Don’t know about you, but I came for the atmosphere.
The Bush Administration’s record on the environment is abysmal; now we’re gonna start paying for it.
What the fuck are they doing? Are they TRYING to screw-up our planet on purpose? Or is there something they’re not telling us?
This winter is going to be harsh on a lot of folks, but don’t you worry, the President will be warm and cozy at home in the Oval Office.
Stay safe, keep warm, and vote for your lives.
I was doing some research tonight and tried to find a particular link that I know I had blogged at one point. That archive of posts is getting pretty deep. My high hopes that a search for “rapid dissent” and the object of my research on google were dashed instantly. I was going to have to this the old fashioned way: I had to go back and read my own blog. It was unusual. Like reading old term papers.
Anyway, I ran across this gem from April 3rd, 2003. The links still work. Not to shabby for a washed-up, armchair intel analyst if I do say so myself:
“When you sit down across from an opponent at chess, or tic-tac-toe for that matter, it’s not very difficult to play that opponent to a draw – even if they’re a “better” player than you. If you have no intention of winning from the start, you can turn the game into a very frustrating exercise for your adversary; Especially if instead of a single match, you play a series of long, slow matches. It’s obvious that the superior player will win in the end, but who’s counting the pawns?In reading about what’s likely to become “The Siege of Baghdad,” I’ve had to ask myself, what is an acceptable end-game for Saddam Hussein at this point? He’s not in this battle to actually win – that option doesn’t exist for him. The best he can do is inflict as much damage to US forces as possible, and hope that world and US public opinion will eventually further hamstring the Pentagon’s efforts to fight this war the way they want and need to in order to minimize the loss of American lives. This is, of course, monstrous – but all’s fair.
In my mind, it’s logical to ask what the magic number is. That being the number of US casualties Saddam Hussein’s forces must inflict before his death for this entire operation to be considered a costly “failure” on the part of the United States. In other words, how many US lives will it take before history regards this war as Vietnam II, instead of Gulf War II?
Numerically, I think it’ll take far less than the number of lives lost in Vietnam. I also think it will take far less time. The stakes are much, much higher here. The US is using 21st century technology: a constellation of intelligence satellites, precision guided bombs, special forces, the best of the best of the best…against troops employing soviet era, rusting, dilapidated armaments.
So far, we know that the US troops on the ground have had some difficultly. It’s widely believed that Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration wanted to not only do this “on the cheap,” but also to show how much the US could do with so little effort. The plan was to show the entire Axis of Evil how easy it is for the US to cut through a nation like a hot knife through butter – just like Afghanistan. North Korea and Iran are watching this unfold just as attentively as China was watching the first Gulf War. This is an international parade and review of the United States top weaponry and intelligence capabilities – every fuck-up and short-coming is being noted by military and diplomatic analysts world-wide. The precise outcome of this war will have serious long-term geo-political consequences.
So what’s the magic number? How many Americans need to die before the American public begins to loose confidence in its Discovery Channel education on the methods of modern warfare? 1,000? 2,500? 5,000? So far the count is at 78, and the siege of Baghdad has yet to begin.
Republican Guard forces have been steadily falling back to Baghdad. Behind them they’ve left skeleton crews and heavy armaments that have been “melting” away against the superior US offensive. These forces have not surrendered, nor have they been added to casualty lists. Where are they? A “standoff” in Baghdad appears eminent.
If the Bush administration pushes our troops into Baghdad, the odds of our “winning” this war in the history books get a whole lot worse. But what are the alternatives?
1. Decisive military victory: Saddam and his top officials get taken out one-by-one or en masse by special forces or surgical missile strikes before US regulars must enter the city limits. This is an on-going operation, and has thus far proven very difficult. This type of operation consumes vast amounts of intelligence resources, and risks high profile US casualties and POWs for the Iraqi regime to parade as propaganda – not to mention the potential of loss of sensitive materials (i.e. frequency lists, maps, etc.) or equipment carried by these personnel which could be later exploited by Iraqi forces should even one of the missions fail.
2. Siege, and diplomacy. The city is surrounded. Water, electricity, and food supplies are cut-off. Another ultimatum is issued calling for the head of Saddam and his top officials. Exile might also be put back on the table. At best this might result in an internal coup which has failed to materialize as of yet. This strategy commits US forces to entering the city eventually should the plan fail. It also has a time limit – the “humanitarian crisis” clock will begin ticking the moment the city’s water supplies are turned-off.
3. Shock and awe. Remember this old hat? Well it’s still an option. In fact – although I might be giving too much credit to the administration here – the battle plan up until this point, including the “setbacks,” may have all been part of a scheme to draw Saddam and his forces off-guard before the final implementation of this ambitious strategy. With several tens of thousands of US troops on the “threshold of the city,” shock and awe has a legitimate chance of striking fear and terror into troops stationed in Baghdad. A mass surrender at this point would scuttle any of Saddam’s plans. The problem is this: Do we have enough bombs left for shock and awe? Reports have been trickling out that the US forces are running out of costly precision missiles and bombs. Although it’s worth noting that we haven’t yet seen the use of the MOAB/“Big Blue” super bombs touted in the days before the initial strike of the war. Has the administration been saving them until this point? Will it matter if they have?
I’m sure there are more options available to our military planners as our troops approach Baghdad. These are just the ones that came to the top of my head this morning. Time will tell in the end, but I sincerely hope that the current strategy of a “final battle inside the capital” is not what we will see unfold. Street-to-street fighting in Baghdad will be like sending our troops into an urban warfare meat grinder, or perhaps even a chemical trap. All the while, Saddam and his forces will keep-on playing for a draw, and the rest of us will be left counting the pawns.”
In those heady days before the first bombs fell in Iraq, when worldwide protests and public outcry had a chance to change the course of world history (before the will of the people took a backseat to ideology in this country), a friend of mine hit me with the old “love it or leave it” argument.
His charge was something along the lines of “If you love Iraq so much, why don’t you go there and see for yourself what kinds of rights and freedoms you’ll enjoy under Saddam’s regime?” Despite my agreement that Saddam Hussein was indeed a colossal fuck-wad, my friend refused to see that my chief concern was not whether or not the man was fit to lead a nation, but whether or not the United States had the right to make that determination, and then act unilaterally against a sovereign government.
International law aside, many of us were also against the war on matters of principle. The Iraq-Al Qa’eda connection never existed. Not to the extent that Bush Administration claimed, and certainly not to extent of the well-known Saudi Arabia-Al Qa’ida connection. The call for war against Iraq simply made no sense to us, but no one would discuss or debate the issue. “Love or leave it,” was the mantra-like answer our questions received.
Some protesters felt very strongly – long before recent revelations – that the Bush Administration was trying to hoodwink the American public by using the War on Terrorism and the search for Bin Laden to generate support for a war against Iraq. These individuals knew then that the so-called “evidence” against Iraq was fabricated and massaged to fit the Bush Administration’s ideology of war-at-any-cost. One such individual was a retired schoolteacher: Faith Fippinger.
Fippinger was one of a score Americans who traveled to Iraq before the war began to act as a “human shield.” This group was joined by as many as 300 others from nations around the world. Their intent: To serve as a deterrent for an unjust war. Shortly after their presence was noted in the international media, it was made known that these peace-niks would enjoy no special consideration from the U.S. Military when the bullets began flying.
Despite this, many peace protesters stayed on in Iraq as long as they dared. Their efforts were in vain. The Bush Administration ignored the global demand for diplomacy, and sent the United States, Briton, and the “Coalition of the Willing” (comprised of countries most Americans can’t even locate on a map, much less pronounce) into war.
Adding insult to injury the Bush Administration, through the U.S. Treasury Department (a.k.a the U.S. Secret Service) has served Fippinger with fines totaling in excess of $10,000 for her trip to Iraq. They claim her actions were in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and that she can either pay-up or face up to 12 years in prison for the crimes of her insolence.
For her part, Fippinger has stated that she would not pay, declaring, “I will not contribute money to the United States government to continue the buildup of its arsenal of weapons.” To which officials responded with the threat of increased fines or the garnishing of her retirement pay, her Social Security check or her other assets.
It’s not as bad as living under Saddam yet, but we seem one step closer to tyranny nonetheless.
I’ve heard some interesting analysis of late concerning the Howard Dean campaign. A common theme permeates the recent media coverage of my favorite candidate: The opinion that anti-Bush voters in America won’t be enough to guarantee the general election for the former Governor of Vermont. Both liberals and conservatives alike have seized upon this idea in an attempt to stop the Dean “Tidal Wave.”
Some seem to believe Dean’s anti-war position is more a liability than an asset. (We’ll see what they think of this platform next November when – averaging a death-a-day between now and then – over 500 American lives will have been lost in Iraq.) They’re doing they’re damnedest to spin anti-war into anti-security. This is where I can see Dean’s opportunity to come in swinging.
Are Americans safer now than they were on September 11th, 2001? Do Americans have more or less confidence in the intelligence being used to protect our national security? Are Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney trusted by the American people as competent policy makers?
We’ve seen what a flap was caused by the recent revelation that Colin Powell wouldn’t stay on for another Bush term. When taken with the rest of the Bush cast – to include Ashcroft, Ridge, Wolfowitz, etc. – Powell is generally viewed as the most “likeable” character of the bunch; The rest of them either send chills down people’s spines, or make their skin crawl.
George W. Bush doesn’t secure our nation alone. His group of highly visible, highly recognizable, and highly fallible cronies “help” him. Bush’s approval rating might be holding strength now, but if those same poll respondents were asked to consider Bush Administration as a whole we’d see a very different picture. The personalities of this Administration have polarized the American public far more than any President alone has done in over 100-years. This is a significant factor to consider.
As the Dean is “soft-on-security because he is anti-war” cries grow in number and strength, his campaign may want to consider the following argument: Are George W. Bush and his Administration any better? National security is not only the President’s job. The Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security – and all their respective deputies – also have a large hand to play. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers, Ridge and Ashcroft are well-known and rightfully mistrusted by the American people. This Administration is not soft-on-security, it’s incompetent-on-security. Dean would do well to emphasize this in his criticisms of the Administration.
While Bush remains “charming” and “well-liked” amongst a significant number of American voters, that popularity will diminish rapidly as those same voters are forced to consider their feelings for the President’s staff, and their advice to the President regarding policy. Can America afford another four years of Cheney? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft?
Howard Dean can beat Bush, but he needs to expand his argument to encompass the entire Bush Administration if he wants to take command of the security issue. Security and the economy are the two largest issues in America. They will make or break the winning campaign in 2004. This so-called anti-security spin is exactly the opportunity Dean needs to neutralize his opponents, and take the Oval Office.