War on terrorism a failure...

[97silverlsc]

Linda McQuaig says the war on terror has done absolutely nothing to get to the root of the problem

LINDA MCQUAIG
Teronto Star
www.thestar.com
It's hard to imagine how the war on terror could be viewed as a success.

Among other things, terrorism is up sharply since the war to end it began — even before the horrific bombings in London last week. The number of serious international terrorist attacks more than tripled — to 655 last year from 175 the year before — according to U.S. government figures.

The Bush administration was hoping to keep these discouraging numbers secret, and so decided last April not to include them in its annual terrorism report to Congress. But congressional aides, briefed on the statistics, released them. It was the second year in a row the administration tried to hide a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks.

This raises the question: has the war on terror actually increased terrorism?

Perhaps terrorism would have increased anyway, but I'd guess the war on terror has made things worse. The heavy-handed methods used by George Bush (and helper Tony Blair) — including invading Iraq even though it had no links to 9/11 terrorists, and illegally detaining and torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay — have only exacerbated the rage many in the Middle East already felt against the U.S.

The war on terror certainly does nothing to get to the root of the problem.

For several years now, a new kind of "political correctness" has prevented meaningful public discussion about this entire subject. Despite the endless commentary generated by the attacks of Sept. 11, one thing was clear from the outset: any probing of the so-called "root causes" would be strictly off-limits in mainstream debate.

Perhaps this was understandable; discussing "root causes" seemed to reward the terrorists by paying attention to issues they wanted on the agenda. But it's also created a wilful blindness.

It's interesting to note there was no such wilful blindness about the "root causes" of the Nazi rise to power. I recall being taught in school about the deep sense of grievance felt by the German people over the reparations imposed on them after World War I. This background wasn't meant in any way to let Hitler off the hook for his atrocities. It simply helped explain how he'd managed to manipulate the German public to win power.

The people of the Middle East have legitimate grievances against America — from the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to decades of U.S. backing of tyrants in the region (including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s) to unwavering U.S. support for Israel during its 38-year military occupation of Palestine.

Until the U.S. changes its behaviour, the Middle East will be fertile ground for Islamic extremists to win recruits — and even some public support.

As long as we refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the grievances felt in that part of the world, let alone try to correct them, we'll go on as we are, enjoying the satisfaction of venting our rage against the evils of terrorism. We just won't do much to stop it.


I believe she has hit the nail on the head. We have ignored the grievances (legitimate or not) of these people long enough that they are responding with whatever means they have(terrorism). This country has a long history of doing whatever is necessary to secure and support "our way of life" without concern for the needs or desires of the citizens of the countries whose resources we wanted and now it's coming back at us. Rather than addressing this past and the tactics we've used, Shrub is acting like the bully on the block trying to beat them into submission and it's not going to work.
:Bang

 

[fossten]

The people of the Middle East have legitimate grievances against America — from the U.S. overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 to decades of U.S. backing of tyrants in the region (including Saddam Hussein in the 1980s) to unwavering U.S. support for Israel during its 38-year military occupation of Palestine.

Until the U.S. changes its behaviour, the Middle East will be fertile ground for Islamic extremists to win recruits — and even some public support.

As long as we refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the grievances felt in that part of the world, let alone try to correct them, we'll go on as we are, enjoying the satisfaction of venting our rage against the evils of terrorism. We just won't do much to stop it.


I believe she has hit the nail on the head. We have ignored the grievances (legitimate or not) of these people long enough that they are responding with whatever means they have(terrorism). This country has a long history of doing whatever is necessary to secure and support "our way of life" without concern for the needs or desires of the citizens of the countries whose resources we wanted and now it's coming back at us. Rather than addressing this past and the tactics we've used, Shrub is acting like the bully on the block trying to beat them into submission and it's not going to work.
:Bang

Typical liberalism. Oh, we don't want to offend those terrorists! If we could just reason with them and show them how much we want them to like us, maybe they would stop doing bad things!

You show how ignorant your thinking is when you say that it is OUR fault that these psychos attacked us. You guys don't get it. These are fanatics, insane, brainwashed people who aren't going to negotiate, play nice, or show mercy. They have sworn to destroy us, and kissing their butts won't change their behavior. These are terrorists, not military armies, and they will never come forward to sit at the negotiating table. They don't just have a political agenda, they HATE US. The only thing they understand is force. The only way to win is to defeat them. If you had ever studied how they are taught to think you wouldn't even say such ignorant things.

 

[97silverlsc]

Blair's blowback

Of course those who backed the Iraq war refute any link with the London bombs - they are in the deepest denial

Gary Younge
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian

Shortly after September 11 2001, when the slightest mention of a link between US foreign policy and the terrorist attacks brought accusations of heartless heresy, the then US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice got to work. Between public displays of grief and solemnity she managed to round up the senior staff of the National Security Council and ask them to think seriously about "how do you capitalise on these opportunities" to fundamentally change American doctrine and the shape of the world. In an interview with the New Yorker six months later, she said the US no longer had a problem defining its post-cold war role. "I think September 11 was one of those great earthquakes that clarify and sharpen. Events are in much sharper relief."

For those interested in keeping the earth intact in its present shape so that we might one day live on it peacefully, the bombings of July 7 provide no such "opportunities". They do not "clarify" or "sharpen" but muddy and bloody already murky waters. As the identities of the missing emerge, we move from a statistical body count to the tragedy of human loss - brothers, mothers, lovers and daughters cruelly blown away as they headed to work. The space to mourn these losses must be respected. The demand that we abandon rational thought, contextual analysis and critical appraisal of why this happened and what we can do to limit the chances that it will happen again, should not. To explain is not to excuse; to criticise is not to capitulate.

We know what took place. A group of people, with no regard for law, order or our way of life, came to our city and trashed it. With scant regard for human life or political consequences, employing violence as their sole instrument of persuasion, they slaughtered innocent people indiscriminately. They left us feeling unified in our pain and resolute in our convictions, effectively creating a community where one previously did not exist. With the killers probably still at large there is no civil liberty so vital that some would not surrender it in pursuit of them and no punishment too harsh that some might not sanction if we found them.

The trouble is there is nothing in the last paragraph that could not just as easily be said from Falluja as it could from London. The two should not be equated - with over 1,000 people killed or injured, half its housing wrecked and almost every school and mosque damaged or flattened, what Falluja went through at the hands of the US military, with British support, was more deadly. But they can and should be compared. We do not have a monopoly on pain, suffering, rage or resilience. Our blood is no redder, our backbones are no stiffer, nor our tear ducts more productive than the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those whose imagination could not stretch to empathise with the misery we have caused in the Gulf now have something closer to home to identify with. "Collateral damage" always has a human face: its relatives grieve; its communities have memory and demand action.

These basic humanistic precepts are the principle casualties of fundamentalism, whether it is wedded to Muhammad or the market. They were clearly absent from the minds of those who bombed London last week. They are no less absent from the minds of those who have pursued the war on terror for the past four years.

Tony Blair is not responsible for the more than 50 dead and 700 injured on Thursday. In all likelihood, "jihadists" are. But he is partly responsible for the 100,000 people who have been killed in Iraq. And even at this early stage there is a far clearer logic linking these two events than there ever was tying Saddam Hussein to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.

It is no mystery why those who have backed the war in Iraq would refute this connection. With each and every setback, from the lack of UN endorsement right through to the continuing strength of the insurgency, they go ever deeper into denial. Their sophistry has now mutated into a form of political autism - their ability to engage with the world around them has been severely impaired by their adherence to a flawed and fatal project. To say that terrorists would have targeted us even if we hadn't gone into Iraq is a bit like a smoker justifying their habit by saying, "I could get run over crossing the street tomorrow." True, but the certain health risks of cigarettes are more akin to playing chicken on a four-lane highway. They have the effect of bringing that fatal, fateful day much closer than it might otherwise be.

Similarly, invading Iraq clearly made us a target. Did Downing Street really think it could declare a war on terror and that terror would not fight back? That, in itself, is not a reason to withdraw troops if having them there is the right thing to do. But since it isn't and never was, it provides a compelling reason to change course before more people are killed here or there. So the prime minister got it partly right on Saturday when he said: "I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots. As well as dealing with the consequences of this - trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can - you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

What he would not acknowledge is that his alliance with President George Bush has been sowing the seeds and fertilising the soil in the Gulf, for yet more to grow. The invasion and occupation of Iraq - illegal, immoral and inept - provided the Arab world with one more legitimate grievance. Bush laid down the gauntlet: you're either with us or with the terrorists. A small minority of young Muslims looked at the values displayed in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and Camp Bread Basket - and made their choice. The war helped transform Iraq from a vicious, secular dictatorship with no links to international terrorism into a magnet and training ground for those determined to commit terrorist atrocities. Meanwhile, it diverted our attention and resources from the very people we should have been fighting - al-Qaida.

Leftwing axe-grinding? As early as February 2003 the joint intelligence committee reported that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent "by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq". At the World Economic Forum last year, Gareth Evans, the former Australian foreign minister and head of the International Crisis Group thinktank, said: "The net result of the war on terror is more war and more terror. Look at Iraq: the least plausible reason for going to war - terrorism - has been its most harrowing consequence."

None of that justifies what the bombers did. But it does help explain how we got where we are and what we need to do to move to a safer place. If Blair didn't know the invasion would make us more vulnerable, he is negligent; if he did, then he should take responsibility for his part in this. That does not mean we deserved what was coming. It means we deserve a lot better.

 

[97silverlsc]

Typical liberalism. Oh, we don't want to offend those terrorists! If we could just reason with them and show them how much we want them to like us, maybe they would stop doing bad things!

You show how ignorant your thinking is when you say that it is OUR fault that these psychos attacked us. You guys don't get it. These are fanatics, insane, brainwashed people who aren't going to negotiate, play nice, or show mercy. They have sworn to destroy us, and kissing their butts won't change their behavior. These are terrorists, not military armies, and they will never come forward to sit at the negotiating table. They don't just have a political agenda, they HATE US. The only thing they understand is force. The only way to win is to defeat them. If you had ever studied how they are taught to think you wouldn't even say such ignorant things.

The only one showing ignorance here is YOU!! The US has played bully on the block for many year now and the scrawny little kids on the block are tired of being bullied by the US and are responding with whatever means they have available. We have great concern for the safety and liberties of our citizens, but damn little concern for the citizens of the countries we take advantage of. We are starting to reap what we have sewn. Might does not make right.

 

[fossten]

The only one showing ignorance here is YOU!! The US has played bully on the block for many year now and the scrawny little kids on the block are tired of being bullied by the US and are responding with whatever means they have available. We have great concern for the safety and liberties of our citizens, but damn little concern for the citizens of the countries we take advantage of. We are starting to reap what we have sewn. Might does not make right.

This is a guy who cares more about the terrorists than he does about the innocent people they slaughter. You sound like you are one of them. Hey, don't waste space here on this land. Take Michael Moore and Garry Trudeau with you and go join your comrade bin Laden and feel at home with all your other anti-American buddies.

 

[pepperman]

We did not start this WAR , the terrorist did with there attack on 9 -11. The war on terrorism is not going to be won quickly it's going to take people who will see it to the end. The Terrorist are counting on the U.S. not having the guts to see this through to the end appeasement does nothing but give aid and comfort to the enemy, and the TERRORIST are the enemy no one else, the war on terrorism a failure no i don't think so.

 

[MonsterMark]

The problem with the anti-Bush, anti-war on terror factions is that they think if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. That is just not reality. They will never leave us alone. If and when they feel they have the upper hand, they will jump at the chance to inflict as much pain as possible. No matter what we do, we will pay, sooner or later.

 

[pepperman]

Liberal & Conservative Views on Terrorism

http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/23747.html

 

[pepperman]

How Many Liberals Does It Take To Win A War

http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/105247.html

 

[fossten]

We have great concern for the safety and liberties of our citizens, but damn little concern for the citizens of the countries we take advantage of.

See, that's just not true. Look what we are doing in Iraq, rebuilding the country, creating jobs for their citizens, training a police force, maintaining protection until they can fend for themselves. In fact, your argument counters your own argument that we should abandon the Iraqis and bring our troops home prematurely. You can't have it both ways. Either we should have concern for the citizens of Iraq or we shouldn't.

Look what we did after we defeated Japan, Germany. They prosper now. Look how well France is doing, thumbing their noses at us, after we pulled their butts out of TWO World Wars. We had a 50-year cold war with the Soviets (which we won, thanks to, yep, you guessed it, MILITARY BUILDUP) and now we are practically their friends, giving them all sorts of money and aid. We pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and didn't take advantage of our position in Kuwait. NO. Instead, we let them have their country back. I could go on and on but drubbing you about the head and shoulders gets boring.

 

[fossten]

I thought at this point that an apology might be appropriate.



MUSLIMS ...USMC Lt Gen. Pitman's "Apology" , This Letter of Apology was written by Lieutenant General Chuck Pitman, US Marine Corps, Retired:

"For good and ill", the Iraqi prisoner abuse mess will remain an issue. On the one hand, right thinking Americans will abhor the stupidity of the actions while on the other hand, political glee will take control and fashion this minor event into some modern day massacre..

I humbly offer my opinion here:
I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).

I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after
9/11. I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Islamic Arabs
I am sorry that most Arabs and Muslims have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth. I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools, mosques, and government-controlled media.

I am sorry that Yassar Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and high-jacked the Palestinian "cause." I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.

I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA for all their problems.

I am sorry that our own left wing, our media, and our own brainwashed masses do not understand any of this (from the misleading vocal elements of our society, like radical professors, CNN and the NY TIMES).

I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered. I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.

I am sorry that those same bombers are brainwashed thinking they will receive 72 virgins in "paradise."

I am sorry that the homicide bombers think pregnant women, babies, children, the elderly and other noncombatant civilians are legitimate targets.



I am sorry that our troops die to free more Arabs from the gang rape rooms and the filling of mass graves of dissidents of their own making. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group. I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state. I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen Daisy cutters on Fallujah. I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site." I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving two jets into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites. I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the murders and beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, etc....etc! I am sorry Michael Moore is an American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.



America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do.
We hang out our dirty laundry for the entire world to see. We move on.
That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.

Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure , it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated?

Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujahans

If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait!
You have a better chance of finding those seventy-two virgins.
Chuck Pitman Lieutenant General US Marine Corps (Retired)
Semper Fi

 

[Frogman]

I'm ex-military, but I still think the US should have kept it's nose out of Iraq.

 

[barry2952]

I'm ex-military, but I still think the US should have kept it's nose out of Iraq.

That's a powerful first post!

 

[fossten]

That's a powerful first post!

Doesn't take much to impress you.

(Yawns, bored, waves back of hand wearily at silly libs, heads off to bed)

 

[MonsterMark]

I'm ex-military, but I still think the US should have kept it's nose out of Iraq.

And why is that? It was OK for Saddam to violate the peace accord he signed in '91? Treaties don't mean anything? Where are you coming from?

 

[formerknown]

They should have taken-out Saddam, his kids, and the other scumbags on the playing cards- and that's it. After that, Bush should have announced that our objective is complete, and withdrawn our people from the country.

 

[fossten]

They should have taken-out Saddam, his kids, and the other scumbags on the playing cards- and that's it. After that, Bush should have announced that our objective is complete, and withdrawn our people from the country.

That's what we would have done if Bush only cared about Saddam Hussein and had a hard-on for finishing his dad's job. The truth is, he never intended to leave the Iraqis hanging.

You can't just leave a hole or vacuum where Saddam was. Iran poses an even greater threat now that they are toying with nukes. They would have just swooped in and taken advantage. And don't forget about the terrorist nation Syria. Besides, that would have been an even greater betrayal of the Iraqi people who need a stable government and a stable country. We would have been accused of abandoning them only to be taken over by madmen like Zarqawi.

 

[barry2952]

Been kooking through those BuSh goggles again? They go good with red cool aid.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Typical liberalism. Oh, we don't want to offend those terrorists! If we could just reason with them and show them how much we want them to like us, maybe they would stop doing bad things!

You show how ignorant your thinking is when you say that it is OUR fault that these psychos attacked us. You guys don't get it. These are fanatics, insane, brainwashed people who aren't going to negotiate, play nice, or show mercy. They have sworn to destroy us, and kissing their butts won't change their behavior. These are terrorists, not military armies, and they will never come forward to sit at the negotiating table. They don't just have a political agenda, they HATE US. The only thing they understand is force. The only way to win is to defeat them. If you had ever studied how they are taught to think you wouldn't even say such ignorant things.

Typical Right-Wingged Whackoism. Can't stand the though of discussing the TRUTH about the root causes of terrorism. Thanks for proving the point made by that article.

*owned*

The conservatives and self-rightous waged a losing "War On Drugs" over the past decades, which turned out to be get-rich scheme for law enforcement (at us taxpayer's expense) with a "side effect" of ethnic clensing of the urban poor while doing NOTHING about getting to the root of the problem nor making things better, in fact things are worse now. Now that the jig is up on that "war", the warmongering RWWs have to find another war to wage, this time its the "GWOT". The truly SAD part of this is that they have no clue on how to fight this war, hell, they can't even address the root causes of terrorism. How can anyone expect to win a war they don't understand?

Keep drinking the red kool-aid, shrubbies. I'll start digging my bomb shelter.

 

[fossten]

Typical Right-Wingged Whackoism. Can't stand the though of discussing the TRUTH about the root causes of terrorism. Thanks for proving the point made by that article.

*owned*

The conservatives and self-rightous waged a losing "War On Drugs" over the past decades, which turned out to be get-rich scheme for law enforcement (at us taxpayer's expense) with a "side effect" of ethnic clensing of the urban poor while doing NOTHING about getting to the root of the problem nor making things better, in fact things are worse now. Now that the jig is up on that "war", the warmongering RWWs have to find another war to wage, this time its the "GWOT". The truly SAD part of this is that they have no clue on how to fight this war, hell, they can't even address the root causes of terrorism. How can anyone expect to win a war they don't understand?

Keep drinking the red kool-aid, shrubbies. I'll start digging my bomb shelter.

Ah! A conspiracy-theory-monger. The pattern on you guys is that you have no solution yourselves, only criticisms about what's wrong in the world. My advice: Tuck yourself away in your bomb shelter. You remind me of the dad in the movie "Blast from the Past." Won't even accept reality when it's thrust in front of your face.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

You remind me of the dad in the movie "Blast from the Past." Won't even accept reality when it's thrust in front of your face.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.........!!

 

[FreeFaller]

It is not a failure...because of proud Iraqis and Americans working together.


Outside the "comfort zone"

by Tech. Sgt. Melissa Phillips
407th Air Expeditionary Group Public Affairs

7/08/2005 - ALI BASE, Iraq -- When a crew of instructors deployed to Ali Base, Iraq to teach Iraqi Air Force Airmen the finer points of flying and maintaining C-130s, they knew they had a monumental task in front of them. But what they found was something unexpected.

Slowly over several months, both the Iraqi Air Force and U.S. Airmen made lifelong friendships with the very men they previously called enemies.

“Our instructors are more than just a friend,” said Capt. S, Squadron 23 (transport) maintenance officer. “We are like brothers.”

Squadron 23 is the first medium airlift postwar Iraqi Air Force flying squadron and is now more than 100 Iraqi Air Force Airmen strong. More than 30 Sq 23 Advisory Support Team instructors assigned to the 777th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron and 777th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Squadron instruct Iraqi Airmen in aircrew specialties (pilot, navigator, flight engineer and loadmaster), and logistics specialties (crew chiefs, communications and navigation, guidance and control, hydraulics, engines, electrics and environmental, electronic counter measures, nondestructive inspection, supply and aerial port functions.)

The AST also maintains a few specialized jobs such as maintenance operations center controller, sortie support section, production supervisor, maintenance officer and superintendent.

A whole new world

For Master Sgt. Patrick Shaw, Sq 23 AST aerial port instructor deployed from McChord Air Force Base, Wash., coming here has been a whole new world for him. He teaches students who previously subscribed to a different philosophy on how to get the aerial port mission done.

“(Prior to learning U.S. Air Force aerial port processes,) they (Iraqi Air Force students) would go straight from the aircraft to the battlefield,” Sergeant Shaw said.

Under the old regime, the Iraqi Air Force Airmen didn’t have the same level of accountability over cargo and personnel. So it’s been an interesting process of getting them to understand why the paperwork is so important and will help reduce duplication of effort in the long run, said Sergeant Shaw, who, along with the other instructors, are on six month tours here.

Obstacles at every turn

Most of the Iraqi Air Force Airmen have been doing the same job on other transport aircraft in the Iraqi Air Force for years, some for longer than a few of the U.S. Airmen have been alive.

Although the Iraqi Air Force has a solid base in transport flight processes, it still hasn’t been an easy process to access their past experience.

Master Sgt. Tommy Lee, Sq 23 AST flight engineer instructor, and his other teammates have had to find new and inventive ways to bridge the language gap.

“One time I had to explain in six different ways why the instrument panel wasn’t lit up,” said Sergeant Lee, who is deployed from Little Rock AFB, Ark. “One of the students had skipped a step on the checklist, and it took me thirty minutes to explain what it would have taken less than 30 seconds to explain to a U.S. Airman, because of the communication barrier.”

In the beginning, there weren’t interpreters. Now the unit has three.

Despite the obstacles, in less than six months the first Iraqi Air Force pilot and copilot flew alone without a U.S. pilot in a flight seat position, and the first navigator is fully-qualified. Plus, more than 65 Iraqi Air Force mechanics have received their equivalent of a 5-level certification in the U.S. Air Force and are now working towards their 7-level equivalent.

“These are the best people I’ve ever worked with,” said Tech. Sgt Aaron Havens, Sq 23 AST electrics and environmental instructor deployed from Pope AFB, N.C.

“They pay attention, they like to keep everything clean (while performing maintenance), and with them it’s all about the airplane,” said Sergeant Havens, a four-year field training detachment instructor at Pope AFB.

Dangerous liaisons

The students are continually struggling to understand a new language and different ways of doing things, while simultaneously fighting for their lives and worrying about keeping their identities secret to protect themselves and their families from harm by insurgents who want to kill them.

But for them, they say it’s worth it because they no longer fight for just one man – they fight for their country.

For Captain S, who was also an officer during the previous regime, that shift in mentality is priceless.

“I recently went to visit an Iraqi solider in the hospital,” said Captain S. “He had lost both his legs, and we went there to comfort him. When we were leaving, we told him, ‘May God be with you.’

“He called back out to me, ‘For Iraq, I would give up my whole life, not just my legs.’”

Why do they do it?

Most of the Iraqi Air Force Airmen have businesses or farms, and are relatively well off already. But when the opportunity came to return to the service they love, regardless of the risk, they jumped on it.

Since Jan. 14, when Sq 23 was officially formed, they’ve been sneaking in the shadows and many have hid their allegiance to the Iraqi Air Force to family and friends, some even to their own wives.

Captain S’s wife, concerned for her family’s safety, continually pleads with him to quit and has also asked his father to pressure him.

But Captain S, whose own son doesn’t know he is currently serving, says, “If I don’t do it, who will?

“I dream that Iraq will someday be safe. We will be at peace, and at peace with our neighbors. I wish for a civilized country and a better place for my children.

“I try to teach my son to respect the armed forces when he sees them in the streets,” said Captain S. “One day when he grows up, I want him to know his father sacrificed during the worst period in his country in order for his children to have a better Iraq.”

Flight engineer J also fights for the same dream and a chance to build a new Iraqi Air Force.

He has been a flight engineer on AN-12 aircraft for 10 years, but until now has never felt able to express concerns to his superiors because of his lower rank.

Ambassadors of freedom

“I’m impressed at how Americans treat each other as far as rank,” said Engineer J. “They treat each other equally. During the previous regime there was a huge difference between a flight engineer and pilot. Now, we work together.

“Because of the treatment we’ve experienced from our instructors first hand and the friendship they’ve shown us, it’s made me change my views on all Americans,” said Engineer J.

“We understand the true (meaning of) American kindness,” Engineer J said.

For both men they say one of the proudest moment’s in their lives was during the ceremony when the Department of Defense gifted three C-130s to Sq 23, and the Iraqi Air Force placed the Iraqi flag on their own planes. The second was when they saw one of their planes take off and fly for the first time.

“We are so proud to be the first unit to fly Iraqi Air Force planes,” Engineer J said.

Pride in service

Their pride is contagious.

“This is the pinnacle of my career, and the most rewarding job I’ve ever had in my Air Force career,” said Sergeant Shaw.

“This job has given me a lot of insight to working outside your comfort zone. You really get a front seat to how other peoples’ actions impact organizations across the board,” he said.

“My students will continue to teach new students, and what we started here will allow them to move their forces and security folks to where they’re threatened to secure their nation,” Sergeant Shaw said.

Sharing lives

From the start, Sergeant Shaw realized the historical significance of his job, but said he didn’t realize how strongly he would feel for the plight of his students.

“You get very close to these guys, and you want to see them succeed,” Sergeant Shaw said.

He and the other instructors know their students’ family members by name and take an interest in their daily lives and vice versa. Some of the AST instructors and students have the other country’s flag in their homes, and can recognize the sound of the other servicemember’s spouse on the other end of the phone.

“We get incredibly close to each other and our families get involved,” said Sergeant Haven.

Poking fun

The relationship between the two country’s Airmen hasn’t been all perpetual seriousness.

“I remember one of the first times our class shared a laugh together was during a training session where I was teaching them hand signals so they can marshal cargo properly. Well, one of my students was trying to do more than one signal at a time, and he looked like an orchestra conductor.

“That became his nickname for a while,” Sergeant Shaw said. “Everyone had a good laugh and that’s when I realized we really weren’t so different.”

Impact

“Sometimes it’s overwhelming to know how much of an impact you’re making when you’re in the middle of it,” Sergeant Shaw said. “But then you realize you’re helping specific people - specific people I know by name - and we are helping them to succeed.

“I don’t know what history will write, but if this is the smallest footnote or biggest chapter in history, I’ll never forget it,” Sergeant Shaw said.

 

[97silverlsc]

Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe ...
By DANIEL BENJAMIN
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

Posted Sunday, Jul. 10, 2005
Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the U.S. President, George W. Bush. With the American election entering its final furlongs, he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is al-Qaeda." The remarks, made at an off-the-record conference, were leaked in the Italian press, and Sir Ivor, facing the displeasure of his Foreign Office masters for committing the sin of candor, disowned the comments. But now, as the soot settles in the London Underground, the words hang again in the air.

It is, of course, bad manners to point the finger at anyone but those responsible for the killings in London. They shed the blood; they must answer for it. But as the trail of bodies that began with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 continues to lengthen, we need to ask why the attacks keep coming. One key reason is that Osama bin Laden's "achievements" in standing up to the American colossus on 9/11 have inspired others to follow his lead. Another is that American actions--above all, the invasion and occupation of Iraq--have galvanized still more Muslims and convinced them of the truth of bin Laden's vision.

The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims. America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization. World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.

Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own. The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory. Coalition forces in Iraq face daily attacks from jihadists not because Saddam Hussein had trained a cadre of terrorists--we know there was no pre-existing relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda--but because the U.S. invasion brought the targets into the proximity of the killers.

Those who bombed the Madrid commuter lines last year were obsessed with Iraq. They delighted in the videotape that showed Iraqis rejoicing alongside the bodies of seven Spanish intelligence agents who were killed outside Baghdad in November 2003; they spoke of the need to punish Spain (their adoptive country) for supporting America; they recruited others to fight in the insurgency. They began work on their plot the day after hearing an audiotaped bin Laden threaten "all the countries that participate in this unjust war [in Iraq]--especially Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy." It had been the first time Spain had been mentioned in an al-Qaeda hit list.

We may learn that the London bombers were, like the Madrid crew, a bunch of self-starter terrorists with few or no ties to bin Laden. U.S. and partner intelligence services have done such a good job running to ground members of the original group that there may be no connection with the remnants of al-Qaeda's command on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We may also learn that the killers belong to a network being built by Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, who has emerged in Iraq as bin Laden's heir apparent.

Or we may find that the bombings were engineered by returnees from Iraq. Muslims from Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere--along with several thousand from Arab countries--have traveled to Iraq to fight in what has become a theater of inspiration for the jihadist drama of faith. A handful are known to have trickled back to Europe already. Western intelligence services fear that more are on the way and will pose a bigger danger than the returnees from Afghanistan in the 1980s and '90s, the global jihad's first generation of terrorists. The anxiety is justified; the fighters in Iraq are, as the CIA has observed, getting better on-the-job training than was available in al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan.

Britain has been on al-Qaeda's target list since the group's earliest days in the 1990s; the country's appointment with terror was ensured. But now, because of the invasion of Iraq, it faces a longer and bloodier confrontation with radical Islam, as does the U.S. America has shown itself to be good at hunting terrorists. Unfortunately, by occupying Iraq, it has become even better at creating them.

Benjamin is co-author of The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, to be published this fall

 

[97silverlsc]

Defying US Efforts, Guerrillas in Iraq Refocus and Strengthen
By Dexter Filkins and David S. Cloud
The New York Times

Sunday 24 July 2005

Baghdad - They just keep getting stronger.

Despite months of assurances that their forces were on the wane, the guerrillas and terrorists battling the American-backed enterprise here appear to be growing more violent, more resilient and more sophisticated than ever.

A string of recent attacks, including the execution of moderate Sunni leaders and the kidnapping of foreign diplomats, has brought home for many Iraqis that the democratic process that has been unfolding since the Americans restored Iraqi sovereignty in June 2004 has failed to isolate the insurgents and, indeed, has become the target itself.

After concentrating their efforts for two and a half years on driving out the 138,000-plus American troops, the insurgents appear to be shifting their focus to the political and sectarian polarization of the country - apparently hoping to ignite a civil war - and to the isolation of the Iraqi government abroad.

And the insurgents are choosing their targets with greater precision, and executing and dramatizing their attacks with more sophistication than they have in the past.

American commanders say the number of attacks against American and Iraqi forces has held steady over the last year, averaging about 65 a day.

But the Americans concede the growing sophistication of insurgent attacks and the insurgents' ability to replenish their ranks as fast as they are killed.

"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge."

At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government 27 months ago.

The danger is that the violence could overwhelm the intensive American-backed efforts now under way to draw Iraq's Sunni Arabs into the political mainstream, leaving the community more embittered than ever and setting the stage for even more violence and possibly civil war.

Fakhri al-Qaisi, a conservative Sunni leader, warned that if the isolation of Iraq's Sunnis was not soon reversed, the insurgents would grow even stronger.

"They will make suicide bombs, and they will destroy all," Mr. Qaisi said.

Such results appear to be exactly what the insurgents are trying to bring about.

On Tuesday, masked insurgents gunned down two moderate Sunni leaders who had been helping to draft Iraq's permanent constitution. The killings, carried out in the middle of a busy Baghdad street in heavy traffic, appeared to be calculated to squelch the voices of moderate Sunnis, and to prevent anyone else from stepping forward.

The immediate effect seemed to play right into the insurgents' hands: moderate Sunni leaders announced that they were suspending their efforts to help draft a constitution, laying down several conditions for their return.

Insurgents have killed moderate Sunni leaders before, but the shootings of Mejbil al-Sheik Isa and Damin al-Obeidi on Tuesday were especially striking: the men were killed after months of coaxing by Iraqi Shiite leaders and American officials intended to bring moderate Sunnis like them into the constitutional process.

The killing of the Sunni leaders came just three days after one of the worst suicide attacks since the American invasion, and one that was clearly intended to draw the country closer to a full-blown sectarian conflict.

Last Sunday, in the Shiite town of Musayyib, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, a suicide bomber dashed beneath a truck full of liquefied gas and blew himself up, igniting a giant fireball that killed more than 70 people and wounded at least 156. The truck, which amounted to a gigantic bomb itself, had been hijacked in western Iraq and parked next to a Shiite mosque.

The deadliness of the attack, and its obvious sectarian intent, prompted unusual expressions of alarm from Iraq's Shiite leadership, which had until now spoken with confidence of Iraq's ability to avoid sectarian strife. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most powerful Shiite leader, called on the Shiite-dominated government "to defend this country against mass annihilation."

Then, on Thursday, the rebels struck again, kidnapping the top Algerian diplomat in Iraq and a colleague. The gunmen snatched Ali Billaroussi, the top envoy, and Azzedine Belkadi, in Mansour, one of Baghdad's best neighborhoods, in broad daylight.

The abduction of the two diplomats followed the kidnapping and killing earlier this month of Ihab al-Sharif, Egypt's top diplomat, who had been designated to become the Arab world's first ambassador to Iraq. The kidnappings seemed designed to intimidate foreign governments, particularly Muslim governments, into withholding full diplomatic relations with the fledging Iraqi government.

As with the slaying of the moderate Sunni leaders, the kidnappings have seemed, so far, to have secured exactly what the insurgents wanted. No Arab government has yet sent an ambassador to this country.

In Baghdad, it is commonly understood that the recent success of the insurgency lies in part in the weakness of the Iraqi government. The Sunni leaders who were slain, for instance, were traveling with a single guard, whom one of the Sunni leaders had provided at his own expense. Pleas by the two Sunni leaders to the Iraqi government for protection had apparently gone unheeded.

And in the case of the bombing in Musayyib, Iraqi officials said the gas truck, owned by the Oil Ministry, had been hijacked by insurgents on its way from Baghdad to Fallujah several days before the bombing. To get to Musayyib, the truck probably passed through numerous military and police checkpoints, yet somehow, it reached its destination.

On Saturday, the police said a Sunni Arab from a village near Fallujah admitted that he was part of a group that carried out the bombing, and confirmed that it had hijacked the gas truck and sent the suicide bomber. The man was arrested after a shootout in which two other suspects were killed.

Still, part of the explanation for the insurgents' resiliency stems from their own shrewdness. American commanders believe that the rash of diplomat kidnappings came after the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed a cell in Baghdad specifically for abducting diplomats.

One other recent development in the insurgency - and a possible explanation of its ability to bring in recruits from around the Arab world - is the reach and sophistication of its public relations.

Most of the main insurgent groups - like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Ansar al Sunna - regularly post updates of their exploits on the Web. Scarcely a day passes when one of the groups has not announced another attack with either video or printed notice.

A communiqué released Friday by Ansar al Sunna, for instance, boasted of an attack on an American Humvee in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra. The Humvee, the communiqué said, had been destroyed with an "explosive package."

"Four crusaders who were in it were killed," the notice said.

"God is great," the notice concluded in the usual way. "Glory to God, his Messenger, and to the believers."

 

[barry2952]

Phil,

I have to play devil's advocate here. What do you think we should do now? We're there and, by all reconing, we need to finish the job. Put aside our feelings about BuSh and make a recommendation for what can be done now, right now, to resolve the situation in Iraq?

Please put aside the rhetoric and the animosity for a moment and suggest a direction. We, on their left, are very quick to criticize but sometimes bring little else to the table. The right is known for adamantly opposing anything that's not party line. What solution would work best for all concerned.

I'd like to hear from all about some solutions for Iraq. IMHO reducing the fire in Iraq will buy us some time to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists elsewhere.