"In a video released Monday, al Qaeda's second in command ridicules President Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and predicts a fate "worse than anything you have yet seen." Al-Zawahiri cites Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, and asks, "Why not send 50,000 or 100,000?" FBI officials said Monday that U.S. forces found documents at least six months ago indicating al Qaeda in Iraq has aspirations to attack on U.S. soil." ~CNN

Hmmm...immanent threat. So like August 6, 2001 PDB immanent threat? Or Katrina Force Hurricane immanent threat? I'm not sure. And the President's not telling. This threat was discovered six months ago, and yet it's made public the day before his sixth State of the Union Address when his popularity is currently next to nil.

No one is taking George's calls. And he needs to send more troops to Iraq! Why? Something about it being the only way to win. Why they didn't slap a Mission Accomplished sign over a KFC/TGI Friday's/Nike sponsored globally televised execution of Saddam and start bringing troops home the next day, I will never know.

The policies to be set forth in the State of the Union Address are getting a vicious going over both in the international press, and here at home. Taxing our health benefits as income? This is a win for us how? Think, damn it! Your policies have failed. You're presiding over a red hot economy that doesn't know whether to implode or dominate the world, you're out-to-lunch playing at a fantasy with our dime and the lives our fellow citizens, and you want to tax health care as income?

I have no words.

Labels: al-Qa'eda, FUD, Katrina, saddam hussein, Surge

A few months ago, during a White House visit by President Fox of Mexico, President Bush let slip a curious code name: Operation Desert Badger. The reference was part the President's reply when he was asked "...is it true, as your former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says, that you started planning for the invasion of Iraq within days of your inauguration? Do you feel betrayed? And should he have released those documents?"

In response, President Bush said "the stated policy of my administration towards Saddam Hussein was very clear. Like the previous administration, we were for regime change. And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with Desert Badger, or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines. And then, all of a sudden, September the 11th hit. And as the President of the United States, my most solemn obligation is to protect the security of the American people. That's my -- to me that's the most solemn thing an American President -- or any president -- must do. And I took that duty very seriously."

So here we have one of the President's famous instances of equating the September 11th attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. But there's something else. Tonight CNN reports "the secret plan Operation Desert Badger called for escalating air strikes within four to eight hours of a shootdown [of a US/UK fly-over]. Pentagon sources say a long list of targets across the country would be hit, crippling Iraqi air defenses and command and control. The plan went far beyond the Clinton administration's 1998 Operation Desert Fox, which hit 100 targets in four days...And so we were fashioning policy along those lines...One defense official familiar with the plan says, "If a plane got shot down, that was the trigger, we were going in." Over time, the source said, Operation Desert Badger evolved into a more robust plan for attacking the regime...The president would have quickly decided whether to take the next step, approving a small number of ground troops to secure key areas. At the time, only a few thousand troops were in nearby Kuwait. Sources tell CNN Operation Desert Badger was not a plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power...Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says the new options were justified by the threat..."We packaged them, we pre-cleared them with the president, and we were cocked and ready to do a variety of different things in the event something occurred that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities.""

Desert Badger was a planned retaliation against the Iraqi regime. One that went far beyond Desert Fox. A decapitation strike perhaps? Was Saddam one of the command and control targets? If so, with all this planning and emphasis on Saddam and Iraq ready to be "triggered" by something "that fit one of those possible unfortunate possibilities", can the Administration still say with a straight face that it didn't push Dick Clarke to fabricate a connection between the September 11th attacks and Iraq?

Labels: 9/11, Desert Badger, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, iraq, Mexico, saddam hussein, Vincente Fox

Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism coordinator to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush has hit the administration where it hurts. He claims the White House - prior to September 11, 2001 - couldn't be bothered with talk of terrorism. Furthermore, Clarke comments on the administration's obsession with Iraq, not Osama since day one of the administration despite overwhelming intelligence that something big was about to go down.

Before, during, and after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, the White House was hell bent on going to war with Saddam Hussein. So much so that Clarke was pressured to concoct a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. When he refused to do so, he was shuffled off to head a new cyber-terrorism initiative.

As expected the administration has come out with guns blazing. Fortunately for Clarke, he isn't married to a covert CIA agent whose life can be threatened by exposing her identity to the world with a few well placed phone calls. Nevertheless, it's character assassination a-go-go inside the beltway today as the White House fights to keep this story out of American diner conversation. Ain't election years a bitch, George?

Labels: 9/11, al-Qa'eda, bill clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, iraq, Richard A. Clarke, Ronald Reagan, saddam hussein

An appeals court recently upheld a decision allowing the U.S. government to hold individuals as detainees in the so-called War on Terror without making their identities public. The ruling has many human rights organizations up in arms.

Those who support the government’s new secret arrest and detention powers claim these are necessary measures to effectively fight the global war on terrorism. Releasing the names and status of those held would give terrorist sleeper cells too much access to information vital to ongoing investigations. That information could possibly be used to thwart efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Sounds fair enough, right?

Why then has the U.S. media been flooded with reports of the capture of the so-called Ace of Spades, General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti. This gentleman - Saddam Hussein’s top advisor, body guard and secretary – is believed to have knowledge of the location of Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction and Saddam himself. If this man has yet to be interrogated, wouldn’t it have been wise to keep news of his capture secret as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are so determined to do with their prisoners?

Instead Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their supporters now know that the former General is in U.S. custody. They also now know exactly where not to go if they wish to avoid capture. In the words of one correspondent this morning, “If Saddam has 100 hiding places, Mahmud knows about 90 of them.” Well you might as well cross those off the list of places to look for Saddam, because he won’t be there.

This type of incompetence is unacceptable. Is disclosure of the identities of prisoners who may have knowledge integral to the security of our nation permissible or not? Either the Administration is bungling its efforts to keep Americans safe, or they are riding rough-shod over the Constitution of the United States.

Our President has committed our nation to an unprecedented, first-strike military policy. It’s more important now than ever before that we have the trust of the international community. That trust – not our motives or intent – will be the deciding factor in whether history remembers the United States as a global leader or a global tyrant. Furthermore, we need to be able to trust our government. But how can we with such blatant contradictions in policy? Contradictions which may – in the long run – endanger American lives.

Mr. Bush, please pull your head out of your ass. Soon.

Labels: General Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, George W. Bush, patriot act, saddam hussein, war on terror, wmd

"People want, they actually demand, more security," he said at the Baghdad palace where the American civil administration is billeted. "And quite frankly, we don't have the forces at our disposal to do it."

There’s a problem in Iraq. Someone forgot to tell the Iraqi’s loyal to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party the war is over. Have you seen how many U.S. troops have died since the “end” of the war? In the past two weeks we’ve been averaging about one American life a day – not to mention the non-Americans killed in assaults in Israel, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. How long will it be before the number of occupation casualties eclipses U.S. war casualties? A month, maybe two? Given our experiences in Vietnam, how can the present administration honestly tell the citizens of the United States that the war is over with a straight face? G.I.s Joe and Jane won’t be coming home for Christmas.

And yet, they continue to tell us everything is fine. Administration officials claim there’s no central coordination behind the increasingly frequent attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Of course we have no idea where Saddam Hussein or his sons are at present, but that doesn’t seem to be bothering anyone too much. Remember the final strike? The one that supposedly killed Saddam himself? It took until last week before the Military got around to excavating that site to search for Saddam’s DNA. WTF? They have time to dig up mass graves from 12 years ago when George the Elder promised military support to anti-Saddam “freedom fighters” who were then subsequently slaughtered and buried en masse by Iraqi forces when that support failed to materialize, but they haven’t found the axis of evil himself yet? I can’t say I’m surprised of course. After all, where’s Osama Bin Laden?

But wait, it gets worse. Our little war – the one that most definitely is not over yet – is costing us upwards of 100 Billion dollars. That cost was to be defrayed – so said the neo-cons – by revenue generated from the production, sale, and export of Iraqi oil. Apparently those who support Saddam – or at least those who would like to see the U.S. entrenched in a Vietnam like quagmire – have other plans. Besides killing our fellow citizens at check points and attacking their convoys, these people are specifically targeting U.S. efforts to get the Iraqi oil industry back in working order. No oil – no money.

In the meantime, official – and I use that word loosely - U.S. unemployment grew to 6.1 percent last week. Add to that the number of states having trouble meeting Homeland Security standards due to lack of funds, and you have the sorry state of the union. But don’t panic! George W. Bush has got it all figured out. W., affectionately known as “Bumble-fuck” in some circles, believes that he can solve the Middle East Problem TM and bring peace and prosperity to the world. This I gotta see.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Osama bin Laden, saddam hussein

LIMA, Ohio, April 24 -- President Bush today raised the possibility that Saddam Hussein's government destroyed the prohibited chemical and biological weapons that were the justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Well I’m glad that’s over and done with. No more petty debate about whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a just cause. Now we know it wasn’t. Will it matter? Nope, not a damn bit.

Most Americans have already been brainwashed into blindly supporting this administration by the continuous, 24-hour a day information offensive ever since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Some Americans have been so stupefied by the onslaught of propaganda and misinformation that they believe Saddam Hussein, and not Osama Bin Laden (whom we haven’t heard much about lately, but don’t worry I’m sure O.J. is on the case), was responsible for those attacks.

Are Americans morons? No, we’re not. We are however addicted to information, and the more entertaining the better. The average pre-packaged news burst in this microwave-loving, instant gratification crazed country is about 30 seconds long. Slam a few graphics on a few lines from an official (read: carefully tailored) news release, and BAM! you’ve got yourself half a million viewers glued to your channel for the next half an hour. Everybody wins. The government gets its propaganda out, the network gets its advertising dollars, and the advertisers get their captive audience. The current administration knows this – thanks to many years of careful research - and has been carefully manipulating public opinion through the mainstream media for its own profit.

This is just the latest, blatant example of that manipulation. By raising the possibility that the Iraqis destroyed any existing WMDs just before we invaded, President Bush echoes a dubious story that was quietly seeded into the news cycle a couple of days ago that conveyed the same message. That article gave everyone who read it some background so this scripted statement by the President didn't come straight out of left field. More stories about this will be written, although none beyond the editorial pages (who reads those?) will be critical. After a week or two, the possibility that Saddam Hussein’s government destroyed WMDs days before the US invasion will suddenly appear to be historical fact - even though no facts have ever been presented. Within a month – enough time for other gripping stories to capture our collected attentions - many Americans will believe this absurd scenario is actually true. The debate of whether or not the United States was justified in re-writing international doctrine by initiating a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation based on a perceived threat – one which has never been proven to exist – will be over. It might as well have never occurred.

I’m afraid for America. Our actions have consequences. We can’t afford to remain a nation of citizens crippled with goldfish memories. If we don’t pay attention, read, watch, listen, learn, and form opinions on our own, then someone else will do it for us.

Sheep have no choice but to be slaughtered.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

Via MSNBC:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 8 — A U.S. Air Force warplane dropped four enormous bombs Monday on a residential neighborhood where “extremely reliable” intelligence information indicated that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons were staying, senior administration officials told NBC News. The sources would not rule out the possibility that Saddam could have moved before the planes struck, but they said it was highly likely that he and his sons were dead if they were still there when the bombs hit.

How likely is it that the CIA could miss twice? Not very likely at all.

Now all the administration needs to do is get there story straight on the fertilizer, er, I mean sarin nerve gas.

Labels: cia, iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

A few years ago – OK it was more like 10 – I was a freshman in college. (We just didn’t believe them when they said the time would fly). I was in a bizarre little class of 10 or 12 students entitled Freshman Seminar: Contemporary Japanese History and Culture. I say it was bizarre because by the end of the second semester of my sophomore year I had exhausted the University’s entire catalog of courses regarding Asian Studies; At the time, URI was still very much a Euro-centric East Coast State University – a bit backward really.

I took the course because it fit nicely into a schedule I had thrown together at the last minute (i.e. the day classes started), but also because it complemented the Japanese 101 course I had signed up for to satisfy my language requirement (Spanish 303 at 8 am MWF, or Japanese 101 at 2 pm TR – it’s a no brainier really).

The course was – after several years of Asian Studies at various institutions - actually a decent, but slightly dated, introduction to the cultural identity of Japan. Any legitimate understanding of the topic requires a lengthy study of history, geography, anthropology, art, political science, language, and philosophy, but this odd little course at URI served its purpose well.

In my final paper for the class, I tried to tackle the difficult subject of competitive spirit - as it exists in all cultures – and its specific manifestations in modern day America and Japan. (That's what I was attempting to write about, but I’m sure the thesis looked more like: “The Japanese are cool.”).

In America – go to any ball park on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon and watch your neighborhood sports teams play a game – and listen. What are you likely to hear from the stands? “Be number one!” In Japan – at the time I wrote my original paper anyway – you’d hear something that translates roughly to “Do your best!”

In America, being called a “loser” is perhaps one of the worst insults imaginable. This is not necessarily true for other cultures in which doing one's best – regardless of the outcome – is a more significant endeavor than simply winning. It’s a subtle difference, but one that deserves exploration considering our current situation in Iraq.

Militarily, there’s no doubt that the US will “win” this war. No comparison exists between US and Iraqi forces. None. However – as simple as this fundamental truth appears – it all goes to shit once we move beyond the limited American cultural instinct of applying concepts of “win” and “lose” to a conflict. Who says the Iraqis are in the same ball game we are? What if not a single Iraqi soldier is trying to win at all? What if each one of them is simply trying to cause as much damage as possible?

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 advarsary; 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.

Labels: china, Donald Rumsfeld, iraq, Japan, saddam hussein

A “last minute” gambit has failed (Are we all getting used to this yet?). The US strikes against Baghdad – intended to kill Saddam Hussein himself – were a major failure.

Not only is Saddam Hussein still alive, but the carefully laid war plan of Shock and Awe – a plan which took months to conceive and implement – is now virtually useless.

Shock and Awe was supposed to draw Iraqi forces into surrender through surprise and psychological intimidation. President George W. Bush threw that plan aside yesterday afternoon in an Oval Office meeting. Shock and Awe was replaced by a shoot-from-the-hip strategy to kill Saddam Hussein and his top military leaders in one fell swoop – a surgical strike employing the very best of America’s intelligence and technology (Think of the headlines!). The “Decapitation” plan had many advantages.

Shock and Awe called for 3,000 bombs and missiles to be dropped in the first forty-eight hours of conflict. Decapitation utilized only 24 cruise missiles and a hand full of bombs. Politically, economically, and militarily Decapitation was superior, if it worked.

It didn’t, and we will now witness the consequences of our administration’s folly.

Shock and Awe is on the garbage heap, this is now a conventional urban war: The Pentagon’s worst case scenario.

US troops must now overcome an emboldened Iraqi Army entrenched in Baghdad. They have trained to face a cowering one. The Iraqi troops will not surrender easily – their leader has taken the first hit of the war and has lived to tell the tale. The administration has made Saddam Hussein a hero: Worst case scenario.

US military planners - after months of intelligence collection, analysis, battle planning, training and deployment – must now go back to the drawing board as US troops march through the desert. Again, this is the worst case scenario.

Saddam Hussein now knows that the eyes and ears of the US intelligence community are on him – he will use that knowledge to his advantage. Need I say it again?

President Bush made the decision, he will be personally responsible for every American life lost in Iraq. Military leaders in the field will not forget this.

Can it be any worse?

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, saddam hussein, Shock and Awe

“UP to 100,000 body bags and 6,000 coffins have been secretly delivered to a US base in Italy…”

Just to put that in perspective, the United States lost approximately 58,000 lives to the conflict in Vietnam. What could the Pentagon be thinking by preparing for so many losses in Iraq?

To continue a theme, I have an absurd thought. Let's imagine for a moment that Saddam Hussein really does posses a vast store of biological and/or chemical weapons. How would he best use them against the United States? One might argue that he doesn’t have a delivery system capable of reaching U.S. territory. One might also note that Saddam would be unlikely to launch a large scale attack against either Israel or Turkey. While he did launch a limited, and very quietly reported series of military strikes against Israel during the first Gulf War, it’s simply too much ground for his current weapons systems to cover while under the thumb of 200,000 U.S. and U.K. troops. So what are his options?

Saddam has vowed to die in Iraq. He also vowed that the Iraqi people will die with him in a struggle against any invasion force. He knows that urban combat is our worst nightmare. He believes the Bush administration will not stop at nothing before U.S. troops have overthrown his regime.

So when you can’t bring Mohammed to the mountain, what do you do?

It is very likely that if Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction he will use them against an invasion force. Furthermore, those weapons would be made most effective by use in an urban environment. If Saddam is as ruthless and evil as the administration would have us believe, his own civilian losses would be negligible. The toll on U.S. forces however would be catastrophic. The situation becomes even more grim when you consider the Bush administration’s assertion that it would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the event of U.S. troops being subjected to such an attack. How would our Arab allies feel about that I wonder?

This is only my opinion, but I believe that things are going to get a whole lot worse in the Middle East before they get any better.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, wmd

This week the U.S., the U.K. and Australia will once again plead their case to the UN Security Council. They will insist that Iraq is in "further material breach" of UN resolution 1441. I believe that this will be the last such opportunity for the UN to authorize force before the allies go it alone.

The United States has made no secret of its offer to Saddam Hussein - and his top officials - of immunity to war crimes prosecution in exchange for political exile. As tensions have mounted on Saddam to take an active hand in avoiding war, he has placed his Minister of Defense under house arrest.

U2 spy planes are patrolling the skies over Baghdad. The U.S. threat of finding and killing Saddam within the first 48 hours of an invasion are very real. So the question remains, can this situation end peacefully before such an invasion unfolds?

The cost to the U.S. - regardless of the outcome - will be untold billions of dollars.

One way or another, Iraq will be occupied by either the U.S. or the UN. Inspections and disarmament will continue. In the aftermath, the Bush administration will enter an election year with 200,000 troops abroad, and a possible continued nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. Osama Bin Laden will likely still be at large.

Then of course there is the economy. Will U.S. investors rally following a resolution to the situation in Iraq? Is that all that is keeping them from rallying now?

I continue to search for the answers to these questions. Your thoughts are always appreciated.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, UN

I agree that Saddam and members of his regime are guilty of crimes against humanity. The world knows this, and believes he should be removed from power. I don’t believe that is what is at issue here. Let me explain why I feel this way.

Bill Clinton successfully presented the American people with a war criminal in eastern Europe. Then he rallied support around a diplomatic effort convincing the UN - with NATO military support for the first time in history - to depose a government, and bring its top officials to trial in the World Court. The entire thing was a sham to distract media attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet the governments of the world still went along with him for the ride.

Why has the UN Security Council and three NATO member states chosen now to obstruct US endeavors to police the world from bad men? Are they the pacifists they claim to be? Since when?

I don’t believe for a second that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China have become pacifists. They are not. Their opposition to war has little to do with pacifism, and nothing to do with policing the world. Not a single government on the globe gives a damn about the suffering of the Iraqi people under an oppressive regime.

This is about money - not people.

If that’s true, how much would this war cost the United States? It’s being bandied about in Washington D.C. that a war in Iraq – and its subsequent occupation – would cost US taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars over the next two years.

How much more than this must we pay our “allies” to go along with this plan in the first place?

Turkey alone is going to cost the US in excess of 26 billion in grants and loans. What about all the fledgling EU states to be? How much are they each costing us? Why are the poorest nations of the world suddenly so vocally supportive of our policies? Were France, Germany, and Belgium simply too expensive the first time around? Are Russia and China just holding out for better deals when the second UN resolution gets put forward?

Turkey has come late to this game, but they stand to make a considerable profit. With US troops floating off their costs – unable to unload, and unable to turn around – how long can we hold out on them. Even if they only manage to negotiate one or two billion more, its still coming out of our pockets. And when I say “our pockets” I mean that literally.
Everyday the long-term costs of this potential war increase. I am concerned that a war is too costly a venture for our economy to sustain.

So what is our best alternative?

Labels: bill clinton, iraq, saddam hussein, UN