Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Another Obama War (by Llewyn H. Rockwell Jr.)
Another Obama War By Llewyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Following the US-lobbied UN authorization of military murder in Libya, the death-dealing regime of Colonel Gaddafi said immediately that it would stop all killing. That put Obama's war on hold, for a little while. The crazy Colonel has learned a thing or two about American foreign policy. If you pretend to favor the stated goals of the empire and comply with its stated dictates, you can otherwise do what every government in the world is structured to do: stay in power at all costs. Gaddafi learned this lesson about a decade ago, when, with much fanfare, he announced that he would stop his nuclear weapons program and join the war on terror. The US then decided to rank him and his regime among the world's good guys, and proceeded to hold him up as an example of wise statesmanship. Then he proceeded to dig in more deeply and tighten his despotic control over his citizens, all with the implied blessing of the US. But this time it may not work. For weeks, American officials have been decrying Gaddafi's bloody attacks on his people, but does the US really have a problem with dictatorship of his sort? This fact is unknown to Americans, but in the Middle East, and in Arab nations in particular, American commercial interests are regarded as a force for liberation but not the US government. The US has been the key to the power of Middle East dictatorships for decades, among which are Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen. I leave aside the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iaqi civilians to liberate them. So it is something of a joke that the US would push a war against Libya in order to save that country from dictatorship. More likely, the real issue here is the same one that inspired the wars against Iraq: the ownership and control of the oil. And even if freedom were the driving motivation, when in modern history has war ever actually brought that to people? All war by nation states today ends in massive civilian deaths, destruction of infrastructure, political upheaval without end (see Afghanistan and Iraq), vast expense, and bitterness all around. War will not achieve its claimed objective. It might even end up entrenching Gaddafi's power. But let's say that he ends up dead, like Saddam Hussein. What then? The new government will be handpicked by the victor, and never gain any credibility, just as in Iraq. People resent foreign conquerors even more than local despots, and this resentment is not a good foundation for a future of liberty.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Deeply Worried - Newt Gingrich
The statements that Newt says, are right on when you think about it, and I am Worried as well!!
Why is the Left Opposed to American Victory? - Newt Gingrich
The Left better think about this before they just close off the people that are relying on the USA to help them out at this time!
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Surge of Optimism Recedes (LA Times 061707) New Tactics, Not just more troops are needed experts say!
Surge of optimism recedes
New tactics, not just more troops, are needed, experts say.
BAGHDAD — Hassan Shimari rarely goes out without his 4-year-old son, not out of fatherly devotion but because he knows there is less chance of being abducted and killed by militiamen if he has the little boy in tow.
Two months ago, even as a Sunni man living in a mainly Shiite district of Baghdad, Shimari had no such fears. In an interview in mid-April, he praised the U.S.-led military "surge" launched in February and said that for the first time in months, he felt safe.
Shimari's change of heart, based on the reappearance of roaming Shiite militiamen and corpses on the streets of his Shaab district, is a small but noteworthy sign of the security plan's failure. "You never know when they are going to take someone and put them in the trunk of the car," Shimari said of the militias. "The killings, it seems, have returned."
The U.S. military says it will be months before the plan's effect is felt. Publicly, it remains optimistic. But some military analysts, soldiers and civilian advisors say the number of U.S. troops and qualified Iraqi forces won't be enough to pacify Iraq for many years. And with Iraq's political, sectarian and economic woes, that makes this a no-win mission unless drastic tactical changes are made, they argue.
One solution being proposed by advisors to those running the war is finding a way to convince all parties, from insurgents to stubborn politicians, that they have more to gain by cooperating with U.S. forces and one another than by fighting.
New tactics proposed
Stephen D. Biddle, a counterinsurgency expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who has advised the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and other military leaders, advocates negotiating bilateral cease-fires with different groups and trading weapons, money, equipment and other forms of support for cooperation.
It is the only solution, said Biddle, who was in Iraq in March and April in his advisory role.
Hoping for a political solution to take hold as violence subsides, as the surge strategy intended, is futile given the distrust among the different groups, who fear annihilation if they forfeit any power, said Biddle and Phebe Marr, an Iraq expert who served as an advisor to the Iraq Study Group, the panel composed of former U.S. officials.
"This is a struggle for power," Marr said. All of Iraq's polarized groups need to believe they have a future in the country, she said. "That requires accommodation of some sort in which some insurgents at least have a stake in the system and are accommodated enough to say it's not worth fighting anymore."
The bombing last week of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the second attack on the Shiite shrine in 16 months, underscored the determination of the insurgency. The latest blast was the most spectacular sign of the surge's limitations in quelling sectarian violence, but it was not the only one.
Execution-style killings, which plummeted after the security plan was launched, are creeping back toward pre-surge levels, according to Iraqi police who each night tally the number of corpses found across Baghdad. March's total was 542, April's was 440, and May's was 743. The toll in January, the month before the surge kicked off, was 830.
The Pentagon, in a report issued last week, said the monthly rate of suicide bombings was nearly double that in January, when the military reported 26. And while civilian casualties have dropped in the capital, where most extra soldiers are deployed, they have increased nationwide, the report said.
Politically, none of the legislative benchmarks that the White House considers essential for reconciliation has been met. The one considered most attainable, passage of a law to open Iraq's oilfields to outside investors and to share the nation's oil wealth equitably among its provinces, has yet to be considered by parliament. Economically, the biggest goal — reviving the oil industry — remains stalled because of the delayed bill.
There are signs of progress. The number of weapons caches seized has more than doubled, and efforts are underway to revive two of the capital's hallmarks of social and economic life: the riverside restaurants and shops along Abu Nawas street, and the historic Mutanabi book market. To the west, violence has dropped dramatically in Al Anbar province, once one of Iraq's deadliest regions, because Sunni tribal sheiks have turned on Al Qaeda and are cooperating with U.S. forces.
A grim picture
In much of Iraq, though, the picture is grim, and analysts say optimism in the early days of the security plan was misplaced and based upon a decline in killings that had no bearing on the operation's long-term success.
"Even if violence goes down, so what?" said Marr, the Iraq expert. "The real issue here is Iraqis have to move toward some kind of accommodation that will get them to permanently reduce violence, not temporarily."
Biddle said the temporary drop in civilian deaths was not a direct result of the military plan. Instead, he noted, the radical Shiite leader Muqtada Sadr reined in his militia, which had been widely blamed for the deaths, in a show of cooperation with the Shiite-led government.
"We got a gift of a few months of free breathing space, but this issue confronted us when the surge started, and now it confronts us still," Biddle said, referring to the resurgence in death squad killings.
U.S. officials have cited the decline in bloodshed in Baghdad and Al Anbar, where the extra troops are concentrated, as powerful evidence of progress. Biddle, however, said it was normal that violence would decline in pockets where there were additional forces. "The problem is where you don't have the surge," he said. "It's the rest of the country that is the issue, and the rest of the country is the majority of the country."
Even in the capital, there is frustration with the security plan's setbacks among U.S. troops as well as Iraqis.
"I just know it's not much different than it was seven months ago. We aren't holding ground," said one junior U.S. Army officer in east Baghdad, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear he could lose his job for contradicting senior officers' assessments.
Near the Shiite district of Sadr City in Baghdad, Army Capt. Joseph Rosen's attempts to jump-start economic recovery are being strangled by Shiite militias. "They do not allow our contractors into their area," Rosen said. The militias want the jobs to go to their men, but Americans don't want to hire them. Others who took jobs on the U.S. base quit after they were threatened by the fighters.
In Dora, a majority Sunni area in south Baghdad, soldiers believe Al Qaeda-linked insurgents are trying to establish the neighborhood as their headquarters in the capital. They said insurgents who were pushed out of Al Anbar appeared to have moved into the area. There have been three weeklong clearing operations since August, the latest beginning May 25. Each time, additional units were brought in to search homes, seize weapons and detain suspects. As soon as they left, the militants returned.
The surge appears to be having an effect in some of the northern sections of Dora, where children kick soccer balls and ride bicycles through quiet, leafy streets during the daylight hours. But by 6 p.m., residents said, they are locked in their homes.
"The amount of [enemy] contact that we see, it is just not the same Dora as when we came in," said Capt. Ben Jones, the commander of Alpha Company, 2nd Brigade, 12th Infantry Regiment. "We go into the mahallas [neighborhoods], within an hour we are getting shot at."
The military has said an increase in casualties should be expected as the surge brings troops deeper into residential neighborhoods, a key element of Petraeus' counterinsurgency campaign. As the last of the 28,500 additional U.S. troops arrived in Iraq, it also put out reminders that there would be ups and downs as the forces settled into place.
Patience wears thin
But that is of no comfort to Iraqis, who for months have been urged to remain patient. As their frustration with the continued violence increases, it will make it more difficult for Petraeus to build cooperation between civilians and security forces.
"My family and I were hoping that I could go out and find a job … but sadly this was not the case," said Rana Fadhil, 25, a homemaker in north Baghdad, who cited bombings, sectarian killings and the difficulty of getting from one place to another because of checkpoints. "We all thought that we could live a relatively ordinary and respectable life."
At his grocery store in the relatively safe enclave of Karada, a shopkeeper who would give his name only as Maithan waved his small cellphone.
"We used to have land lines that worked!" he said, expressing commonly heard frustrations over the country's fractured infrastructure. He filled a plastic bottle with water from the municipal tap to show the cloudy liquid.
Shimari, whose wife is Shiite, said his attitude toward the surge began to change after he started spotting bodies in the streets while driving his taxi. He has counted five recently. "Let me tell you, the militias have become more active," he said. "It is as if they received instructions to go for it."
Biddle said if the military can replicate its success in Al Anbar, the security plan has a chance of success, but he calls it a longshot. Marr said she was "not optimistic."
Petraeus is expected to issue a formal evaluation of the surge in September.
Whatever method is pursued, critics and soldiers alike agree it will take far longer to know the outcome than Congress and most Americans are willing to wait.
"We are on the ground and we see it isn't going to take one year or two years — it will take longer," said Staff Sgt. Nestor Lozado, a member of the 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery in south Baghdad's Zafaraniya neighborhood. "But in our area, I believe it can happen."
"Some say it is unreasonable to not know if this plan will work until some time in 2008," said Sgt. Charles Mason, a veteran of three Iraq tours who is stationed in Zafaraniya. "But I know you won't have results by September. To have an evaluation and make it public is just making our job harder."
tina.susman@latimes.com
--
Times staff writers Alexandra Zavis and Julian Barnes and special correspondents in Baghdad contributed to this report.
___________________________________________________________
BS Ranch Perspective
Everyone is a Cook!! With a different Recipe to solve what ever it is that they are observing in this conflict, I guess what they want is for the Solders to start handing out toys and trinkets to the Iraqis to make their life easier in this blood shed that they are allowing in their country. Most know what is going on in their own Neighborhood, just Like most Mom's know what is going on in their neighborhoods. Their Children are the best reporters of the neighborhood and that is what the newscasters need. When they get to close then they get captured and they are executed on the Television for everyone in Iraq to see. I almost think that they like that sort of television then they do the regular trash that we spew out of our television each night!!
Think about it these people love conflict, and so you have to make them understand that they don't want conflict with us. well maybe that was what makes them dig in and fight all the more I don't know. All I do know is that if we leave that it will be a true sign that we are weak and they will want to fight in our own country for a steak at a little piece of land. I say that Berkley can be given to them. After all it is their leader that wants to say that they give up!! Pelosi
BS Ranch
BS Ranch Perspective
Everyone is a Cook!! With a different Recipe to solve what ever it is that they are observing in this conflict, I guess what they want is for the Solders to start handing out toys and trinkets to the Iraqis to make their life easier in this blood shed that they are allowing in their country. Most know what is going on in their own Neighborhood, just Like most Mom's know what is going on in their neighborhoods. Their Children are the best reporters of the neighborhood and that is what the newscasters need. When they get to close then they get captured and they are executed on the Television for everyone in Iraq to see. I almost think that they like that sort of television then they do the regular trash that we spew out of our television each night!!
Think about it these people love conflict, and so you have to make them understand that they don't want conflict with us. well maybe that was what makes them dig in and fight all the more I don't know. All I do know is that if we leave that it will be a true sign that we are weak and they will want to fight in our own country for a steak at a little piece of land. I say that Berkley can be given to them. After all it is their leader that wants to say that they give up!! Pelosi
BS Ranch
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Iraq surge a failure, top Democrats tell Bush (Breitbart.com June 13, 2007) Nancy and Harry, Representing the Dem's are such Cowards, Their Policy wil
|  | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Officers Salute Redlands Man Who Died in Iraq (Redlands Daily Facts 052607)
| Officers salute Redlands man who died in Iraq |
| C.L. LOPEZ, Staff Writer Redlands Daily Facts |
| Article Launched:05/26/2007 11:07:52 PM PDT |
| As the honor guard carried the flag-draped casket bearing the body of Army Spc. William "Tony" Farrar Jr., more than 100 police officers stood in formation, their right hands held to their heads in salute. Farrar Jr. never got the chance to follow in the footsteps of his father, Rialto's Police Capt. William "Tony" Farrar Sr. The 20-year-old Redlands soldier was killed May 11 when an improvised explosive device detonated near his Humvee as he drove through Al Iskandariyah, Iraq. But he came close - he was a member of the military police. On Friday, Rialto's finest gathered at First Missionary Baptist Church of Redlands to honor the fallen son of their captain. Sgt. Tim Lane, who has known the family for 17 years, said it was important for the Rialto police officers to be there to support the captain and his family. "His son is a military policeman and he was a part of our law enforcement family," Lane said. "Everybody who knew Tony is proud of his choice." Ken, one of Farrar Jr.'s brothers, is a Marine. 'Tony was prepared for everything' At the church, more than 100 police officers gathered in a room near the packed sanctuary and watched the service on large screens. Images from Farrar Jr.'s life flashed on giant screens during a slide show. The service was a celebration of Farrar Jr.'s faith and patriotism. His uncle Scott Breckley talked about his nephew's life and his decision to serve his country. "Tony's decision to be a soldier was not a spur-of-the-moment decision," he said. "Tony was prepared for everything and Tony passed every test the Army threw at him except one." That test came when Farrar Jr. stepped onto a scale and was found to be too light. "Tony was not going to let a few pounds stand between him and his goal," Breckley said. Thirteen days later, the would-be soldier drank a gallon of water and made weight. The young soldier's decision to believe in God was also celebrated. Christine Rodriguez recalled how Farrar Jr. came to faith in July 2005. "He boldly said, RI do not believe in God,'" she recalled. After she shared her testimony with him that day and he listened to the sermon at an evening service, she said he chose to believe in God. 'We watched them grow up' Outside the church, members of the Patriot Guard waited for the casket to be carried out to the hearse. The group, made up of bikers and veterans, attends the funerals of soldiers to honor them and their families. Bill Bogart said he and about 25 bikers rode in from Palm Springs with Farrar Jr.'s mother, Sally Bors, a friend of his. Bogart has ridden on previous Patriot Guard missions, but he said this was the first time it has been for someone he knew. "She (Bors) is a very special part of our community," he said. "It's amazing to see how one young person (Tony) can touch so many lives." About 500 people attended the service and most of them were in the funeral procession that wove through the Redlands neighborhoods, not far from where Farrar Jr. lived with his family for a year. People paused to see a seemingly endless procession of motorcycles, police cars with the red, white and blue lights flashing and fire trucks following the white hearse. One family stood at a street corner waving American flags and others simply bowed their heads in prayer when they saw the white hearse carrying the fallen Redlands soldier. Motorcycle officers stopped traffic at all the intersections and later, along the freeway, for the procession to make its way to Riverside National Cemetery. There, members of the Patriot Guard held American flags and lined both sides of the walkway and police officers and firefighters saluted the fallen soldier. Farrar Sr. and his wife, Cathy, sat with their twin daughters, Christina and Samantha, who each held small American flags. Moments later, Farrar Sr. and Bors each tearfully accepted a folded American flag, Purple Heart and Bronze Star. At the end of the service, some police officers struggled to find words to talk about the young soldier. Tim Roy, now with the Riverside Police Department, previously worked with Farrar Sr. "We have known both kids (Tony and his brother Ken) since they we so small and we watched them grow up," he said. "It shows you how much respect everyone has for them - especially with both boys serving their country." |
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Rialto Police Captain's Son Laid to Rest (Daily Bulletin 052607)
| Rialto police captain's son laid to rest |
| By Robert Rogers, Staff Writer Inland Valley Daily Bulletin |
| Article Launched:05/26/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT |
| REDLANDS - Reserved and self-effacing, Spc. William "Tony" Farrar Jr. was never comfortable with outpourings of attention. But this was different. Farrar, 20, was killed in combat in Iraq on May 11. His body lay in a coffin draped by an American flag in the Worship Hall of First Missionary Baptist Church on Friday. His spirit was above, 400 mourners were told, and he was smiling. It was possibly a mild, lips-compressed expression familiar from recent pictures. "Today we honor a hero, a hero to his country, a hero to his faith," said Scott Breckley, Farrar's uncle. Breckley read a few lines from his Bible while standing over Farrar's coffin, then completed the hour-long service. "This is not the end, this is Tony's beginning." In a solemn service dabbed by rays of humor and hope, mourners packed the small Redlands church to send off a local soldier whose achieved dream of joining the military was all too brief. Farrar, the son of a Rialto police captain and a military policeman in his own right, was killed when a roadside bomb detonated near the Humvee he was driving about 30 miles south of Baghdad. Farrar was assigned to the 127th Military Police Company, 709th Military Police Battalion, 18th Military Police Brigade out of Darmstadt, Germany. He enlisted in the Army in September 2005 soon after graduating from Palm Springs High School. Farrar was deployed to Iraq in November the following year. The packed funeral procession was joined by dozens of uniformed Rialto police officers and firefighters. Farrar's father, Tony Sr., 46, is a 19-year veteran of the Rialto department. The soldier's younger brother, 18-year-old Ken, also came to the lectern to speak about his big brother. His voice at times cracking, Ken, who joined the Marines in December and could soon find himself in Iraq, said he knew the severity of the conflict but couldn't fathom that tragedy would strike down his "hero." "He may have been small," Ken Farrar said of his wiry brother, who was temporarily denied admission to the Army for being underweight. "But I'd just like to be half the man he was." Christine Rodriguez, a childhood friend of Farrar's, moved to the podium to tell of the day at church camp two years ago when Farrar accepted God in his life. "He's in heaven right now because he decided to give his heart to God that day," Rodriguez said, crying. Speakers also humorously spoke about Farrar's near obsession with video games and ravenous appetite, despite his slight build. Amid the tragedy, the mood was at once solemn, proud and hopeful. During a still-photo montage set to music were quotes from historical leaders including Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Edmund Burke and President Ronald Reagan. A procession of cars, police and fire vehicles and about 60 motorcycles ridden by Patriot Guard Riders, a nationwide group that escorts military funerals, took Farrar's body to Riverside National Cemetery, where he was buried. Farrar was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for valor posthumously for his service to the nation. The services were intimate and personal, with the short list of speakers sharply focused on the fallen young man, his sacrifice and his faith. "This is beautiful," said Darin Good, a resident who watched the procession from across the street. "This is the way to honor our heroes." |
Bush Opens the Door to a Troop Withdrawal (L.A. Times 052507) Re: Study Groups Plans. Bush says Securing Bagdad must come first.
Bush opens the door to a troop withdrawal
He says the Iraq Study Group's plan, once scorned, appeals to him. But securing Baghdad must come first.
WASHINGTON — President Bush said Thursday that once his troop buildup improved security in the Iraqi capital, he intended to follow the withdrawal plan proposed by a bipartisan study group, embracing recommendations previously spurned by the administration.
Speaking at a White House news conference, Bush for the first time adopted the blueprint outlined in December by the Iraq Study Group, saying he envisioned U.S. troops gradually moving out of their combat role and into support and training functions.
Speaking at a White House news conference, Bush for the first time adopted the blueprint outlined in December by the Iraq Study Group, saying he envisioned U.S. troops gradually moving out of their combat role and into support and training functions.
"You know, I would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in time in Iraq," Bush said, referring to the study group by the names of its co-chairmen, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind). "The recommendations of Baker-Hamilton appealed to me."
Bush's remarks were the clearest yet on his vision for the long-term U.S. role in Iraq.
It also represented a significant shift in his public position on the study group's recommendations, which when they were unveiled were embraced by war critics but largely ignored by the White House.
According to people familiar with internal administration discussions, senior officials were even more dismissive in private, suggesting the group's report was a recipe for defeat.
Despite the public shift, Bush made clear that he did not necessarily see a more limited role for troops coming soon, emphasizing that curtailing the violence through his "surge" strategy would take precedence.
"I didn't think we could get there unless we increased the troop levels to secure the capital," he said.
Still, he said, the next phase of the war would have U.S. troops train Iraqis, guard the country's borders and pursue Al Qaeda. The study group recommended reducing the size of the force to 20,000, enough to train Iraqi troops. Bush did not endorse those targets. There are an estimated 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Some congressional Republicans welcomed Bush's stance.
Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, a bellwether of the party's position on the war, said he wanted Bush to move more quickly in carrying out the study group's recommendations, suggesting the White House shift its strategy as soon as July.
"The facts on the ground, if they continue to worsen as they have been here in the past months," would seem to make July an "opportune time," Warner said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested that a reduction in troops could begin as soon as September, when the Pentagon has promised a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the buildup, particularly if significant progress has been made.
On Thursday, Gates declined to say when a shift would occur.
"It remains to be seen," he said at a news briefing. He said plans for a reduction are underway as part of a contingency effort he ordered several months ago.
When Bush unveiled his troop buildup in January, it was seen as a repudiation of the Iraq Study Group.
Since then, several key Republicans have questioned the administration's strategy as public support for the war continues to fall.
A New York Times/CBS News poll issued Thursday showed that 61% of Americans think the U.S. never should have invaded Iraq, the highest level of disapproval since the question has been asked.
Bush's sudden embrace of the study group's blueprint is a measure of how far support for the war has eroded, particularly in the Republican Party.
It also is a sign that administration supporters of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations — thought to include Gates, a former member of the commission — are gaining ground in the internal debate over the way forward, potentially at the expense of those who enthusiastically back the buildup.
The recently named White House "war czar," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, is known to be a supporter of a more limited role for U.S. troops, and he opposed the buildup when it was debated in the Pentagon.
When the Iraq Study Group gave its report to the White House, Bush said he agreed with its assessment of the dire situation in Iraq but made clear that he did not share its conclusions, particularly those on troop withdrawals.
"Not all of us around the table agree with every idea," Bush said at the time.
But the administration has gradually moved closer to the study group's recommendations.
The White House initially rejected suggestions that it open talks with Syria and Iran to help improve security in Iraq.
But in late February, the administration said it would take part in high-level discussions with both countries over Iraqi security issues. U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq plan to meet in Baghdad on Monday.
By agreeing to move toward a plan with more bipartisan support, Bush is putting greater pressure on the planned September evaluation, which will be delivered by the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
Senior officers working for Petraeus have suggested that they would like the buildup to continue through next spring. But it remains unclear how the administration will react in September to signs of progress. Bush could cite security advances in choosing to withdraw troops or to maintain their presence as a way of building on successes.
Bush acknowledged in his Rose Garden news conference that by ordering the September review, he might be inviting insurgents to step up their attacks to influence U.S. decision-making.
"It could make August a tough month, because, you see, what they're going to try to do is kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home," Bush said. "It could be a bloody, it could be a very difficult August, and I fully understand that."
The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has already started to increase as forces move more aggressively into Baghdad neighborhoods.
Last month, 104 soldiers were killed in Iraq, only the sixth time that more than 100 troops were killed in a single month since the war began. So far in May, 83 troops have been killed, a pace that would put U.S. casualties near last month's levels, according to icasualties.org, an independent group that tracks military deaths.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the number of civilian deaths had begun to rise again, an increase that Iraqi officials have credited to new violence in Baghdad.
Pace said he could not say whether the recent increase was because of renewed sectarian violence, but insisted that overall civilian deaths were much lower than in January, when they were at about 1,400. He said May was likely to see about 550 civilian deaths.
*
Bush's remarks were the clearest yet on his vision for the long-term U.S. role in Iraq.
It also represented a significant shift in his public position on the study group's recommendations, which when they were unveiled were embraced by war critics but largely ignored by the White House.
According to people familiar with internal administration discussions, senior officials were even more dismissive in private, suggesting the group's report was a recipe for defeat.
Despite the public shift, Bush made clear that he did not necessarily see a more limited role for troops coming soon, emphasizing that curtailing the violence through his "surge" strategy would take precedence.
"I didn't think we could get there unless we increased the troop levels to secure the capital," he said.
Still, he said, the next phase of the war would have U.S. troops train Iraqis, guard the country's borders and pursue Al Qaeda. The study group recommended reducing the size of the force to 20,000, enough to train Iraqi troops. Bush did not endorse those targets. There are an estimated 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Some congressional Republicans welcomed Bush's stance.
Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, a bellwether of the party's position on the war, said he wanted Bush to move more quickly in carrying out the study group's recommendations, suggesting the White House shift its strategy as soon as July.
"The facts on the ground, if they continue to worsen as they have been here in the past months," would seem to make July an "opportune time," Warner said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested that a reduction in troops could begin as soon as September, when the Pentagon has promised a formal evaluation of the effectiveness of the buildup, particularly if significant progress has been made.
On Thursday, Gates declined to say when a shift would occur.
"It remains to be seen," he said at a news briefing. He said plans for a reduction are underway as part of a contingency effort he ordered several months ago.
When Bush unveiled his troop buildup in January, it was seen as a repudiation of the Iraq Study Group.
Since then, several key Republicans have questioned the administration's strategy as public support for the war continues to fall.
A New York Times/CBS News poll issued Thursday showed that 61% of Americans think the U.S. never should have invaded Iraq, the highest level of disapproval since the question has been asked.
Bush's sudden embrace of the study group's blueprint is a measure of how far support for the war has eroded, particularly in the Republican Party.
It also is a sign that administration supporters of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations — thought to include Gates, a former member of the commission — are gaining ground in the internal debate over the way forward, potentially at the expense of those who enthusiastically back the buildup.
The recently named White House "war czar," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, is known to be a supporter of a more limited role for U.S. troops, and he opposed the buildup when it was debated in the Pentagon.
When the Iraq Study Group gave its report to the White House, Bush said he agreed with its assessment of the dire situation in Iraq but made clear that he did not share its conclusions, particularly those on troop withdrawals.
"Not all of us around the table agree with every idea," Bush said at the time.
But the administration has gradually moved closer to the study group's recommendations.
The White House initially rejected suggestions that it open talks with Syria and Iran to help improve security in Iraq.
But in late February, the administration said it would take part in high-level discussions with both countries over Iraqi security issues. U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq plan to meet in Baghdad on Monday.
By agreeing to move toward a plan with more bipartisan support, Bush is putting greater pressure on the planned September evaluation, which will be delivered by the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus.
Senior officers working for Petraeus have suggested that they would like the buildup to continue through next spring. But it remains unclear how the administration will react in September to signs of progress. Bush could cite security advances in choosing to withdraw troops or to maintain their presence as a way of building on successes.
Bush acknowledged in his Rose Garden news conference that by ordering the September review, he might be inviting insurgents to step up their attacks to influence U.S. decision-making.
"It could make August a tough month, because, you see, what they're going to try to do is kill as many innocent people as they can to try to influence the debate here at home," Bush said. "It could be a bloody, it could be a very difficult August, and I fully understand that."
The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has already started to increase as forces move more aggressively into Baghdad neighborhoods.
Last month, 104 soldiers were killed in Iraq, only the sixth time that more than 100 troops were killed in a single month since the war began. So far in May, 83 troops have been killed, a pace that would put U.S. casualties near last month's levels, according to icasualties.org, an independent group that tracks military deaths.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the number of civilian deaths had begun to rise again, an increase that Iraqi officials have credited to new violence in Baghdad.
Pace said he could not say whether the recent increase was because of renewed sectarian violence, but insisted that overall civilian deaths were much lower than in January, when they were at about 1,400. He said May was likely to see about 550 civilian deaths.
*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorists Driven to Mexican Fuel (LA Times, May 26 2007) Cost of fill up in Mexico is 25% less then the U.S.
GLOBAL CAPITAL
Motorists driven to Mexican fuel
The cost of a fill-up south of the border can be 25% less than in the U.S. But some say cheaper gasoline may not be a bargain.
By Marla Dickerson and Elizabeth DouglassTimes Staff Writers
May 26, 2007
TIJUANA — U.S. motorists are flocking to gas pumps south of the border to save 25% or more on the cost of a fill-up — courtesy of the Mexican government.
Worried about inflation, Mexican officials are keeping a lid on retail prices at the state-owned petroleum company Pemex. Regular-grade gasoline in this border town is selling for about $2.60 a gallon. With prices in California averaging $3.43 a gallon — and topping $4 at some stations — Golden State residents such as Roger Moore are grabbing a deal while they can.
The 63-year-old management consultant owns a second home in Baja California. He made a point of stopping at a station here this week to top off the tank of his Ford Aerostar van before heading back to his place in West Hollywood.
"It costs $65 for a tank of gas up there and it costs me $45 here," Moore said. "It's a monopoly and it's cheaper!"
Mexican station owners, too, are pumped up by the surge in business. Although they say few Americans are traveling to Mexico specifically to fill their tanks, many more than usual are taking advantage of the chance to buy cheap gas when they cross the border to work or play. Station owners also are seeing increased sales to Mexican residents who work in the U.S.
Pemex outlets along the nearly 2,000-mile border are serving more cars with U.S. plates. The jump is reflected in Pemex's pump sales, up 10.5% through the first four months of the year compared with the same period last year. Vendors are girding for a rush of business this weekend as Americans head to their Mexican vacation homes and take home a cheap souvenir in their tanks.
"This has been very, very favorable for us," said Jorge Farfan Gonzalez, general manager of a franchisee that operates 17 Pemex outlets in Baja.
But some say that low-cost gas may not be such a bargain.
Mexican stations are notorious for dispensing short liters. And their fuel isn't as clean as that mandated in California. That's tough on the environment, and it could harm your vehicle too, said Rich Kassel, a clean-fuel expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. Mexico's regular gasoline is loaded with sulfur. Kassel said frequent fill-ups could wreak havoc on the catalytic converters of the newest cars and trucks sold in the U.S.
"This is the extreme version of driving across town to save a nickel," Kassel said. "It doesn't make sense if you … end up with fuel that is dirtier and can damage your engine."
But the prospect of a big mechanic's bill down the road couldn't dissuade San Diego resident Miguel Duarte from fueling his Ford pickup at a Tijuana Pemex this week. He owns a house in the Mexican beach community of Rosarito and couldn't resist stopping by while in the vicinity.
The quality "is not as good," Duarte said of the $20 worth of fuel he bought. But "it's priced high in the United States."
Analysts say motorists have the weak Mexican economy and a new Mexican president to thank for the cut-rate gas.
The government regulates every aspect of the industry, including the retail price that consumers pay at the pump. There are two sets of prices: one for stations in select cities along the northern border and another for the rest of the country. Officials tend to peg border prices to those in the U.S. so that Mexican operators can stay competitive with their American counterparts.
But as U.S. gas prices have soared, Mexico's border prices for regular have remained at 7.41 pesos a liter, or about $2.60 a gallon, for most of the year. Prices in the interior are even lower at 6.88 pesos a liter, or about $2.41 a gallon.
Rising demand is straining Mexico's refining capacity. In April, the world's No. 5 oil producer had to import almost 45% of its gasoline, Pemex statistics show. Most of that came from the U.S. But the Mexican government hasn't boosted retail prices significantly to reflect tight supplies.
The reasons are economic and political. Rising prices for staples such as tortillas have already fueled inflation. President Felipe Calderon, who has been on the job only six months, has little to gain by socking Mexicans at the pump.
"He needs to avoid any significant increase in inflation this year," said Christian Stracke, Latin America analyst with New York-based research firm CreditSights. "Keeping gas prices stable helps him do that."
Calderon is certainly scoring points with U.S. motorists, who are voting with their feet — and their tires.
Juan Carlos Robles Hiusar, owner of a Pemex station in Mexicali, said cars with U.S. plates accounted for nearly one-quarter of his weekend business, a threefold increase from earlier in the year.
Ramiro Zuniga Salazar, head of the Assn. of Gasoline Dealers of Rosarito, says stations around Rosarito are pumping about 20% more fuel than they were a few months ago. He said more American visitors were taking advantage of the low prices. Still, he said most of that increase was from Mexicans who commute daily to the U.S. to work and were now buying more of their gas at home.
"The price difference is very attractive," Zuniga said. "We're talking about almost a dollar a gallon."
Whether the customers are Mexican or American, motorists would be well advised to pay attention. Mexico's top consumer watchdog last year launched a nationwide crackdown on dishonest station owners after random checks revealed that nine in 10 Pemex outlets rigged their pumps to dispense less than what their meters promise.
All Pemex stations are full service, a welcome change for Americans accustomed to pumping their own gas and cleaning their own windshields. But many of those attendants outfitted in jumpsuits with the official Pemex logo are actually unpaid freelancers hustling for tips — and the chance to shortchange distracted drivers.
Exchange rates vary from station to station. And some franchisees have been known to dilute their fuel with additives to stretch profits.
Tijuana resident Jose Valles pulled into a Pemex station recently to add air to the tires of his late-model Chevy Blazer. He said he preferred to fill up north of the border, despite the higher cost.
"I've heard horror stories about the [Mexican] gas," said Valles, who used to live in Phoenix. "I go to the United States if I can."
marla.dickerson@latimes.com
elizabeth.douglass@latimes.com
*
Dickerson reported from Mexico City and Douglass from Tijuana.
Times staff writer Cecilia Sanchez contributed to this report.
*
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Gasoline facts, tips
--
What's happening: U.S. drivers are buying more Mexican gasoline.
Why: Mexico is holding its border-region gasoline prices down while U.S. prices soar, increasing the usual spread between the two.
Problems: Mexican gas is loaded with sulfur, which is hard on U.S. vehicles' catalytic converters and produces more pollution than California's cleaner-burning blend.
Tips
• Pemex's premium (red pump) has less sulfur than its regular, which is known as Magna (green pump). That's easier on your engine — and better for the environment.
• Stations don't post prices. Be sure that you're not paying more than the government-mandated 7.41 pesos at border stations and 6.88 pesos everywhere else. Exchange rates vary.
• Make sure the attendant sets the pump to zero before he starts fueling your car. Tipping is customary.
Source: Times research
--
$2.60
per-gallon regular gasoline price in Mexico's border region.
$2.41
per-gallon regular gasoline price in Mexico's interior.
$3.43
per-gallon average gasoline price in California.
10.5%
increase in Pemex sales January-April, year over year.
20%
recent increase in gasoline sales in the Rosarito, Mexico, area.
--
Sources: Pemex, AAA, Times research
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Article licensing and reprint options
Article licensing and reprint options
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS Ranch Perspective:
I would go to Mexico to get a fill up on gas if it didn't cost me a full tank of gas to get to Mexico, then fill up on that Cheaper (up to 25% Cheaper) Gas in Mexico, then come back home only to have to fill up again on the more expensive (25% and up more expensive) Fuel to get around the neighborhood from there. Then reading the story, I see that they don't regulate things like the Fuel Pump to make sure that the Gallens or Liter's are set properly, so that you, The Customer, are not shorted or given to much in your fill up on that day. So the Customer is not protected, and they don't clean their Gas like The U.S. does. There is more Sulfer in the fuel, wich can Lead to a Catalytic Converter Failure, and or some early valve damage depending on how much sulfer that is in the fuel. Now I am not saying that there can be any damage done to your engine, However what I am saying is that there is a greater posiblity to this kind of damage from using Fuel From Mexico's Pemex Fuel's. I am saying that this kind of damage will be started upon the use of this kind of fuel, and when the actual damage starts is hard to say.
Using Pemex is not going to be something that will work for me. But if it works for you, Please use if at your own risk. Remember the damage can comes from the use of this fuel, is caused by the owner of the vehicle that decides to use this fuel. If that person doesn't use the Pemex fuel nothing to worrey about other then usual wear and tear. Now they should keep in mind that, This writer beleives that there are American Stations that Keep and Do Not Keep their Tanks and such up to the U.S. Standards. All of them Keeps their flow meters to U.S. Standards becuase they have to. However their tanks with reguards to water in the tank or sediments that can ultimatly plug filters etc etc... They do exsist. Stations that try to keep their systems flowing with nothing but clean clear Fuels that keep the car running at its best. The Fuel Statons that I trust and have grown to trust are Unical 76, However I am a little nervous with the sale of that company to that of Conico/Phillips 66. Phillips 66 has always been a trusted fuel which leads me to beleive that Unocal is still trusted for now.
Chevron/Texico is a trusted service station too, In fact they are my perferred station right now. They have moved past that of Unocal 76. Chevron/Texico was just on my target as a station to use in case I couldn't find a Unocal 76, which was the Prefferred Station at that time last year. When the announcement that the Station was up for sale the nervousness always starts like that of when Chrysler was placed on the market. Now that Coneco/Phillips 66 was the the company that purchased Unocal 76, they stayed towards the top, but Chevoron/Texico passed it up as the number one. Chevron/Texico for the most part are always clean and they have pretty good snacks and are great places, the prices are competetive, and they carry Diesel Fuel Which is important for a person like me a Chrysler Dodge diesel Driving Pickup owning. and well I still say that it is the best fuel stop in the United States and California.
The Next Service Station is one that is used when the other stations mentioned are not found and feul is needed. is the Shell Station. Shell is one station that should be on the top stations to be used for Fuel Espeically for Diesel Fuel. They always seem to have the Disel Fuel and it's always filtered and clean. So that is why they are named as one that is on the top from there.
The next ones down are that of the Private owned Service Stations that Sell Deisel Fuel. They are the Pilot Travel Stations, and the the many private Truck stops that have water/fuel seperators at their pumps. That could mean that there is a water in the fuel problem or they have fixed that problem, and there isn't any problem to worry about any more. since the water fuel seperator is on the system.
As long as they clean the seperators there isn't anything to worry about. unless you trust the people at the fueler station. The key to this is if there is a lot of Big Rig Diesel Trucks filling up at that station then you have a great chance of staying with a clean fuel tank, after tank after tank.
Remember the use of the station speaks out with how good or bad the fuel is, but if you are in a strange town and you are not local and the station, that is when you almost have to take your chances that your onboard filters work.
BS Ranch
Monday, May 21, 2007
Bomb Kills Member of 127th Military Police (Stars & Strips051707)
Bomb kills member of 127th Military Police
By Matt Millham, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, May 17, 2007
By Matt Millham, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, May 17, 2007
Pfc. William A. Farrar Jr., a member of the 127th Military Police Company based in Darmstadt, Germany, was killed by a makeshift bomb Friday in Iskandariyah, Iraq. He was 20 years old. Farrar, the son of San Bernadino County police Capt. Tony Farrar, was the eldest of three sons. He joined the military in September 2005 after graduating from high school and deployed to Iraq in November 2006, according to the San Bernadino County Sun newspaper. It was his first tour in Iraq. Farrar was riding in a vehicle when he was killed, according to a Defense Department news release. An article in the San Bernadino Sun identified the vehicle as a Humvee. "We were all real proud of him and his decision to join the armed forces and serve the country," Sgt. Tim Lane, a Rialto, Calif., police department spokesman, told The Associated Press. "We've lost a part of our law enforcement family." "It's what he wanted to do," Farrar's father told the Sun. "There are jobs people do because they choose to do it ... somebody's got to want to do it. As a parent you just give them the support they need; what else is there to do?" Farrar's brother Kenny is a Marine, and his other brother, Nic, is a college student, according to the Sun.
Soldier Was Known For Gentle Ways (San Bernardino Sun 051607) / Redlands Man Dies in Iraq (Redlands Daily Facts)
Soldier was known for gentle ways
Police captain's son grew up liking military
Article Launched: 05/16/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
Photo Gallery: Local soldier killed in Iraq
He was the gentle one, the son whose slight frame and calm demeanor belied his ambition to be a soldier.
He was deployed to Iraq in November. He wrote jaunty e-mails to his family regularly, the prose livened with a joy that seemed incongruous with his full-time job patrolling a deadly war zone. His heart was swept away by a woman he met in Germany.
"He even liked the military food," said his father, Tony Farrar, a Rialto police captain and, on this day, a broken-hearted man straining to keep his upper lip stiff.
But what 20-year-old Army Pfc. William A. "Tony" Farrar Jr. liked to write about recently was coming home.
In an e-mail last week, Tony Jr. wrote to his father about taking some R&R in August and attending a family gathering in Wisconsin.
But on Friday, Tony Jr. was killed when a roadside bomb detonated near the Humvee he was driving through the desert of Al Iskandariyah, about 30 miles south of Baghdad. The blast from the IED, or improvised explosive device, penetrated the Humvee's armor but spared
other soldiers riding with Farrar.Sitting in the living room of their Redlands home on a gray Tuesday morning, Tony Jr.'s father and stepmother talked with calm solemnity about fateful decisions, duty to country and the sense of invulnerability shattered when military personnel knocked on their door and delivered the news no parent wants to hear.
A modest-sized American flag swayed above their porch, suddenly woven with more meaning than ever before, Farrar said.
"We've never experienced anything like this," said Farrar, a 19-year veteran of the Rialto Police Department. "At first, it all seemed kind of untrue. It's really sunk in now."
Tony Jr. joined the military in September 2005 after graduating from Palm Springs High School. Deployed to Iraq in November, it was his first tour.
The police captain has another son, Kenny, 18, who joined the Marines in December and could be deployed to the war zone.
Farrar, 46, recalled Tony Jr. as a child, growing up the oldest in a family steeped in law enforcement and military pride.
"Him and his brother wanted to be soldiers since they were little," he said. "They loved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for a while, then it was toy weapons, plastic swords and guns. But as he got older, I think he looked at it as a stepping stone, an opportunity" for either a military career or one in law enforcement.
Farrar paused, a bit of moisture leaking from his eyes.
"It was just the first step for him," Farrar said.
Cathy Farrar, Tony Jr.'s stepmother for almost all his life, described how the first time he tried to enlist he was rejected for being too light for his height.
"He was about eight pounds off," Cathy remembered, smiling beneath saddened eyes. "He was very slightly built, and very soft and gentle, especially with his (younger) sisters."
Farrar didn't push his eldest son into military service, but was proud of his decision. Farrar knows it's sometimes inevitable for the parents of a fallen soldier to second-guess the past.
"It's what he wanted to do," Farrar said. "There are jobs people do because they choose to do it ... somebody's got to want to do it. As a parent you just give them the support they need, what else is there to do?"
Tony Jr.'s body was flown to Delaware on Tuesday, Farrar said. From there, he will be flown to Ontario. Funeral arrangements were pending, but will probably be next week.
The Farrars sat in their hardwood-floored living room, where they were last week when military personnel walked up the driveway on a mild evening and told them their son was dead.
To Cathy, the last few days have shredded the veil of safety she enjoyed over the years. Family members have been deployed and returned. Thousands of times her husband has returned unscathed after nights of patrolling Rialto's streets.
But Tony Jr. will never walk through the door again.
"You never really realize this could take place until Army personnel are standing at your front door," Farrar said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redlands man dies in Iraq
C.L. LOPEZ , Staff Writer
Article Launched: 05/15/2007 04:12:43 PM PDT
REDLANDS - Rialto police Capt. William "Tony" Farrar Sr. didn't think there was anything significant when he saw two men in Army uniforms on Friday night, but when they approached the door of his Redlands home, he realized something was wrong.
"Once they got to my door in full dress uniform, it was pretty apparent the message was not going to be something I was going to like," he said.
It wasn't.
His 20-year-old son William "Tony" Farrar Jr. was killed in Iraq May 11 when an improvised explosive device was detonated near his vehicle in Al Iskandariyah. He was assigned to the 127th Military Police Company, 709th Military Police Battalion, 18th Military Police Brigade out of Darmstadt, Germany. The Palm Springs High School graduate had been in the Army since September 2005 and had been in Iraq since November 2006. He lived in Redlands for a year after high school graduation.
"The military was a good choice for him to find out what he wanted to do," said his stepmother Cathy Farrar.
He had talked of following in his father's footsteps with a career in law enforcement. In his last e-mail to his father from Iraq early last week his father said he Farrar Jr. was not sure whether he would return to Redlands or
Germany, where he was stationed, when he went on leave in August.He was in good spirits, he said.
"He was kind of quiet and was the more soft spoken of the three boys," Farrar Sr. said.
His brother Kenny is a Marine and his brother Nic attends Crafton Hills College where he is studying to be a paramedic. He also has 10-year-old twin sisters, Christina and Samantha. Cathy looks back fondly on the time he spent with the girls. Although he was older, he would still play games with them and draw cartoons for them.
The family has received support from the community since they learned of Farrar Jr.'s death.
Farrar Sr. said the family has received flowers, cards and meals. He has heard from colleagues he has not spoken to in two decades and from people he has never met.
The Rialto Police Department, where Farrar Sr. is second in command, has been shocked by the news, said Chief Mark Kling.
"We are shaken by this tragic news of the loss of the captain's son," Kling said. "He is a remarkable man."
Kling said the department plans to support the family in whatever way they can. Funeral services are pending and Kling expects a large Rialto Police Department presence at the funeral. The department is in the planning stages, but will likely call on other cities' police departments to help them so they can attend the funeral.
Farrar Sr. also credited the Army casualty assistance officer for his support in helping the family through the difficult time by helping with funeral arrangements.
The family is awaiting news that his body has returned to the United States. When his body is shipped to Ontario International Airport, the family will be waiting for him.
"It is going to be really tough, but these are the next steps to get through this," Farrar Sr. said.
His funeral service will be at First Missionary Baptist Church of Redlands, where he was a member. Graveside services will be at Riverside National Cemetery.
Farrar Jr. is the third Redlands soldier to be killed in Iraq. Army Specialist Vernon R. Widner, who was the first, died on Nov. 17, 2005, from injuries when his Humvee was rammed and flipped over. In September 2006, Hannah Leah McKinny was killed Sept. 4, 2006, when she was crossing the road and struck by another soldier who was driving a Humvee.
E-mail Staff Writer C.L. Lopez at clopez@redlandsdailyfacts.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS Ranch Persective:
Tony, Cathy, Kenny, Nick, Samantha, & Christina,
My thoughts and Prayers are with you during this difficult time, I am so sorry for your loss. I can remember Tony Jr. and him Loving Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory when he was only four years old. I am just sorry that I didn't get to see them grow up, throught the years. I know that we started off as friends when Tony started @ Rialto, and we were Exploerer Advisors, I don't know what happend to cause our friendship to fade like it did. I was always sorry that it did. God bless you, I will continue to keep you in my prayers thorough this difficult time.
God Bless,
Buck, and Family
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Is The War on Terror Over? by Victor David Hanson
Return to the Article
April 26, 2007
Is the War on Terror Over?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Do we still need to fight a war on terror?
The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.
The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.
An influential book making the rounds - "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" - argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists themselves.
Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.
This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.
First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked British report detailed al-Qaida's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years.
Second, have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.
Third, in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries allow indirect financial and psychological support for al-Qaida terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must assume that a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war - and our enemies' greatest advantage.
Fourth, jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything - except Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led to riot and death.
The net result is that terrified millions in Western societies silently accept that for the first time in centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think of Islam and the Koran.
Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depend on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.
A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.
Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.
Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.
This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.
But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
© 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Taken from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/is_the_war_on_terror_over.html at May 14, 2007 - 07:03:56 PM CDT
______________________________________________________________
BS Ranch Perspective:
All along since this war was declared by the Terrorists on 091101, It has been declared to have been a different war. Always a different war. But looking back just a few pages in history this war didn't really start in Sept. 11, 2001, that was just a marking Point that was done, A Statement, if you will, by the opposition to get us more involved in this war, you see they were wanting us to finally join them in this battle to end all battles!! The Jihad, as they call it, the War to End All Wars. The fact that they haven't stopped putting Implemented Explosive Devices in Restaurants, Stores, and places of Public Interest tells me that they are still fighting the war, even though the Liberal Left in Congress and the Liberal Left in the House of Representatives have said that the war is over the war is lost!!
Now when the Liberals are giving up the fight, the cells that are still ever forming will come over to the United States and we will then be fighting the war on our own soil!! Maybe that is what the Liberals Want, to fight this on our own soil, so that instead of the amount of American Solders that are killed in a Very Violent Act. Let me repeat that so that, if you are a liberal you might get what I am saying!!
Maybe the Liberal Party wants to bring the War over to the United States and have a larger Count of Americans Lost in a VERY VIOLENT ACT! Instead of Overseas in another Country where the Americana's that are lost are more controlled since they are the American troops Fighting to keep the peace in a NON-PEACEFUL SITUATION!!!
No my friends This WAR is FAR FROM OVER!!! I don't think that any Logical person can think any otherwise, if they are then they must be in Fantasy Land in Disneyland!!!
That is why we are stuck to stay the coarse that was Voted on in CONGRESS & PASSED originally, and see this thing through.
BS Ranch
April 26, 2007
Is the War on Terror Over?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Do we still need to fight a war on terror?
The answer seems to be no for an increasing number in the West who are weary over Afghanistan and Iraq or complacent from the absence of a major attack on the scale of 9/11.
The British Foreign Office has scrapped the phrase "war on terror" as inexact, inflammatory and counterproductive. U.S. Central Command has just dropped the term "long war" to describe the fight against radical Islam.
An influential book making the rounds - "Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them" - argues that the threat from al-Qaida is vastly exaggerated.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, goes further, assuring us that we are terrorized mostly by the false idea of a war on terror - not the jihadists themselves.
Even onetime neo-conservative Francis Fukuyama, who in 1998 called for the preemptive removal of Saddam Hussein, believes "war" is the "wrong metaphor" for our struggle against the terrorists.
Others point out that motley Islamic terrorists lack the resources of the Nazi Wehrmacht or the Soviet Union.
This thinking may seem understandable given the ineffectiveness of al-Qaida to kill many Americans after 9/11. Or it may also reflect hopes that if we only leave Iraq, radical Islam will wither away. But it is dead wrong for a number of reasons.
First, Islamic terrorists plotting attacks are arrested periodically in both Europe and the United States. Just last week a leaked British report detailed al-Qaida's plans for future "large-scale" operations. We shouldn't be blamed for being alarmist when our alarmism has resulted in our safety at home for the past five years.
Second, have we forgotten that Nazi Germany was never able to kill 3,000 Americans on our homeland? Did Japan ever destroy 16 acres in Manhattan or hit the nerve center of the U.S. military? Even the Soviet Union couldn't inflict billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy in a single day.
Third, in some ways stateless terrorists can be more dangerous than past conventional threats. Autocrats in some Middle East countries allow indirect financial and psychological support for al-Qaida terrorists without leaving footprints of their intent. They must assume that a single terrorist strike could kill thousands of Americans without our ability to strike back at their capitals. This inability to tie a state to its support for terrorism is our greatest obstacle in this war - and our enemies' greatest advantage.
Fourth, jihadists have already scored successes in all sorts of ways beyond altering the very nature of air travel. Cartoonists now lampoon everyone and everything - except Muslims. The pope must weigh his words carefully. Otherwise, priests and nuns are attacked abroad. A single false Newsweek story about one flushed Koran led to riot and death.
The net result is that terrified millions in Western societies silently accept that for the first time in centuries they cannot talk or write honestly about what they think of Islam and the Koran.
Fifth, everything from our 401(k) plans to municipal water plants depend on sophisticated computers and communications. And you don't need a missile to take them down. Two oceans no longer protect the United States - not when the Internet knows no boundaries, our borders are relatively wide open, and dozens of ships dock and hundreds of flights arrive daily.
A germ, some spent nuclear fuel or a vial of nerve gas could cause as much mayhem and calamity as an armored division in Hitler's army. The Soviets were considered rational enemies who accepted the bleak laws of nuclear deterrence. But the jihadists claim that they welcome death if their martyrdom results in thousands of dead Americans.
Finally, radical Islamists largely arise from the oil-rich Middle East. Since 9/11, the price of oil has skyrocketed, transferring trillions of dollars from successful Western, Indian and Chinese economies to unsuccessful Arab and Iranian autocracies.
Terrorists know that blowing up a Saudi oil field or getting control of Iraqi petroleum reserves - and they attempt both all the time - will alter the world economy. Even their mere threats give us psychological fits and their sponsors more cash.
This is a strange war. Our successes in avoiding attack convince some that the real danger has passed. And when we kill jihadists abroad, we are told it is peripheral to the war or only incites more terrorism.
But despite the current efforts at denial, the war against Islamic terrorism remains real and deadly. We can't wish it away until Middle Eastern dictatorships reform - or we end their oil stranglehold over the world economy.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.
© 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Taken from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/is_the_war_on_terror_over.html at May 14, 2007 - 07:03:56 PM CDT
______________________________________________________________
BS Ranch Perspective:
All along since this war was declared by the Terrorists on 091101, It has been declared to have been a different war. Always a different war. But looking back just a few pages in history this war didn't really start in Sept. 11, 2001, that was just a marking Point that was done, A Statement, if you will, by the opposition to get us more involved in this war, you see they were wanting us to finally join them in this battle to end all battles!! The Jihad, as they call it, the War to End All Wars. The fact that they haven't stopped putting Implemented Explosive Devices in Restaurants, Stores, and places of Public Interest tells me that they are still fighting the war, even though the Liberal Left in Congress and the Liberal Left in the House of Representatives have said that the war is over the war is lost!!
Now when the Liberals are giving up the fight, the cells that are still ever forming will come over to the United States and we will then be fighting the war on our own soil!! Maybe that is what the Liberals Want, to fight this on our own soil, so that instead of the amount of American Solders that are killed in a Very Violent Act. Let me repeat that so that, if you are a liberal you might get what I am saying!!
Maybe the Liberal Party wants to bring the War over to the United States and have a larger Count of Americans Lost in a VERY VIOLENT ACT! Instead of Overseas in another Country where the Americana's that are lost are more controlled since they are the American troops Fighting to keep the peace in a NON-PEACEFUL SITUATION!!!
No my friends This WAR is FAR FROM OVER!!! I don't think that any Logical person can think any otherwise, if they are then they must be in Fantasy Land in Disneyland!!!
That is why we are stuck to stay the coarse that was Voted on in CONGRESS & PASSED originally, and see this thing through.
BS Ranch
Seven Steps to Hell by Paul Hollrah
Seven Steps To Hell
by Paul R. Hollrah
March 04, 2007 01:00 PM EST
The August 3, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an interview with former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese general staff and the man who received the surrender of South Vietnam's President Duong Van Minh on April 30, 1975 . The interview was conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota human rights activist.
Colonel Tin described the military and political events of the war from his vantage point in Hanoi . What he described was the step-by-step defeat of U.S. forces, not on the battlefield, but in the White House, in the Halls of Congress, in the streets of America, and on our college and university campuses. Sound familiar?
As I read Col Tin's recitation of how events played out in Vietnam – step-by-step-by-step – I couldn't help but think of the motto embroidered across the shoulder patch that I wore during the last eighteen months of my military service. The shoulder patch was the insignia of the U.S. 7th Army, and the motto embroidered across the bottom read, "Seven Steps To Hell."
Col. Tin was asked, "How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?" He responded, "By fighting a long war which would break their will… Ho Chi Minh said, 'We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.' "
Liberals, cut-and-run Democrats, and the anti-war left now signal to al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad that we're preparing to do the same in Iraq.
Step One.
Col Tin was asked, "Was the American anti-war movement important to Hanoi 's victory?" He responded, "It was essential to our strategy… Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9:00 AM to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark... gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark are back, and they've been joined by Cindy Sheehan, a host of anti-war leftists, and nearly the entire Democrat Party… all bashing the Commander in Chief and clamoring for an early surrender in Iraq.
Step Two.
Col. Tin was asked, "How could the Americans have won the war?" He responded, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted (General) Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."
While George W. Bush has given battlefield commanders all of the troops and equipment they've requested, Democrats complain that it's either too little or too much.
Step Three.
Col. Tin was asked, "What of American bombing of North Vietnam ?" He responded, "If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us."
In the Iraq War, Rules of Engagement are written by lawyers in the Pentagon.
Step Four.
Col. Tin was asked, "What about Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?" He responded, "Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population, and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam… Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops (and) we realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war… "
Democrats and anti-war radicals maintain constant pressure to turn public opinion against the administrations new "troop surge" strategy, even threatening to cut off funding for our troops.
Step Five.
Col. Tin continued, "Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday… when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty… Our losses were staggering… (General) Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection."
In America, in 2006, Democrats and anti-war radicals hounded a highly competent Defense Secretary out of office and used bloated anti-war rhetoric to gain victories in the mid-term elections.
Step Six.
Col. Tin was asked, "What of Nixon?" He responded, "Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. (Prime Minister) Pham Van Dong said of Gerald Ford… 'He's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him. Even if you gave him candy he doesn't dare intervene in Vietnam again.' "
So who will Islamic Jihad see across the battle lines in the next administration… Hillary Clinton? Barack Hussein Obama? A trial lawyer from North Carolina?
Step Seven.
"Seven Steps To Hell"… and one day Democrats will be called to answer for each and every one of them
by Paul R. Hollrah
March 04, 2007 01:00 PM EST
The August 3, 1995 edition of the Wall Street Journal carried an interview with former North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese general staff and the man who received the surrender of South Vietnam's President Duong Van Minh on April 30, 1975 . The interview was conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota human rights activist.
Colonel Tin described the military and political events of the war from his vantage point in Hanoi . What he described was the step-by-step defeat of U.S. forces, not on the battlefield, but in the White House, in the Halls of Congress, in the streets of America, and on our college and university campuses. Sound familiar?
As I read Col Tin's recitation of how events played out in Vietnam – step-by-step-by-step – I couldn't help but think of the motto embroidered across the shoulder patch that I wore during the last eighteen months of my military service. The shoulder patch was the insignia of the U.S. 7th Army, and the motto embroidered across the bottom read, "Seven Steps To Hell."
Col. Tin was asked, "How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?" He responded, "By fighting a long war which would break their will… Ho Chi Minh said, 'We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.' "
Liberals, cut-and-run Democrats, and the anti-war left now signal to al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad that we're preparing to do the same in Iraq.
Step One.
Col Tin was asked, "Was the American anti-war movement important to Hanoi 's victory?" He responded, "It was essential to our strategy… Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9:00 AM to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark... gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."
Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark are back, and they've been joined by Cindy Sheehan, a host of anti-war leftists, and nearly the entire Democrat Party… all bashing the Commander in Chief and clamoring for an early surrender in Iraq.
Step Two.
Col. Tin was asked, "How could the Americans have won the war?" He responded, "Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted (General) Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war."
While George W. Bush has given battlefield commanders all of the troops and equipment they've requested, Democrats complain that it's either too little or too much.
Step Three.
Col. Tin was asked, "What of American bombing of North Vietnam ?" He responded, "If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us."
In the Iraq War, Rules of Engagement are written by lawyers in the Pentagon.
Step Four.
Col. Tin was asked, "What about Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?" He responded, "Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population, and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam… Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops (and) we realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war… "
Democrats and anti-war radicals maintain constant pressure to turn public opinion against the administrations new "troop surge" strategy, even threatening to cut off funding for our troops.
Step Five.
Col. Tin continued, "Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday… when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty… Our losses were staggering… (General) Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for reelection."
In America, in 2006, Democrats and anti-war radicals hounded a highly competent Defense Secretary out of office and used bloated anti-war rhetoric to gain victories in the mid-term elections.
Step Six.
Col. Tin was asked, "What of Nixon?" He responded, "Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. (Prime Minister) Pham Van Dong said of Gerald Ford… 'He's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him. Even if you gave him candy he doesn't dare intervene in Vietnam again.' "
So who will Islamic Jihad see across the battle lines in the next administration… Hillary Clinton? Barack Hussein Obama? A trial lawyer from North Carolina?
Step Seven.
"Seven Steps To Hell"… and one day Democrats will be called to answer for each and every one of them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)