American War Criminals

The Middle East was heating up. Muslim groups were fighting with other Muslim groups. Oil resources were being debated. World leaders were whispering about the impending threat of “weapons of mass destruction” being produced in Iraq despite various UN Security council resolutions to prohibit it.

Feeling pressure to unseat Saddam Hussein from his position of power, the President of the United States sought funding from the U.S. Congress to set into motion an effort to replace Saddam's regime with a democracy. Specifically the act put before Congress requested the use of United States Armed Forces to pull of this large and risky effort.

The President had few international friends. To gain a tactical advantage the U.S. hoped to use various Middle East countries to base their entry into Iraq, but those countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates initially denied the request. It seems that the U.S. would primarily have to count on the United Kingdom as it's near sole support, advocate, friend and military partner.

The act approved by Congress gave the President the means to drawdown defense articles and assign resources for the purpose of going into Iraq to fundamentally perform the goal of unseating a violent, hostile and non-compliant sanctioned Iraqi regime. Some saw risk in assigning that sort of power to a president while others saw it as a reasonable act in times of war.

The U.S. President's administration was actively engaged in ensuring people of the world knew what we were up against and what was at stake.

“The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21^st century,” said the administration's Secretary of State.

A plan was in place. Congress had been briefed. The American people were informed. It was nearly time to go in. The known tactical targets: weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, barracks and command headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard, along with Saddam's lavish presidential palaces.

For a while then there were musings about the U.S. Military taking impending action in Iraq and despite the common objections to warmongering by certain elements of the American public as well as the world, it was time to go into Iraq.

In December of 1998 Operation Desert Fox was set into motion by then-President Bill Clinton.

Unless you were aware of this piece of recent world history, my guess is that you were thinking about a completely different U.S. President and war.

How long have you attributed military action in defiance of the UN and world opinion, warmongering, WMD threat and Congressional support for misinformed action in Iraq to President Bush only now to realize that President Clinton has more to do with the writing of this story than you would have ever imagined?

WMDs were a threat then according to the UN and various intelligence sources, even though Clinton's raid on Bagdad yielded no WMDs. Was President Clinton simply wrong about WMDs or should we run out and print “CLINTON LIED” bumper-stickers? It was rumored that U.S. Inspectors under Clinton sabotaged Iraqi relations and inspections to provoke the Bagdad bombing. Should we go back and talk about releasing those documents and prosecuting the Clinton Administration as war criminals?

As a direct result of the failed Bagdad bombing effort former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, “We did not do, in my view, enough damage to degrade [Iraq's programs for weapons and mass destruction]... because in six months to a year they will be back to where they are and we cannot keep repeating these attacks. At the end of the day what will be decisive is what the situation in the Middle East will be in two or three years... If Saddam is still there, if he's rearming, if sanctions are lifted, we have lost, no matter what spin we put on it.”

As a direct result of the President Clinton's Bagdad bombing, the Islamist group Vanguards of Conquest called for attacks on the US “for it's arrogance.”

The fact is, this is all very complicated stuff. Someone selling platitudes about “he lied” or “prosecute the war criminal administration” are simply evoking emotional ploys rather than discussing facts (or whatever we can glean from history that seems close enough to fact.)

I am not in a rush to condemn former President Bill Clinton, but I think people need to get down off their historically inaccurate high-horses and stop the very narrow propaganda that crucifies former President George W. Bush. I am not saying he didn't make mistakes. I am saying that you don't have to go back too many Presidents to find perfectly similar examples of admirable and embarrassing mistakes, liberal or conservative.

Note: My telling of this story comes from a retelling of the wikipedia article on Operation Desert Fox. You can fact-check the story starting there. Feel free to leave comments.

UPDATE:

After President Obama's Afghanistan address last night, I will watch public reaction closely. I fully anticipate a spectrum of responses from military families encouraged by support, to families fearfully anticipating deployment of their family members, from feeling confident in the President's explained approach in Afghanistan to seeing this as more of the same business-as-usual regardless of President Obama's campaign promises on war efforts in the Middle East.

Is President Obama's selected military option enough? Some say it is a move in the right direction but because it is not equal to the demands of the Afghan war-front it doesn't have a large chance for success. We can only hope that if they will send more people into the fray, it surely has a significant chance of working. In President Obama's own words, "As your Commander and Chief I owe you a mission that is clearly defined."

President Obama also said, "it is in our vital national interest to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan... I do not make this decision lightly... if I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow... I am convinced that our security is at stake... this is the epicenter... this is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat."

Now that President Obama is making these tough decisions, we will see how the polarized political response to the demands of national security, many of which got him elected because of his outspoken desire to bring the troops home, will either support him or begin to name President Obama and his administration as one of the American War Criminals.

On This Memorial Day: Reflection on Iraq

Whether you agree or do not agree with a U.S. presence in Iraq, I want to honor the lives of U.S. soldiers who while serving in the military gave their lives. We won't forget your sacrifice to defend the world from a environment filled with oppression and terror.

I would also like to specifically honor those who have fought with honor. Even though some press would explicitly estimate that over 600,000 Iraqis died purportedly at the hands of coalition forces over the course of the last six years I would like to remind those harbingers of untruth that even now in 2009 the Haditha massacre remains unproven (Time magazine said of this event, "Human-rights activists say that if the accusations are true, the incident ranks as the worst case of deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by U.S. service members since the war began." 15 people died horrible deaths.) Not to minimize, but if this is the worst case of deliberate killing in the entire Iraqi conflict while those who perpetrated it should be severely dealt with, it says something quite admirable about American soldiers at war. Like I said, who ever participated in that situation (if any US soldiers did) should be dealt with severely. But the fact that such attrocities are not happening says something about the quality of the people who are serving.

I don't know how Time magazine can say what it says while the Lancet survey claims so many violent deaths?

Enough is Enough

It's time. There is only so much a reasonable person can endure. After this Friday evenings debate, where McCain clearly schooled Obama on having an understand and confirmed reasonable plans to deal with diplomacy, foreign relations, Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a better understanding of his and Obama's plan for taxes and their affect on the economy, I am now formally fed up with the bias in the media. Having watched Nightline and read reviews of the debate in a number of newspapers, they completely leave out the exchange of facts and non-contextually quote McCain leaving out the incredible and expert handling of the facts and issues by McCain and rant and rave about how “Presidential” Obama looked. What? Really? Remarkably they give McCain credit for being more accurate factually, but yet they declare Obama the winner based on issues like “Obama faced the camera, sculpting his talking points with verbose hand-movements, while McCain stood stoically, chopping at the air.” Apparently, since Obama cannot win on content, the debate was reduced to a fashion show as the virtual tie-breaker. Someone shoot me now!

It amazes me that there were no press references to the schooling Obama received on his verbalized approach to handling issues in Pakistan and Iran. For that matter, Obama had one story of experience he shared that night, when he anecdotally referenced a recent visit to Green Bay, WI, whereas McCain rained down story after story of legitimate applicable experience working with world leaders in first hand locations across the planet.

If I were cheering for Obama right now I would be embarrassed. The best retort the Obama Campaign came up with in regard to the debate on Friday night was a claim that all of McCains experiences simply characterized him as "old." What? Really? What an obvious tact. What a shameful attempt. Why didn't they just say “McCain is ugly.” or “I know you are, but what am I?” or “YOUR MOMMA!” The fact remains that Obama, from his own understanding of taxation, to the economy, to his opinions on the continued war effort, is clearly without understanding. What in the world does he bring to the table? I have yet to figure it out. How does identifying an obvious need for hope and change uniquely qualify him to lead? Someone please explain how playing Captain Obvious but without having real answers somehow equals a good presidential option?

I am happy to itemize the many issues I have with Obama. And while I have attempted to be reasonable so far during this campaign season, now that Obama has had a chance to debate McCain and the press still attempts to imagine he is the same caliber candidate as McCain, I think it is time for the gloves to come off. So here are a few myths worth shattering in round one of uncovering Obama.

1. He is going to solve healthcare in America: false. His outrageously expensive plan leaves millions of Americans without healthcare and only attempts to provide for children. Get ready to pay more and get less. (According to Obama supporter Hillary Clinton, his healthcare plan leaves something around 15 million Americans out in the cold.)
   
   
2. He really care about fixing wallstreet via regulation and taking care of mainstreet: Not even close. Wallstreet is where the pocketbook of mainstreet resides. Separating these two issues is naïve and an oversimplification by Obama. The fact is that his financial advisors Mr. Summers and Mr. Rubin, advisors of Obama, were party to the deregulation of Wallstreet during the Clinton era. That's right. Obama is connected directly to the people who created the problem in wallstreet. (UPDATE: Obama is seeing his connection with the problems in wallstreet and while just a few days ago he was accusing McCain of being at fault, SUDDENLY blaming someone is not supposed to matter any more. FLIP-FLOP! I guess he only now gets the connection of wallstreet to mainstreet now that the debate is over. Thank you for joining the rest of us! When will naïve shifty hypocrisy end!?)
   
   
3. He will solve our woes in Iraq and Afghanistan: If by solve our woes you mean: put our soldiers in harms way, divert funding in ways that diminish our current gains on the current war fronts, and as a result keep us going back to the Middle East again in the future... Then yes, sure, under that definition, his shallow examination of the dollars invested in Iraq and short-term view of savings at the expense of increased instability in that region, then by all means vote for the man. But understand that you will not be able to find a military leader involved in Iraq and Afghanistan that sees Obama's recommendations as anything but naïve or at best completely dangerous. Obama, at best pointed out some poor estimations McCain made about the Iraq war, but then again many people on the left side of Congress made some of those same assertions at the same time. For the record, Obama said more about questioning our exit strategy for Iraq when it started. His was a question of nailing down a more detailed plan for Iraq (not that he had one) and not sp much an ideological statement about not belonging in Iraq, like He and so many want to pretend it was. That plays out well now, but is revisionist.
   
   
4. Obama is going to better the opinion of America in the world: His significant lack of experience will almost certainly work against any possibility of this. Obama, in his lack of experience was schooled by McCain with regard to Obama's hypothetically imagined hunting of bin Laden via bombing Pakistan without that countries cooperation. His attempt to sound brave and solid as a potential Presidential Commander in Chief ends up, yet again, seeming naïve and an oversimplification of an legitimate strategy. What was at one time an attempt by Obama to sound reasonable with regard to pursuing diplomacy in intense world situations, now makes his lack of experience seem like a liability. I can't believe for a minute that someone listening to Friday debate truly thinks that Obama really understands presidential diplomacy let alone how to manage a military effort.
   
   
5. McCain represents big government and big business and Obama represents benefits to regular people: Obama completely doesn't understand his or McCain's written policies around taxation and entitlement programs. For one, both McCain and Obama have plans to close loopholes in corporate tax rules, despite what Obama says. At the same time Obama wants to jack up taxes in the companies that employ us, redistributing that money to the poor among us. This isn't even fully accurate. Yes. He will increase taxes to the companies that employ us. (Tell me, how do you think that will affect your wages, employment and future raises?) Then understand that Obama is simply granting, in return, a tax credit to Americans, which means that you get to pay less taxes. You don't get money, you don't get benefits, you simply are granted the opportunity to be DEMANDED LESS TAXES by the government (though, this isn't even true based on a reasonable analysis of Obamas tax plan.) At best, will this offset any of the outcomes of higher corporate taxes? Imagine that Obama is right to assume that the trickle-down of benefits isn't working in America (while we know it does because people get raises and new opportunities get created.) What we know, by gas prices alone, is that there is an non-debatable trickle-down of cost to the consumer when these companies get taxes jacked up by Obama. Suddenly, a smaller government with less taxation starts to look good the whole way around. It is an interesting if not irresponsible piece of fiction to imagine that Obama and regular folks equal “us” and that somehow the corporate world equals “them” and that these two eco-systems are not intimately tied together. Wake up Obama! Hurting any cost-related segment of our economy ALWAYS trickles down to mainstreet!
   
   
6. Obama believes in me and says, “yes we can”: No,... he can't. You are the largest component of his plan. It is hilarious to me how many people throw money into the lottery each month imagining that there one dollar will turn into a million, yet they never count the cost over the months, never realizing they are putting in way more than they will ever get out. I think that people following Obama see these vague hope-filled naïve and oversimplified programs by Obama and imagine that the dollar they are putting in will turn into a million coming out. But the fact is that the devil is always in the details. And the details, especially in the hands of big government, tend to yield far less return over a lot long period of time than if you had been left to make many of these decisions in the manner of your choosing. You are not the recipient of the "we" in his rhetoric. You are the mule that will facilitate his political agenda through your mainstreet pocketbook!
   

Well, that's enough for now. And I am not so naïve as to think that this list of facts changes anything at all. Regardless of the complete lack of legitimate experience that Obama has, his followers will still have to talk-up how presidential he looks and how important that must somehow be. I just hope those same followers would feel as good when he actually has to resolve some world conflict and then be reduced to a puppet following the advice of anyone other than himself because of his lack of real world qualifications.

In conclusion, I am not saying don't be a democrat. I am saying... don't be a sucker for this guy. It is time to say, enough is enough.

Terror From Iraq: 17 years later

America is tired of Iraq. Why? Who cares? They are exhausted. They don’t want to hear anymore about it. This is very much due to the general disappointment that we are still engaged in a war that some Americans feel we shouldn’t be involved in. This is often followed by heartfelt emotions:

• Why are we half a world away fighting unprovoked people we don’t even know?
• We shouldn’t even be there.

This is usually followed by a set of (somewhat) true but misleading statements:

• Osama bin Laden doesn’t even like Saddam Hussein!
• They didn’t find a single Weapon of Mass Distruction in Iraq!

Get ready for your head to hurt as I quickly unpack these items and shed a little light.

These first two questions supposes specific answers. They really aren't questions. It is a statement that we are half way around the world fighting people we don’t know. It also implies they were all loving little bunny rabbits all nestled down in the Garden of Eden and we came out of nowhere with our bombs and started murdering someone's defenseless grandmother. I am knowingly packing this paragraph with words that evoke emotions to make the point that the phrase is meant to evoke emotions in support of these unprovoked peace-lovers.

The question "why" won’t be answered for many people and I am not going to try to answer it here other than to say that the U.N. and NATO all placed sanctions on Sadam and Iraq and that was a large part of why we were there to begin with. Another good question I have heard was, “Why attack Iraq when we did? We were fighting bin Laden in Afghanistan. Why suddenly go for Iraq? Wasn't the Iraq War a knee-jerk cowboy thing?"

Here are three reasons why the top two heartfelt emotions should be examined:

• Sadam didn’t comply with those sanctions. He defied the U.N. and knowingly maintained his ability to create WMDs and worked hard to be ready to create and use WMDs:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/
  
• After the U.N. left Iraq exhausted, President Bill Clinton launched an attack (along with the UK) for four days against Saddam and called for an Iraq regime change. After President George H.W. Bush dodged an attempted assassination on April 16th by Saddam, Bill Clinton launch an attack on Bagdad again. When George W. Bush became president, Clinton briefed Bush stating regret that Saddam and bin Laden were still at large. Clinton told Bush that Saddam will “cause you a world of problems.” (Chollet, Derek and James Goldgeier (2008). America Between the Wars. Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group. )
  
• Early in 2003, the U.S., U.K. and Spain proposed the 18 resolution to support the previous 17 by demanding a deadline for full compliance and room for U.N inspectors to have complete and unfettered access to all situations and account for the litteral tons of WMDs and their associated materials that were not found in the two previously blocked U.N. inspections. Reports showed that Iraq was being affected by the sanctions to the degree that Saddam seemed unable to build new weapons, but tons of the old weapons and materials were still missing. On January 20th the French Foreign Minister declared “we believe that military intervention would be the worst solution.” Later, it was determined by records found at Bagdad that the French were trading with Saddam in defiance of the U.N. resolutions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

We keep hearing that the Iraq War was this knee-jerk decision to run into Iraq like a drunken cowboy foregoing diplomacy and declare war for the sake of war. What we do know are a few things:

• Saddam was successfully trading in defiance of U.N. sanctions including in items of a military nature.
• Saddam was talking about having WMDs post U.N. sanctions and inspections.
• Numerous independent reports confirm that while Saddam wasn’t building new WMDs (determined after the war) he was still not complying with the U.N. inspectors and accounting for the remaining yet-to-be-accounted-for WMDs.
• Saddam was recorded by those same sources as maintaining his ability to put WMDs back into production as soon as possible.
• We know that George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush all supported and acknowledged the need to unseat the Saddam regime.
• We know that Saddam attempted to murder President George H.W.Bush.
• We know that we had been dealing both militarily on three occasions (one under G.H.W. Bush and two situations under B. Clinton) as well as diplomatically with Iraq from 1991 until 2003 (12 years) on these issues.

To say that Iraq was sudden, or knee-jerk, or baseless, or simply all about WMDs would be a massive over-simplification.

So, again, rest assured that both claims in world news are true. One, we haven’t found any new stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq. While that is true, we have found old stockpiles of WMDs that are degraded and should never have been there post U.N. resolutions. Click here to read about the aged WMD stockpiles that were found and that shouldn’t have been there.

To this day, the new Iraq Government is searching for those not-accounted-for WMDs. Just because the CIA stopped searching doesn’t mean there is nothing to find. The torch was simply passed. While it may be true that we didn’t find new stockpiles, the old ones are still missing. Click here to read about the end of the U.S. Search and the continued search by the new Iraq government.

The fact that Osama and Saddam aren’t the best of friends is nearly irrelevant. Going into Iraq and going into Afghanistan were two different issues addressed by Congress. There is no question that Iraq has an Al Qaeda connection. Click here to read about the Al Qaeda Iraq connection.