. Oh, and while you're there, take a look in the lower right hand corner to see how much this "slog" is costing us in dollars.
Special Delivery
There were lots of things that aWol promised to do or needed to do after 9/11. Arguably, he has accomplished only one of them: taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan. One of the most worrying items - because it actually involved incidents in the U.S., because nobody knows who was involved - was the anthrax-in-the-mail situation.
I guess we can add solving that crime to the list of things that BushCo has failed to do.
I would bet that this will be roundly ignored by Bush. Hey, look over there! We've created a (not so) secret group to capture Saddam!
I guess we can add solving that crime to the list of things that BushCo has failed to do.
Nearly a dozen area post offices remained closed Friday while authorities tried to determine whether anthrax was found at a Navy facility that handles mail for federal agencies.It's really amazing. The NYT lays out the what, the where but there are no actual words around the issue that this is part of the string of anthrax contaminations that occurred just after 9/11. There is nothing to indicate that BushCo has had no success in solving this crime or actual terrorism while it is engaged in it's show of bravado in Iraq.
I would bet that this will be roundly ignored by Bush. Hey, look over there! We've created a (not so) secret group to capture Saddam!
Strella
It's the Russian word for "arrow." It's also what they call the SA-14 shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. This is the missile that likely brought down the Chinook helicopter earlier this week and may have been what downed the Blackhawk this morning (it may have been and RPG; the final details have not been released).
Regardless. This is a devastatingly effective weapon, similar in size, shape and capability to the U.S. made "Stinger." If you're not familiar with this type of weapon, they are basically self contained missiles sealed in a tube. A grip-stock and sight with a battery are snapped onto this tube to create a complete system. When it's powered up, a soldier points the weapon at an aircraft, preferably just as it has gone by so the seeker head can "see" the infra-red signature from the engine. He then waits for the appropriate "tone" that lets him know the seeker is locked on and pulls the trigger. A small booster charge kicks the missile out of the tube to a safe distance in front of the soldier so that the rocket engine can ignite without injuring him. The missile is fast - supersonic - and agile; there is not pilot so it can maneuver at high g-loadings. The seekers on the newer missiles like the SA-14 and Stinger are very effective and can "see" through some jamming efforts.
A high-flying fighter has some chance of evading this kind of missile - if the pilot sees the launch and exhaust trail. A helicopter flying just a couple of hundred feet or less from the ground has almost no hope of evading one. Even though most combat helicopters have at minimum a "disco ball" IR jammer, they are so low to the ground, so close to the launch point of the missile that they don't help a whole lot.
The warhead on these weapons is small, but surrounded by a scored, metal canister that, along with the missile body, fragments into very sharp, very hot fragments upon detonation. If you've ever actually come in close contact with any kind of aircraft, you know that they are incredibly light and flimsy. Even though critical systems in combat aircraft are somewhat armored, the explosion and fragmentation products of a ground-to-air missile will very effectively cut through every part of the aircraft and the explosion will ignite fuel and high-pressure hydraulic fluids. I don't think I need to say much about what kind of violence this does to a human body.
So. Why all the details? Because there were so many of these weapons in Iraq; both U.S. and Soviet. And we have made some very bad enemies by our actions in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. And the borders in Iraq are so porous as to barely deserve the name. Our military didn't have the manpower when it drove through the country to secure all the ammunition depots it came upon. And it hasn't likely found all the depots there were. And, unbelievably, even all the depots that are known are not currently guarded. There just aren't enough soldiers on the ground to do so.
More importantly is this: where have all these weapons gone? Are they all still in Iraq? Still in the ME? Have any made their way into the U.S.? Are they on the way?
Despite what you may hear from our fearless leaders, you cannot protect civilian airliners from these weapons. The protective systems are expensive and heavy and require lots of training to operate. To be fully effective, the systems require that the pilot be free to VIOLENTLY maneuver the aircraft to evade the missile - assuming he has the altitude and the airspeed to do so. On a standard, civilian approach to landing, i.e. "low and slow," there just isn't that kind of latitude. And airliners are not built to withstand the stress of the kinds of combat approach to landing that you'd see C-17s and C-130s make in Baghdad.
Two words: Sitting Duck.
Regardless. This is a devastatingly effective weapon, similar in size, shape and capability to the U.S. made "Stinger." If you're not familiar with this type of weapon, they are basically self contained missiles sealed in a tube. A grip-stock and sight with a battery are snapped onto this tube to create a complete system. When it's powered up, a soldier points the weapon at an aircraft, preferably just as it has gone by so the seeker head can "see" the infra-red signature from the engine. He then waits for the appropriate "tone" that lets him know the seeker is locked on and pulls the trigger. A small booster charge kicks the missile out of the tube to a safe distance in front of the soldier so that the rocket engine can ignite without injuring him. The missile is fast - supersonic - and agile; there is not pilot so it can maneuver at high g-loadings. The seekers on the newer missiles like the SA-14 and Stinger are very effective and can "see" through some jamming efforts.
A high-flying fighter has some chance of evading this kind of missile - if the pilot sees the launch and exhaust trail. A helicopter flying just a couple of hundred feet or less from the ground has almost no hope of evading one. Even though most combat helicopters have at minimum a "disco ball" IR jammer, they are so low to the ground, so close to the launch point of the missile that they don't help a whole lot.
The warhead on these weapons is small, but surrounded by a scored, metal canister that, along with the missile body, fragments into very sharp, very hot fragments upon detonation. If you've ever actually come in close contact with any kind of aircraft, you know that they are incredibly light and flimsy. Even though critical systems in combat aircraft are somewhat armored, the explosion and fragmentation products of a ground-to-air missile will very effectively cut through every part of the aircraft and the explosion will ignite fuel and high-pressure hydraulic fluids. I don't think I need to say much about what kind of violence this does to a human body.
So. Why all the details? Because there were so many of these weapons in Iraq; both U.S. and Soviet. And we have made some very bad enemies by our actions in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. And the borders in Iraq are so porous as to barely deserve the name. Our military didn't have the manpower when it drove through the country to secure all the ammunition depots it came upon. And it hasn't likely found all the depots there were. And, unbelievably, even all the depots that are known are not currently guarded. There just aren't enough soldiers on the ground to do so.
More importantly is this: where have all these weapons gone? Are they all still in Iraq? Still in the ME? Have any made their way into the U.S.? Are they on the way?
Despite what you may hear from our fearless leaders, you cannot protect civilian airliners from these weapons. The protective systems are expensive and heavy and require lots of training to operate. To be fully effective, the systems require that the pilot be free to VIOLENTLY maneuver the aircraft to evade the missile - assuming he has the altitude and the airspeed to do so. On a standard, civilian approach to landing, i.e. "low and slow," there just isn't that kind of latitude. And airliners are not built to withstand the stress of the kinds of combat approach to landing that you'd see C-17s and C-130s make in Baghdad.
Two words: Sitting Duck.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
NJ Court: Gays Not Human
That might as well have been the entire ruling from State Superior Court Judge Linda R. Feinberg of Trenton. In her opinion, Feinberg wrote:
As with any of the statements of these moronic, bigoted yahoos if you were to substitute the name of just about any other minority group nearly everyone would be offended and demand Judge Feinberg's head on a pike. But because her ruling affected only homosexuals, well... what's the big deal?
Lambda Legal will of course appeal the ruling to the next higher NJ court within the next couple of weeks.
...homosexual couples do not have "the right to enter into a government-sanctioned marriage," either under state marriage law or the state constitution's protections for privacy and for legal equality. (From the Boston Globe)The key phrase in that decision was "under ...the state constitution's protection for...legal equality." According to Feinberg, gays do not have equality under NJ law; which when you take a broader view is supposed to ensure equality under the law for all "humans" in the state.
As with any of the statements of these moronic, bigoted yahoos if you were to substitute the name of just about any other minority group nearly everyone would be offended and demand Judge Feinberg's head on a pike. But because her ruling affected only homosexuals, well... what's the big deal?
Lambda Legal will of course appeal the ruling to the next higher NJ court within the next couple of weeks.
"Everything that has a beginning, has an end"
I went to the premier of "The Matrix Revolutions" last night - and I'm exhausted.
While the NYT reviewer, among others was less than glowing about the movie, I thought it was very good and a great, ambiguous ending to a trilogy that purposely strove to be non-linear.
I won't reveal too much so keep reading if you are worried about spoilers.
The Wachowski Brothers have shown themselves to be geniuses when it comes to creating movies with a new look, a new feel and to immerse you in a world you probably could never have imagined. That genius is on full display in "Revolutions." Some of the criticism leveled at the middle movie and in early reviews of the last have to do with moving from the focus of a completely new and fully realized world to more "action." But as I said to my wife as we left the theater last night, it couldn't be any other way.
The first movie, besides being an absolute tour de force visually, created this new world - The Matrix. The second and third movies took place in this world, but it was a world that we are already familiar with. The Matrix - Real World dialectic had been established - the story was now ascendant.
Revolutions continues to be laden with references and allusions to the major religions and philosophies as well as many classic literary works. But I think two of the major themes were brought together in Revolutions resulting in the somewhat ambiguous ending that was, nonetheless, very satisfying. Neo is finally able to break out of the great cycle of "The Ones," a cycle taken from several eastern religions. And upon breaking that cycle, he fulfills his other role as savior - a role taken directly from Judeo-Christian tradition.
Even though this movie is heavy (critics might say freighted) with philosophical implications, there are, of course, some incredible action scenes. The fight to save Zion is incredible - and physically exhausting. And there is the final, apocalyptic fight between Neo and Agent Smith who has reached a zenith (perhaps nadir) of sneering malevolence. There are plenty of little twists and turns, so you have to really pay attention amid the effects, explosions and incredible fight choreography.
So, where am I going with this? Just here: go see "The Matrix Revolutions." It will answer many of the questions posed by the first two movies. But be warned, unlike most of today's movies that wrap up so neatly at the end, be prepared to leave with some new, unanswered questions.
While the NYT reviewer, among others was less than glowing about the movie, I thought it was very good and a great, ambiguous ending to a trilogy that purposely strove to be non-linear.
I won't reveal too much so keep reading if you are worried about spoilers.
The Wachowski Brothers have shown themselves to be geniuses when it comes to creating movies with a new look, a new feel and to immerse you in a world you probably could never have imagined. That genius is on full display in "Revolutions." Some of the criticism leveled at the middle movie and in early reviews of the last have to do with moving from the focus of a completely new and fully realized world to more "action." But as I said to my wife as we left the theater last night, it couldn't be any other way.
The first movie, besides being an absolute tour de force visually, created this new world - The Matrix. The second and third movies took place in this world, but it was a world that we are already familiar with. The Matrix - Real World dialectic had been established - the story was now ascendant.
Revolutions continues to be laden with references and allusions to the major religions and philosophies as well as many classic literary works. But I think two of the major themes were brought together in Revolutions resulting in the somewhat ambiguous ending that was, nonetheless, very satisfying. Neo is finally able to break out of the great cycle of "The Ones," a cycle taken from several eastern religions. And upon breaking that cycle, he fulfills his other role as savior - a role taken directly from Judeo-Christian tradition.
Even though this movie is heavy (critics might say freighted) with philosophical implications, there are, of course, some incredible action scenes. The fight to save Zion is incredible - and physically exhausting. And there is the final, apocalyptic fight between Neo and Agent Smith who has reached a zenith (perhaps nadir) of sneering malevolence. There are plenty of little twists and turns, so you have to really pay attention amid the effects, explosions and incredible fight choreography.
So, where am I going with this? Just here: go see "The Matrix Revolutions." It will answer many of the questions posed by the first two movies. But be warned, unlike most of today's movies that wrap up so neatly at the end, be prepared to leave with some new, unanswered questions.
Gas Prices to Decline - in Iraq
From this morning's Wall Street Journal:
The Army Corps of Engineers will be terminating Halliburton subsidiary KBR's no-bid contract for fuel in Iraq. The Corps has spent over $6 million per day in fuel costs under the plan where KBR was charging around $2.69/gallon to the government. The spot price for gas in the Gulf area is around $0.65/gallon.
The Army Corps of Engineers will be terminating Halliburton subsidiary KBR's no-bid contract for fuel in Iraq. The Corps has spent over $6 million per day in fuel costs under the plan where KBR was charging around $2.69/gallon to the government. The spot price for gas in the Gulf area is around $0.65/gallon.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, says the company only recovers "a few cents on the dollar" for the importing of fuel into Iraq. "It is expensive to purchase, ship and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up."However, enterprising Iraqis are importing fuel from neighboring states and selling - for a profit - in the $0.75/gallon range. Something's not adding up here - other than Halliburton's profits.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Lie
Nicholas Kristof shares some interesting news from John Zogby; you know - of the eponymous Zogby Polls. Cheney and Shrub have famously touted results supposedly taken from a Zogby Poll in Iraq. Turns out that the numbers issued by ShrubCo. are not exactly... how to put this... accurate.
And as usual, I am left asking the same question: Where is the media on this? Sure Kristof writes about it in his NYT column, but that's way back in the opinion section. You'd think something like this would be front page news; "above the fold."
Oh... it's that damned liberal media, again!
Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all."It's too bad that Zogby is not willing to say they lied. Because they did. Through their teeth.
Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less.
"I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort."
And as usual, I am left asking the same question: Where is the media on this? Sure Kristof writes about it in his NYT column, but that's way back in the opinion section. You'd think something like this would be front page news; "above the fold."
Oh... it's that damned liberal media, again!
Wanted: Dead or Alive
This is in the NYT today, it's short, so here's the entire text:
Maybe this is long past due. Of course the reward is for information leading to the arrest, but I know some IT folks who wouldn't mind adding the "dead or alive" clause.
Microsoft to Place Bounty on Virus WritersMy home computer is an Apple, as I've said before, so viruses are not a big worry for me there. Unfortunately, at work I use an IBM Thinkpad. Virus protection is a big deal, not just from the havoc it could wreak but because of all the work and expense our IT department has to go through keeping virus protection up to date.
By REUTERS
Published: November 5, 2003
Filed at 10:10 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. said on Wednesday it would offer cash bounties for information on the authors of the crippling MSBlast and Sobig computer bugs.
Microsoft, joined by U.S. and international law-enforcement groups, said it would offer $250,000 apiece for information leading to the arrest of the writers of two of the costliest computer-bug outbreaks to hit the Internet.
The bugs wreaked havoc across the world in August and September, attacking computers that run on Microsoft's Windows operating system.
Maybe this is long past due. Of course the reward is for information leading to the arrest, but I know some IT folks who wouldn't mind adding the "dead or alive" clause.
Hiding the Dead - 2
The Headline for this article in the NYT is "Issue for Bush: How to Speak of Casualties?"
But it really ought to be: "Issue for Bush: Speak of the Casualties!"
As Commander-in-Chief aWol (who would ever put those two terms side-by-side without such supreme irony?) has a duty to help the families of the dead and wounded AND the larger, American family get through their grief and anger. He has a duty to fully and truthfully explain to all of us why our young soldiers are dying.
Enough of the spinning and redacting and the outright lying, goddammit! Tell us the truth! NOW!
But it really ought to be: "Issue for Bush: Speak of the Casualties!"
As Commander-in-Chief aWol (who would ever put those two terms side-by-side without such supreme irony?) has a duty to help the families of the dead and wounded AND the larger, American family get through their grief and anger. He has a duty to fully and truthfully explain to all of us why our young soldiers are dying.
Enough of the spinning and redacting and the outright lying, goddammit! Tell us the truth! NOW!
Erosion of Rights
I don't think anything illustrates the plight of the Bill of Rights during this administration like the wholesale violations of due process for detainees after 9/11. The rights denied these prisoners are basic - in the original usage - like freedom of speech, assembly and the press.
Secret trials, sealed case files, redacted filings, no representation and military tribunals. Sounds like something from the Soviet Gulag, no? And yet they all happened here, under the direction of BushCo and especially John Ashcroft. The Wall Street Journal has a good article this morning about a case that will actually reach the Supreme Court this year. Read the whole article here (subscription required), but a couple of things are worth quoting in this post:
It's true that some of the detainees were illegal aliens, some were legally here. But don't let those facts dissuade you from wondering if citizens' rights will be the next to be abridged; can you say "Patriot Act?"
Secret trials, sealed case files, redacted filings, no representation and military tribunals. Sounds like something from the Soviet Gulag, no? And yet they all happened here, under the direction of BushCo and especially John Ashcroft. The Wall Street Journal has a good article this morning about a case that will actually reach the Supreme Court this year. Read the whole article here (subscription required), but a couple of things are worth quoting in this post:
"His appeal has reached the Supreme Court, only there is little written evidence that his case exists. Lower courts sealed all the legal filings, as well as the records of how his case was handled. The proceedings were held in secret."
[snip]
"M.K.B.'s appeal includes blank page after blank page, where the ruling would have been. The nine justices will be able to see all the information that is being withheld from the public.Knowledge about these detentions is hard to come by and what little makes it into the press is usually spun so far to the right that it is virtually meaningless anyway. The lapdog press regurgitates the administration line and so it becomes the accepted wisdom.
"The fact that someone can be held like this, and there be no trail of the existence of the case is mind-boggling," said Michael Greenberger, a counterterrorism expert and former senior official in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration."
It's true that some of the detainees were illegal aliens, some were legally here. But don't let those facts dissuade you from wondering if citizens' rights will be the next to be abridged; can you say "Patriot Act?"
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
On My Reading List
I've been meaning to post about watching "Bowling for Columbine." I finally got around to watching Michael Moore's movie about two weeks ago - even though it's been on my "list of movies to see" since it came out.
But, I'm not going to get to that just yet. I will however say that I have great respect for Moore and his ambush techniques; as well as "Bowling."
I've added his latest book, "Dude, Where's My Country" to my reading list. I know, in a general way, what it's about and it should be, like "Bowling," interesting, funny and most of all thought provoking. No... and most of all irritating to those in the thrall of aWol and his merry band.
Moore also gets props from me for this:
But, I'm not going to get to that just yet. I will however say that I have great respect for Moore and his ambush techniques; as well as "Bowling."
I've added his latest book, "Dude, Where's My Country" to my reading list. I know, in a general way, what it's about and it should be, like "Bowling," interesting, funny and most of all thought provoking. No... and most of all irritating to those in the thrall of aWol and his merry band.
Moore also gets props from me for this:
"On his international book tour, the author of “Dude, Where’s My Country?” was asked what he thought of Americans. “They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks,” he replied. “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”
Hiding the Dead
Thanks to a comment thread at Eschaton, I bring you this article from the Toronto Star.
Now, the Star is not the Globe & Mail (Canada's equivalent of the New York Times) and Torontonians often make fun of this paper. But can you even imagine one of our great "national" papers - say the NYT or the Washington Post - printing an article containing this?
Here's my comment from the thread at Eschaton:
Now, the Star is not the Globe & Mail (Canada's equivalent of the New York Times) and Torontonians often make fun of this paper. But can you even imagine one of our great "national" papers - say the NYT or the Washington Post - printing an article containing this?
"Americans have never seen any of the other 359 bodies returning from Iraq. Nor do they see the wounded cramming the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington or soldiers who say they are being treated inhumanely awaiting medical treatment at Fort Stewart, Ga.No, our compassionate conservative commander-in-chief has no time to spare for the very soldiers who make his imperial aspirations possible. And he has made sure that Americans don't have their dinners interrupted by disturbing pictures of flag draped coffins being repatriated through Dover Air Force Base.
In order to continue to sell an increasingly unpopular Iraqi invasion to the American people, President George W. Bush's administration sweeps the messy parts of war — the grieving families, the flag-draped coffins, the soldiers who have lost limbs — into a far corner of the nation's attic.
No television cameras are allowed at Dover.
Bush does not attend the funerals of soldiers who gave their lives in his war on terrorism."
Here's my comment from the thread at Eschaton:
As a commander, I had the honor and sorrow of being the "Casualty Assistance Officer" to the wife of one of my pilots who died in an aircraft crash. While unusual for the commander to do this duty, it was at the request of the family, with whom I had a close relationship.
I can tell you that there is nothing more humbling than to help these families through their sorrow and through the endless red tape that any large organization like the Army has set up around events like this. My main point is that going through something like this provides a very different perspective on the things that we do (did) everyday in the military.
Everyone in the military has a certain, necessary facade of bravado, without which it would be too difficult to face the daily danger and boredom. Helping a weeping widow and children chose a casket and burial site for their fallen soldier can break through the most hardened facade.
Bush needs to attend these funerals; he needs to allow press coverage of the Dover arrivals so that Americans can see the sacrifice required of their young sons and daughters. It should be mandatory that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and all the rest be there to help carry the coffins and fold the flags and comfort those left behind by dint of their decisions.
It would do them good. It would do our military policy good. And there is the smallest possibility that it would get through their small, narrow minds and their hardened hearts.
Monday, November 03, 2003
The Truth is Under [Sa]Fire in the SCLM
If you can get through the whole thing without throwing up, read Safire in today's NYT.
There are so many lies, fibs and dissembles (is that a word?) that it's hard to know where to begin. But if you got through them all, you know what I meant in that first sentence. It's sickening.
I'll see if I can get through a couple of them:
"There is no denying that the shooting down of a transport helicopter, killing 16 Americans and wounding 20, was a terrorist victory in Iraq War III. The question is: Will such casualties dishearten the U.S., embolden failuremongers and isolationists on the campaign trail, and cause Americans and our allies to cut and run?" There's that damned word again. "Terrorist." Whoever is shooting at our people in Iraq are not terrorists. Their targets are, for the most part, military. Therefore, by definition, they are not terrorists. The actions against civilian targets like the U.N. and Red Cross could rightly be considered terrorism. But Safire and Repugs lump them all together with ambushes on military convoys and shooting down helicopters. They are not the same.
"Although such a retreat under fire would be euphemized as an "accelerated exit strategy," consider the consequences to U.S. security of premature departure:
Set aside the loss of U.S. prestige or America's credibility in dealing with other rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons." Iraq has not been shown to have been trying to acquire nuclear weapons. How many times and how loudly must this be said? It was all a hoax. Yet, apologist that he is, Safire continues to follow the Rethug line on this one. Keep telling a lie and soon enough it is the accepted wisdom.
"Either we stay in Baghdad until Iraq becomes a unified democratic beacon of freedom to the Arab world - or we pull out too soon, thereby allowing terrorism to establish its main world sanctuary and its agents to come and get us." Again, the false dichotomy. We have more than those two choices. Where is the mention of going back to the U.N. with a real plan to share power and responsibility on rebuilding what we broke? Safire completely ignores all but the two options that make liberals and progressives out to be wimps andquitterss.
Which brings me to my final point about this piece:
"Our dovish left will say, with Oliver Hardy, "a fine mess you've got us into" - as if we created Saddam's threat, or made our C.I.A. dance to some oily imperialist tune, or would have been better off with our head in the sand. Most Americans, I think, will move past these unending recriminations, reject defeatism and support leaders determined to win the final Iraq war." Again, Safire paints the left with the broad brush of being quitters on this whole mess. Yes, I would also repeat Oliver Hardy's apropos quip. This is a "fine mess" aWol and the rest of his neocon imperialists have gotten us into. Can we doubt that BushCo, if they didn't invent the threat of Saddam, certainly they inflated it beyond the recognition of even their own CIA?
The whole piece should certainly put the final nail in the coffin of the long dead "So-Called Liberal Media." That a supposedly bastion of big city liberalism like the New York Times would publish something like this puts the lie to that long standing assertion.
From now on Safire's byline should read: William Safire (R, NY).
There are so many lies, fibs and dissembles (is that a word?) that it's hard to know where to begin. But if you got through them all, you know what I meant in that first sentence. It's sickening.
I'll see if I can get through a couple of them:
"There is no denying that the shooting down of a transport helicopter, killing 16 Americans and wounding 20, was a terrorist victory in Iraq War III. The question is: Will such casualties dishearten the U.S., embolden failuremongers and isolationists on the campaign trail, and cause Americans and our allies to cut and run?" There's that damned word again. "Terrorist." Whoever is shooting at our people in Iraq are not terrorists. Their targets are, for the most part, military. Therefore, by definition, they are not terrorists. The actions against civilian targets like the U.N. and Red Cross could rightly be considered terrorism. But Safire and Repugs lump them all together with ambushes on military convoys and shooting down helicopters. They are not the same.
"Although such a retreat under fire would be euphemized as an "accelerated exit strategy," consider the consequences to U.S. security of premature departure:
Set aside the loss of U.S. prestige or America's credibility in dealing with other rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons." Iraq has not been shown to have been trying to acquire nuclear weapons. How many times and how loudly must this be said? It was all a hoax. Yet, apologist that he is, Safire continues to follow the Rethug line on this one. Keep telling a lie and soon enough it is the accepted wisdom.
"Either we stay in Baghdad until Iraq becomes a unified democratic beacon of freedom to the Arab world - or we pull out too soon, thereby allowing terrorism to establish its main world sanctuary and its agents to come and get us." Again, the false dichotomy. We have more than those two choices. Where is the mention of going back to the U.N. with a real plan to share power and responsibility on rebuilding what we broke? Safire completely ignores all but the two options that make liberals and progressives out to be wimps andquitterss.
Which brings me to my final point about this piece:
"Our dovish left will say, with Oliver Hardy, "a fine mess you've got us into" - as if we created Saddam's threat, or made our C.I.A. dance to some oily imperialist tune, or would have been better off with our head in the sand. Most Americans, I think, will move past these unending recriminations, reject defeatism and support leaders determined to win the final Iraq war." Again, Safire paints the left with the broad brush of being quitters on this whole mess. Yes, I would also repeat Oliver Hardy's apropos quip. This is a "fine mess" aWol and the rest of his neocon imperialists have gotten us into. Can we doubt that BushCo, if they didn't invent the threat of Saddam, certainly they inflated it beyond the recognition of even their own CIA?
The whole piece should certainly put the final nail in the coffin of the long dead "So-Called Liberal Media." That a supposedly bastion of big city liberalism like the New York Times would publish something like this puts the lie to that long standing assertion.
From now on Safire's byline should read: William Safire (R, NY).
You Had to Know it Was Coming...
Everyone knows the news, some of the details. Everyone's seen the pictures; too blurry and pixilated to have been from very close - but the jumble of metal, the smoke - they were unmistakable. Thirty-six (final count?) soldiers on their way out of Iraq for their 2 weeks R&R had their trip cut short by a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. 16 are dead, 20 wounded.
I was out of the country this weekend so I'm not sure how this was covered by the media. The stories this morning are all about details and the "back story." All I know is how it affected me.
I've been out of the Army too long for anyone I really knew to have been on the Chinook. But I knew them anyway. Every couple of years, as young soldiers and the older, more experienced ones cycle through the units, the faces are new, but they are the same, too. Their stories, although the details are different, are the same. It's that shared experience that helps bond soldiers together even though they move in and out of units every 18 - 36 months.
As a commander and as an operations officer, I've had to make the decisions that send these young men and women into harm's way. Each time, regardless of how many times you do it, it is a difficult decision to make. That knowledge that you could end up writing that letter to someone's family was always in the back of my mind. So in some small way, I know what the immediate commanders in this case are feeling. It's a sickening feeling and humbling as well; writing that letter, making preparations for memorial services and talking to the family left behind.
What I don't know is what the politicians are feeling. Most, especially in Bush's immediate circle of advisors - and especially those most involved in promoting and running this war, have never served. Chickenhawk has been overused and much misused. Civilian authority is vested by the Constitution without regard to former military service, and we should not be so cynical to assume that it is required to make the difficult decisions in prosecuting a war. But in this instance I wonder if there are some basic human feelings missing from Bush's cadre of neocons. They have let political expediency trump humanity. Here's Rumsfeld on this weekend's tragedy:
Now that the Iraqis have found a cache of anti-aircraft missiles (they wouldn't use them unless they have several) and figured out how to use them (or found an ex-Iraqi soldier who knows how and can train them), we can expect to see more attempts to shoot down our helicopters. And as they are emboldened will their next target be a C-17 cargo aircraft, perhaps loaded with replacement soldiers, lumbering in for a landing in Baghdad?
Will this incident, despite Rumsfeld's statement, spur serious reflection by those responsible for this war? I hope so; but I remain distressingly doubtful.
I was out of the country this weekend so I'm not sure how this was covered by the media. The stories this morning are all about details and the "back story." All I know is how it affected me.
I've been out of the Army too long for anyone I really knew to have been on the Chinook. But I knew them anyway. Every couple of years, as young soldiers and the older, more experienced ones cycle through the units, the faces are new, but they are the same, too. Their stories, although the details are different, are the same. It's that shared experience that helps bond soldiers together even though they move in and out of units every 18 - 36 months.
As a commander and as an operations officer, I've had to make the decisions that send these young men and women into harm's way. Each time, regardless of how many times you do it, it is a difficult decision to make. That knowledge that you could end up writing that letter to someone's family was always in the back of my mind. So in some small way, I know what the immediate commanders in this case are feeling. It's a sickening feeling and humbling as well; writing that letter, making preparations for memorial services and talking to the family left behind.
What I don't know is what the politicians are feeling. Most, especially in Bush's immediate circle of advisors - and especially those most involved in promoting and running this war, have never served. Chickenhawk has been overused and much misused. Civilian authority is vested by the Constitution without regard to former military service, and we should not be so cynical to assume that it is required to make the difficult decisions in prosecuting a war. But in this instance I wonder if there are some basic human feelings missing from Bush's cadre of neocons. They have let political expediency trump humanity. Here's Rumsfeld on this weekend's tragedy:
"It's clearly a tragic day for America," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Washington. "In a long, hard war, we're going to have tragic days. But they're necessary. They're part of a war that's difficult and complicated." A White House statement expressed grief for the loss "of all brave men and women in the military and elsewhere who pay the ultimate sacrifice to make the world safer and better."These kinds of "tragic days" may be necessary in a war that makes America and world safer. But this war was never about making anyone safer. The rotating reason-for-war-of-the-day leave no doubt that this was a war of power; the neocons stretching their muscles in readiness for... what?
Now that the Iraqis have found a cache of anti-aircraft missiles (they wouldn't use them unless they have several) and figured out how to use them (or found an ex-Iraqi soldier who knows how and can train them), we can expect to see more attempts to shoot down our helicopters. And as they are emboldened will their next target be a C-17 cargo aircraft, perhaps loaded with replacement soldiers, lumbering in for a landing in Baghdad?
Will this incident, despite Rumsfeld's statement, spur serious reflection by those responsible for this war? I hope so; but I remain distressingly doubtful.
