In this mission impossible, politics kills soldiers

Carole Whelan

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - Bangor Daily News

The Maine Chapter of Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) has been providing DVDs and articles to members of Congress to help them understand our increasing concerns about the safety and mission of our soldiers.

Two of the articles are by Gen. William Odom: "Why America Must Get out of Iraq Now" and "Victory is not an Option." Gen. Odom was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan. Everyone who wants to understand what is at risk should read these articles.

The present commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, recently said there is no military solution in Iraq. A political solution may someday be possible, but it is too late for what he says is the primary task of any counter-insurgency: Ensuring the security and well-being of the civilian population. The most recent poll showed 78 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. out and are in favor of targeting U.S. troops, who are seen as occupiers. Two million Iraqis are refugees, and almost that many are displaced within Iraq.

The president promised almost two years ago that "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," but the Iraq Study Group reported that, in spite of the billions spent, there was never any provision to adequately fund training an Iraqi army. More recently, it has been revealed that Saudi Arabia, home of Osama Bin Laden, is funneling funds to terrorists — fellow Sunnis — to increase ethnic violence against Shiites, and that the U.S. administration promoted this!

The recycling of troops back into combat, the high rate of post traumatic stress disorder, serious combat injuries, and the neglect in treating them, demonstrate that the needs of our military personnel are not being properly considered before, during or after their service. The military has reached the breaking point in manpower and equipment. Add to this the growing revelations of mismanagement, fraud and war profiteering and it is easy to understand that the supplemental funding does not "support the troops".

The funding has most benefited the weapons industry, whose CEO income has skyrocketed to an average of over $7 million per year! The value of Cheney’s Halliburton stock options has not merely doubled or tripled but multiplied by a factor of 32! We ask Congress, and every American, why should anyone get rich off the blood of our soldiers?

A U.S. Marine Corps maxim is "Never reinforce failure." It is a betrayal of our military to demand further sacrifice while condemning them to planned failure! So why is Congress still funding this disaster instead of showing leadership?

Rep. Tom Allen announced his intention to approve more war funding, once again failing to back up his claim to be "against the war." The funding issues a blank check, with no accountability. More ominously, an amendment requiring the president to consult Congress before making war against Iran was removed.

Democrats call it "Bush’s war", but it never could have happened without the consent of Congress, and they will own it lock, stock and gun barrel with the passage of another funding bill. Both Republicans and Democrats have shown higher loyalty to their parties than anything else, and so, it is politics that kills our soldiers! It’s past time for Congress to show some of the courage they blithely demand of our troops.

Gen. Odom says it is already too late for some 2008 presidential candidate to retrieve the situation. "If Congress cannot act, it, too, will live in infamy. Will they continue to fund the occupation and profiteering instead of the safe withdrawal of our troops? We urge our senators to truly support our troops by refusing to fund a mission that has never been defined, never been justified and so, cannot be accomplished.

Not one more day, not one more dollar. Bring them home now and take care of them.

Carole Whelan is the Maine state coordinator of the Maine Chapter of Military Families Speak Out

By BDN Staff

NBC's Matt Lauer: 'Would Iraq withdrawal really make things worse?'

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Bush's lies are emboldening journalists - FINALLY

"What would happen in Iraq if U.S. troops just got up and left?" asked Matt Lauer in an NBC Today Show report on President Bush's stated intent to veto a bill sent to him by Congress that would impose a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

yes... what WOULD happen...? well, a lot has ALREADY happened because of us, and, if we stay, more of the same is on the way...

"The region has become more dangerous because we've been there, the longer we stay the more dangerous it will become," said former National Security Agency direction Lt. Gen. William Odom on the prospect of a heightened civil war.

"I think when you really scrub it, the prospects for outside intervention and a regional war are actually pretty slim," said William Reidel, who worked in both the Clinton and Bush National Security Council.

As for the prospect of an "emboldened" Al Qaeda, Odom suggested that terrorists now in Iraq are less concerned with transnational terrorist activities than with their domestic conflict. "They're homegrown Iraqi terrorists who are much more concerned with winning the civil war in Iraq," said Odom. Added Reidel, "Once you take away the American occupation, Al Qaeda's gonna find that it has an awful lot of enemies in Iraq, people whom it has walked over in the last few years and who are gonna want revenge."

where were these friggin' reports when we needed 'em...?

Lieutenant General Wm. E. Odom: TESTIMONY FOR THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

18 January 2007

By Lieutenant General Wm. E. Odom, USA, Retired

Good afternoon, Senator Biden, and members of the committee. It is a grave responsibility to testify before you today because the issue, the war in Iraq, is of such monumental importance.

You have asked me to address primarily the military aspects of the war. Although I shall comply, I must emphasize that it makes no sense to separate them from the political aspects. Military actions are merely the most extreme form of politics. If politics is the business of deciding “who gets what, when, how,” as Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall in New York City once said, then the military aspects of war are the most extreme form of politics. The war in Iraq will answer that question there.

Strategic Overview

The role that US military forces can play in that conflict is seriously limited by all the political decisions the US government has already taken. The most fundamental decision was setting as its larger strategic purpose the stabilization of the region by building a democracy in Iraq and encouraging its spread. This, of course, was to risk destabilizing the region by starting a war.

--MORE---doc

'Cut and run' must be first step in Iraq

Related

William Eldridge Odom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

By William E. Odom
November 18, 2006


The United States upset the regional balance in the Mideast when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives, but "cutting and running" must precede them all. Only a withdrawal of all U.S. troops - within six months and with no preconditions - can break the paralysis that enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders and the public.

Our leaders do not act because their reputations are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq, creating democracy there, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, making Israel more secure, not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in vain, and others.

But reality no longer can be avoided. It is beyond U.S. power to prevent sectarian violence in Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states, the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread of instability beyond Iraq.

These realities get worse every day that our forces remain in Iraq. They can't be wished away by clever diplomacy or by leaving our forces in Iraq for several more years.

The administration could recognize that a rapid withdrawal is the only way to overcome our strategic paralysis, although that appears unlikely. Congress could force a stock-taking. Failing this, the public, sooner or later, will see through all of the White House's double talk and compel a radical policy change. The price for delay, however, will be more lives lost in vain.

Some lawmakers are ready to change course but are puzzled as to how to leave Iraq. The answer is four major initiatives to provide regional stability and calm in Iraq. They will leave the U.S. less influential in the region. But it will be the best deal we can get.


• First, the U.S. must concede that it has botched things, cannot stabilize the region alone and must let others have a say in what's next. As U.S. forces begin to withdraw, Washington must invite its European allies, as well as Japan, China and India, to make their own proposals for dealing with the aftermath. Russia can be ignored because it will play a spoiler role in any case.

Rapid troop withdrawal and abandoning unilateralism will have a sobering effect on all interested parties. Al-Qaida will celebrate but find that its only current allies, Iraqi Baathists and Sunnis, no longer need or want it. Iran will crow but soon begin to worry that its Kurdish minority may want to join Iraqi Kurdistan and that Iraqi Baathists might make a surprising comeback.

Although European leaders will probably try to take the lead in designing a new strategy for Iraq, they will not be able to implement it. This is because they will not allow any single European state to lead, the handicap they faced in trying to cope with Yugoslavia's breakup in the 1990s. Nor will Japan, China or India be acceptable as a new coalition leader. The U.S. could end up as the leader of a new strategic coalition - but only if most other states invite it to do so.


• The second initiative is to create a diplomatic forum for Iraq's neighbors. Iran, of course, must be included. Washington should offer to convene the forum but be prepared to step aside if other members insist.


• Third, the U.S. must informally cooperate with Iran in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so improve our position in the Middle East. The price for success will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. leaders as cutting and running, but it is no less essential. That's because we do share vital common interests with Iran. We both want to defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban (Iran hates both). We both want stability in Iraq (Iran will have influence over the Shiite Iraqi south regardless of what we do, but neither Washington nor Tehran wants chaos). And we can help each other when it comes to oil: Iran needs our technology to produce more oil, and we simply need more oil.

Accepting Iran's nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the likely benefits. Moreover, its nuclear program will proceed whether we like it or not. Accepting it might well soften Iran's support for Hezbollah and it will definitely undercut Russia's pernicious influence with Tehran.


• Fourth, real progress must be made on the Palestinian issue as a foundation for Mideast peace. The invasion of Iraq and the U.S. tilt toward Israel have dangerously reduced Washington's power to broker peace or to guarantee Israel's security. We now need Europe's help. And good relations with Iran would help dramatically. No strategy can succeed without these components. We must cut and run tactically in order to succeed strategically. The U.S. needs to restore its reputation so that its capacity to lead constructively will cost us less.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=108019&ntpid=1