I'll start this out with a short clip of a speech Senator, and brother 'Nam Veteran, Kerry gave on his return from a fact finding and diplomacy trip to Afghanistan. In this clip, in just a couple of sentences, he lays out the reality as to what one leading 'chickenhawk', and to many war criminal, has been blathering lately. Though Kerry doesn't mention it also speaks as to what that chief 'chickenhawk's' spokesperson, his daughter, fast becoming the leading 'chickenhawkette', has also been spreading around, allowed to and rarely, if ever, challenged.
President Obama released a special video message for all those celebrating Nowruz. Translated "New Day," Nowruz marks the arrival of spring and the beginning of the New Year for millions in Iran and other communities around the world. This year, the President wanted to send a special message to the people and government of Iran on Nowruz, acknowledging the strain in our relations over the last few decades. "But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together," he says.
After committing his administration to a future of honest and respectful diplomacy, he continues on to address Iran's leaders directly: "You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create."
This is a big deal, and it's an example of how you're supposed to utilize diplomacy. The press release went out to the media at midnight on Friday morning. . .I guess around 9:00 AM in Tehran. You can view the video at the link above, and the full text of the message is included here below the fold.
With Iraq's cabinet passing a security agreement that will dictate the future of the US role in Iraq, and Parliament being poised to pass it as well, the question now is not at what pace US troops should remove themselves from Iraq, but how to do it in a responsible way that keeps a number of powder kegs from exploding.
The answer comes down to one word - Diplomacy.
Diplomacy is as important for keeping Iraq stable as it is for making sure that US troops are not targets of attacks by insurgents, or caught in the crossfire of an explosion of sectarian violence, as we begin to pull back. And, there is no doubt that there are a number of tensions that could explode, if the US and the next administration does not engage in intense diplomacy not just within the borders of Iraq, but with regional players, as well.
Everything from an oil revenue sharing plan, to the governing of Kirkuk, to Sunni concerns about their own role in the new Iraq, to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and everything else in between could be subject to a small spark that sets of a chain reaction of powder kegs.
Only constant diplomatic and political attention can keep each of those things from blowing up. Diplomacy becomes even more intensely needed when you consider that the security pact includes a timeline for all US troops to be out of cities and towns by June, 2009. That is an extremely ambitious timeline by any standard.
However, there is some hope that just the promise of diplomacy is already playing a role, and can succeed under the Obama administration, if the President-Elect keeps his promise to engage in talks. From today's New York Times:
Several political analysts suggested that Iranian opposition to the pact had softened because of the American presidential election victory of Senator Barack Obama. He has suggested a more diplomatic approach to Tehran and has described a withdrawal timetable from Iraq faster even than the one laid out in the security agreement, though recently he has qualified that stance.
"If George Bush's presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned," said Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Having this administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians."
Iranians pulling back their opposition gave flexibility to Iraqi Shiite Cleric Ali al-Sistani to support the deal, which was key to it moving ahead. So, we can see what Barack Obama said during the campaign already showing promise.
Now, it will be up to President Obama to follow-up on the promise of diplomacy to get Iraqi and regional players to all work towards their mutual interest. This includes not just the Iranians, and Shiite leaders, but the Sunni minority and their allies in the Syrian government, which still opposes the deal, as well as the Kurds and Turkey, to settle their tensions, including the future of Kirkuk.
It's a tall order, even if we were talking about a President already in office. With less than six months after he takes office until US troops are expected to be removed from cities and towns in Iraq, President Obama will have absolutely no time to spare.
We all know we have a change coming, and it would be great if it happened yesterday, but it will be happening soon enough. That change is in a New President and His Administration who ran on "Change" and bringing along with him a change in the Peoples Representation in both houses of Congress.
The new President, Barack Obama, was not brought into this job of the Countries President by a political parties leaders but by The People who rallied behind him, from the primaries to the Nov 8th National Election Day, and those people, Us, have to continue in what happens, for just one person and the administration nor the peoples representatives can bring about the "Change" that is so desperately needed now after these detructive years on so many fronts by themselves, we must stay engaged!
What Palin is describing is what would be called preparation not preconditions. Just to be clear. Not negotiating until preconditions are met means not starting your negotiatins until the other side has met some kind of condition you imposed. In the case of Iran, McCain insists that the Iranians suspend their uranium enrichment program before we can even begin to negotiate. Obama opposes this preconditions. The basic argument against preconditions is that you can't ask your adversary to give up a big negotiating point in exchange for absolutely nothing and expect them to actually sit down at the table. Doesn't happen. Didn't happen when we dealt with the Soviets or the Chinese
While the idea that Sarah Palin can't even break "precondition" into its root word and prefix to discern its definition is disturbing, I think there is something even more dubious in there:
It is so naive and so dangerous for a presidential candidate to just proclaim that they would be willing to sit down with a- a leader like Ahmadinejad and just talk about the problems, the issues that are facing them. So that - that's - that's some ill-preparedness right there.
This quote would seem to indicate that Sarah Palin is against diplomacy. Flat out, its off the table. My only question is whether she is intelligent enough to have intended the comment in that context, or if her lack of a grasp on... well, anything really, is to blame for that statement.
I was going to post a followup to a recent post I had done referancing some disturbing news, but suspected, out of Afganistan. That post, a few days ago, followed the extremely sad news about the loss of the nine soldiers, fifteen injured, in a battle at a small fire base they held by Afgan insugents. This U.S. Abandons Site of Afghan Attack is a recent report on that and as the title says the American forces abandoned the base. It was than apparently retaken by the Afgan Insurgents as well as the little town near it, and control of the territory well around the town and base.
Another report came out yesterday, in the Asian Times, but was dated for today, I've already seen that other sources have been picking it up today, that will follow shortly.
Anyone who has been will tell you that war is terrible. While war is sometimes necessary, the death and destruction it brings is one of the most horrific consequences of any action man can take. I, for one, never want to carry a fallen comrade in a flag draped coffin again. It is an unfortunate task that must be carried out only under the most extreme of circumstances. Placing American Soldiers in harms way should only be an option when dealing with rogue states or groups who pose a legitimate threat to the United States and cannot be dealt with through civil diplomacy.
Diplomacy means negotiation between nations, but don't tell President Bush or Senator McCain that. They have another word for it: appeasement. Appeasement can be defined as "accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles." Other media outlets have covered the comments by the President and Senator McCain ad nauseum. For those who haven't kept up with this story, Bush referred to those who advocate diplomacy as a method of dealing with nations like Iran as "appeasers" and likened them to infamous Nazi appeaser Neville Chamberlain. McCain later concurred with this assessment.
While I was pursuing news articles this morning for blogging fodder, I came across a couple of articles that made me question who the actual appeasers are in this analogy. First comes this news out of DoD:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Monday it plans to send 39,000 soldiers to Iraq to replace troops scheduled to leave the war zone -- a move that could keep U.S. troop levels steady over the next year.
The Administration will continue to fight its ill-conceived, mismanaged, arguably illegal war through the end of the Bush presidency. Meanwhile, in the RGWOT AOR, kids who should be watching Hannah Montana are taking heads:
Amid cries of 'Allah o Akbar' (god is great), a young boy, barely 12 years old, lifts his machete and strikes at his victim who is lying on the ground, all tied up for the kill.
Waving a 'V' for victory sign with his right hand, the boy picks up the severed head and shows it around to the chants of applause from an audience gathered in a remote part of the region straddling the mountainous range which divides Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Despite my opinions on the cruelty of war, you will find no greater hawk when America legitimately finds itself in danger. While Bush has sent American Soldiers into the crossfire in Iraq for god knows what reason, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been free to rebuild and reform, and are now training prepubescent children in the ways of terrorism. By the age of 12, this boy has committed his first act of terror and first murder. These people are disgusting excuses for human beings and should be dealt with swiftly. In short, these are the REAL terrorists on which our military policy should be focused.
However, the Bush administration all but abandoned the notion of making any sort of lasting progress in fighting the Taliban and Real Al Qaeda long ago. Manpower and resources have instead been diverted to a separate war, a war of choice. Essentially, we have moved these resources to Iraq in lieu of using them to against the aggressors who challenge the Afghan government and American security. Meanwhile the war of necessity is neglected. We are not adequately fighting the Al Qaeda organization that attacked us on September 11th, that is the organization that is based in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We are not adequately fighting the Taliban who have and would give Real Al Qaeda sanctuary. Instead, these legitimate enemies of America have imposed conditions of brutality upon the people of Afghanistan and operate as they wish under the nose of American forces who, while valiant, have not been provided for in a manner that allows them to fight the Taliban with any more than marginal effectiveness. This would not have been possible without the lack of concern from the President and his Administration.
America has sacrificed its principles in the process. We have sacrificed the idea of a secure nation. We have sacrificed the concept of bringing freedom to the oppressed. We have sacrificed the concept of protecting American Soldiers, and properly equipping them for whatever fight they may face. Again, the sacrifice of these principles occurred under the watch of the Bush Administration.
If you have forgotten, take another look at the second paragraph and note the definition of appeasement. Am I wrong in believing that those of us who advocate diplomacy with Iran may not be the appeasers in this scenario?
Is this what we have to look forward to between now and November; beyond?
Is it politics, or do the President, presumptive Republican nominee, and others really believe that President Nixon, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Prime Minister Churchill, and countless others are the exemption (Stalin and subsequent Soviet Presidents, Mao, and countless others) and our presumptive Democrat nominee is naive? Along with current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and the countless members of Congress on both sides of the isle, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and more?
I had the opportunity to meet VoteVets-endorsed Congressional candidate Adam Cote today in Westbrook, Maine, and have come away knowing that Cote's the man our state's 1st District needs to send to Washington.
Cote, an Army National Guard veteran of both Iraq and Bosnia, has a very clear vision of the direction our nation needs to take in the wake of the events of the last seven years.
Surrounded by representatives of the VFW, DAV, AmVets, other veterans and supporters (and one VoteVets member), Cote laid it out, and is entirely on target.
He recognizes that the solution to the Iraq problem, first and foremost, is not going to come from the military; indeed, the surge served to expose America's shortfall throughout this debacle: the lack of diplomacy and statesmanship that is needed to solve problems.
He correctly pointed out that our experience in Bosnia - a similarly war-torn, factionalized corner of the world - was pacified not through military might, but through diplomatic efforts (Dayton). Cote pointed out that while the surge in Iraq reduced violence, the statesmanship required to make that reduction permanent was insufficient to make any measurable political gains.
On the subject of veterans, Cote is highly concerned that Congress and the administration will continue to stand by and do little as our ranks swell and the VA healthcare system continues to be swamped. Likewise, he wholeheartedly supports Sen. Webb's GI Bill; he knows that many veterans are seeking higher education, and can ill-afford to do so on today's outdaded legislation and funding.
Cote also understands the link between the war in Iraq and our continued dependence on oreign oil, and called for a Manhattan Project-style effort to find clean, inexpensive sources of energy. He believes, as do I, that this nation's brain trust is eminently capable of finding such solutions.
Adam Cote also believes in a strong sense of national service - that is, getting more of our citizens involved in helping this nation be the best it could be. Whether it's in the military, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc., he wants all of us to have a stake in what's going on.
If anyone here happens to live in the 1st District (Southern Maine/Portland area), I highly recommend you go check out his Web site.
I'm convinced that VoteVets has endorsed the right person at the right time in Maine.
Seasons Greetings to everyone out there, warrior and supporter alike... As I read the new articles coming in about the former prime minister of Pakistan, I cannot help but wonder a similar thing that Brandon brought up about why we're still dug into Iraq. Even more, though, after seeing some news bites of our Presidential candidates' comments, I cannot help but think about President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President Abraham Lincoln.. President Ronald Reagan.. even 60s contemporary lightning rod and pop star John Lennon. But, more closely to this scenario, we must look at JFK's brother Bobby; who was assassinated shortly after the California Democrat Primary and would have likely defeated President Richard M. Nixon.
There is no reasonable doubt that we should be back to fighting the War on Terror against Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as any individual, group, nation, or otherwise who has allowed him to continue. I have yet to see any link to bin Laden and Bhutto's assassin, but it is a disturbing reminder of something that one of our candidates, Governor Bill Richardson, did mention. He spoke of Musharraf stepping down..
even in the wake of all the said support that he and Pakistan have offered in stabilizing the region, and bringing Osama to justice.
All action does not have to lead to military confrontation. There is no one who can dispute that we have the biggest guns on the block, but while we do need to send our best resources toward the Pakistan/Afghanistan region, we need to really examine the bigger picture about how they got to Bhutto so easily.
Who can legitimate say what is really at stake? Can anyone say with any truth that this is good versus evil? Ted Sorensen, former advisor to Jack Kennedy, commented on the demagogue-like behavior, as well as special interests, that continues to allow our current administration to park our military machine in Iraq while the Congress continually refuses to acknowledge not only the will of the American people, but plain logic.
When it is all said and done, I think the point is that we need our troops focused on the War on Terror while our State Department needs to be focused on the best interests of diplomacy with a nation that is starting to stink of clandestine regime control.
Or, what is just a Muslim man who didn't want to see a woman coming back into power in a Muslim country?
My thoughts on the important news of the past week, take it for what it's worth. Cross-link here.
The Good: Secretary of Defense Gates swung by Iraq to get a sense of the security improvements and what still needed to get done to fix this chaotic country. He didn't have time to ask me how to fix the problem though, presumably because he was talking to more important people than some disheveled junior officer. Fortunately, he had time for a press conference where he talked about turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqis in 10 of the 18 provinces and cautiously suggested the Iraqi government get off their duffs and pass key legislation. Bodycounts aren't the only way to assess security progress, as the Iraqi Red Crescent put out a report that the number of internally displaced people has declined for the first time, ever.
The Bad: A Shiite militia aired a video showing the British hostages kidnapped at the Ministry of Finance in May. This harks back to the bad old days of Zarqawi getting obscene press time by showing Jihadi videos of Western hostages. The Dubai-based Al-Arabiya got a hold of the footage and they didn't release it to British officials. Maybe they're trying to be more like Al-Jazeera. A terrible situation all around and the Brits have kept hush-hush about it as is their policy in dealing with hostage negotiations. Another car bomb went off in the (relatively) safe neighborhood of Karradah, just across the Tigris river from my neck of the woods, but a million miles away. Sadly, that's the run of the mill in Baghdad, as you can see in this article here where Iraqis went shopping the next day.
The Ugly: Despite the fact that Iraq, the Kurdish region in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, EU, UK, and the US urged Turkey not to go across the border in northern Iraq to schwack the PKK, Turkey crossed the border. It's no secret that the Turks despise the PKK, but a massive incursion by the Turks could lead to destabilization of Iraq's big success story, Kurdistan. The Iraqis seem to be awkwardly quiet about it though. It's kind of like when the pit bull from next door comes into your yard to chase around a squirrel, it's best to just stay inside. Oh yeah and according to General Petraeus no one should be doing the "Victory Dance" just yet, since there's a long hard slog ahead in this country. I don't think anyone here was planning on it and he was probably addressing the rah-rah Bush crowd back stateside. Unfortunately, state-run Iranian TV picked it up, d'oh!
Two months ago the rhetoric being played worldwide was ugly. The IAEA was pissed about nuclear inspections, EFPs and 240mm rocket attacks were rampant across Iraq, and Ahmadinejad came to Columbia University to say that the Holocaust needed to be "investigated". I remember Fox running all sorts of pieces on the evil doings of Iran, and CNN was all poised to cover the invasion . It appeared some kind of military action was imminent and the press in the Middle East was going batty.
But now it seems the tune has changed. Take a look at this LA Times article from today.
"The welcome mat for memoirs by veterans of operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom might never wear out so long as they write with the savvy of Brandon Friedman . . . Friedman's take is vivid, frank, precise and dramatic."--Military Times
"Add Brandon Friedman's The War I Always Wanted to the ranks of outstanding non-fiction produced by officers from elite combat units in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Always truthful, often excruciatingly so, The War I Always Wanted rises at numerous points to the level of literature."--Steven Pressfield, author of Gates of Fire
"A Time To Lead confirms the rewarding benefits of military service at a time when such service is experiencing considerable strain. It also includes a comprehensive description of America's current national imperatives, which deserve serious consideration."--General Alexander M. Haig, Jr., former Secretary of State
"This is a primer on leadership forged in battle and by decades of experience. . .This isn't just a book; it's a manual for leading people and living a good life."--Barry McCaffrey, General, USA (ret.)
"Whip smart, sassy, with a mouth as foul as a sailor's, 28-year-old Sergeant Kayla Williams. . .tells what it's like to be a female soldier in Iraq."--Booklist
". . .echoes military memoirists from Julius Caesar to Ernie Pyle."--Publishers Weekly
". . .a shocking, on-the-ground view of one military woman's experience in Iraq."--Bookmarks Magazine
Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org. VetVoice will strive to remove any illegal material as soon as it is flagged. Similarly, VetVoice will use its discretion in determining whether to remove exceedingly offensive material. However, between posting and removal, any offensive or illegal material does not reflect the condoning or endorsing of said material by VoteVets.org or VetVoice.
Similarly, the views expressed on this website are those of the authors alone. Opinions on this website do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
Paid for VoteVets Political Action Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. VoteVets Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization which primarily focuses on nonpartisan education and advocacy on behalf veterans and their families. VoteVets Political Action Committee is a federal political committee which primarily helps elect Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran candidates and educates about veterans and military issues aimed at influencing the outcome of the next election.
