 |
|
Searching? | |
 To find the subject matter you are looking for, click on the appropriate page above under "New Features" ; look to the left. Or, look on this page- make sure you scroll all the way to the bottom to find your subject.
 On the left of each page, you will find a list of archived articles where you should find the subject you are searching for.
If you can not find it, hit the last link on page until you do or e-mail us. We will try to do all we can to help. |
GoogledWebzineArticles:
 Click on the site above for a list of all, if not most, airbornepress.com webzine articles uploaded to the web.
Don't forget to click all the page numbers listed at the very bottom.
| |
| The Republican Fear Factor
|
(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)
|
Last Sunday on 60 Minutes, one of the segments was
a profile of Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader of the House of Representatives who has a very good chance of becoming the Speaker of the House if the Republicans lose the majority.
Pelosi held her own on the program and didn't shy away from the idea of "power."
The basic softball sorts of questions had to deal with who she is. Her theme was a mother and grandmother. Who can kick that? Please!
She loves power, however, let's face it. She is one smart, savvy woman. However, I wonder if the Democrats are being smart trotting her out on 60 Minutes. She is a lightning rod for Republicans. The only other person who could energize Republicans and conservatives more would be Hillary. Pelosi, the liberal San Franciscan Democrat, I'm sure, is a constant in Mr. Rove's thoughts and most likely in his nightmares.
Pelosi's appearance on 60 Minutes might serve to get conservatives to the polls which is the last thing the Democrats want.
It appears the Democratic strategy has been to allow the Republicans to screw up constantly and do nothing but put Pelosi out there on 60 Minutes; doubt it helped. So, why would the Democrats take a chance? Maybe over confidence or ego. It is hard for a politician to go for the greater good as opposed to their own ego or self-interest.
What I did like about last night's interview, however, had to do with the pledge of no impeachment. What this means is that we would hope if the Democrats do take over the House, we can get on with the business of running the country and figuring out something to do about Iraq and not issues which do nothing but detract. KT
|
(Eric Draper/White House/Handout/Reuters)
|
The Prez called home the generals Saturday to talk about strategy in Iraq. A mite late, I think.
What can the generals tell him that he has not been told over and over? The present strategy has failed plain and simple. Plus, there is limited trust in the generals, not that they are not honorable men, but most owe their allegiance to the present Powers That Be. This very fact is a fault of our system.
Generals, policemen, firemen or others who we trust as public servants may feel they owe their allegience to someone in power. At times issues of ambition and politics often win out over the public good. Consequently, by necessity, the saner voices should come from outside the circles of power. Will they? No, not really.
One of the things the generals need to say is, "We can't beat these people if we stay over there years." Mao of Chinese fame, the master strategist, noted it early on, "It takes the support of just 2 in 100 people to have an insurgency." In Iraq, the number of insurgents is legion, based on what they are able to do.
We can second guess ourselves till we are "blue in the face." We could have done what we needed to do with the proper numbers of troops; secured the country, borders, etc., and then moved out swiftly, leaving a contingency of Special Forces or whatever; but, unfortunately, we did everything wrong which has been more than adequately documented. We can't win, because we can't beat tribal people who will kill themselves and others. We simply did not take into account what we were facing.
I was not against the war, but have turned against our stupidity. Staying cannot be defended by rational people without drastic changes and the generals don't have the answers. At least they are meeting, but our goal of democracy cannot be advanced by the bayonet. We have to accept whatever the Iraqis come up with if they do come up with anything.
We are "in a pickle" and we don't need me to tell us. What the generals have to do is figure out another course. The question: what course? Now maybe a new course means paying some attention to history in terms of the French in Vietnam and our own debacle there. We left and the Vietnamese figured it out on their own.
Iraq is dragging us down and down and no amount of "staying the course" is going to do it. One of the best articles I've read is one authored by former Army Captain Phillip Carter, a lawyer, who returned from Iraq a month or so ago. He served as an Army police and civil affairs officer training Iraqi security forces.
Phillip Carter says that our strategy of "stand up the Iraqi forces so we can stand down" is a blueprint for withdrawal, not for victory. He says that improving the Iraqi Army and police is necessary to prevail in Iraq, but not sufficient.
I really like this statement, "Counterinsurgency is more like an election than a military operation; the Iraqi government must persuade the Iraqi people to choose it over the alternatives offered by Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish militants." And, I would add, figure out a way to rid the Iraqi army and police of overt bias in favor of their tribe or sect. This may simply be impossible.
Regardless, what we have been doing is not working. As Carter points out, "our prospects for achieving our goals are much less today than they were in 2003 and this makes it all the more imperative to figure it out."
I think that one of the things he means by "stand down as Iraqis stand up is a formula for withdrawal" is that we must turn it over to the Iraqis and take our chances.
We may have to leave some Special Forces and possibly the CIA along with some ready reaction conventional forces hidden in the desert.
Advisors are also needed with various skills to assist the Iraqis as they come to grips with what they have to do to restore their country to any semblance of order. We also need to butt out in terms of what democracy they choose. Guys like Phillip Carter need to be talking to the President, not the generals. We've already heard what the generals have to say. kt
|
|
|
American Casualty Report in Iraq
Thanks to Keyvan Minoukadeh
| |
Commentary