Whose War Is It? Hitting "the Switch" enabled "the Surge".
Submitted by Tom Rinaldo on July 25, 2008 - 3:56pm.
Iraq
Despite the best efforts of George W. Bush and John McCain to sabotage it; yes the Surge worked. It worked because most people inside Iraq now really believe that the United States will be leaving Iraq soon. No thanks to President Bush on that score; since the President still refuses to rule out a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. And no thanks to Senator McCain either who publicly muses that the U.S. military may stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary. The Surge, a decision to send 30,000 more American soldiers into Iraq, could easily have been viewed by Iraqi citizens as evidence of American re-entrenchment .in their homeland. .And who could have blamed them?
Most Republican leaders remain loath to give Iraq's citizens any concrete assurances that the American military occupation will be short lived. Instead the Bush Administration acts like the Green Zone in Baghdad is the Panama Canal Zone resurrected or perhaps our new Guantanomo Bay. Where does the Bush Administration get the authority to argue with Iraq's government over how soon it can ask the U.S. to withdraw our forces? Why on Earth is the largest U.S. Embassy on Earth being constructed in Iraq today, if America's role in Iraq tomorrow was destined to be minimal? Whose war is it, anyway?
John McCain would have us believe that at root this is America's war, one that "we" can't afford to lose, and for years the policies of the Bush Administration led many Iraqis to reach the same conclusion. And during those years large numbers of Iraq's home bred citizens fought tenaciously against what they perceived as an American neo -colonial military occupation of their homeland. As it is throughout the Middle East, nationalist as well as religious sentiments remain strong inside Iraq. Deeply rooted suspicions that the United States sought a geographic long term military foothold in Iraq fueled armed resistance to America's armed forces stationed inside of Iraq.
Seemingly unbeknownst to George W. Bush, the U.S. military presence inside Iraq crossed the line of diminishing returns. The open ended nature of our military commitment in Iraq beget open ended armed resistance to a U.S. long term presence there. Even among those Iraqi factions not adamant that the U.S. withdraw post haste, a distant hazy horizon for an eventual American pull back dulled any sense of the urgency needed to make the difficult compromises required to bring about real national reconciliation for Iraq. While the U.S. remained committed to clamping an external safety lid on Iraq's civil violence, jockeying for leverage for ultimate future power became a higher priority for Iraq's domestic warring factions than accommodating the agendas of internal potential political and religious adversaries.
But something happened to change that deadly status quo inside Iraq, something that fortunately predated "the surge". Call it the Iraqization of Iraq's ongoing civil war. Call it a dawning realization inside of Iraq that the American public would not allow the American government to keeping sending American men and women to their death inside Iraq for very much longer. Call it "the switch". Call it Iraq's war now.
Does Iraq face real and potential foreign foes? Of course it does, we are after all talking about the Middle East. But the primary Iranian incentive to destabilize Iran turns out to be Iran's opposition to a permanent U.S. military foothold being established on their border inside Iraq. And Al Quada in Iraq has ceased to be the dominant destabilizing force active inside of Iraq. Al Quada lost the upper hand with the Anbar Awakening of Iraq Sunnis, which even John McCain knows by now happened before "the surge".
Sheik al-Rishawi is widely credited with being the primal force behind the start of the Anbar Awakening. According to a Washington Post article dated Sunday, March 25, 2007:
"...Al-Rishawi founded the Anbar Salvation Council in September (2006) with dozens of Sunni tribes. Many of the new newly friendly leaders are believed to have at least tacitly supported the insurgency in the past, though al-Rishawi said he never did.
"I was always against these terrorists," al-Rishawi said in an interview inside his American-guarded compound, adjusting a pistol holstered around his waist. "They brainwashed people into thinking Americans were against them. They said foreigners wanted to occupy our land and destroy our mosques. They told us, 'We'll wage a jihad. We'll help you defeat them.'"
The difficult part was convincing others it wasn't true, and that "building an alliance with the Americans was the only solution," al-Rishawi said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500600.html
Central to convincing Iraqi's, many of whom had previously supported the insurgency against U.S. troops, that Americans were not interested in occupying Iraq and "destroying mosques" was evidence mounting back inside America that the American people wanted the U.S. out of Iraq as soon as possible, and that the U.S. government was starting to change in response to public pressure. Throughout the summer and fall of 2006 the race to control Congress hinged on Democrats campaigning nationally to bring an end to the open ended commitment to of forces to Iraq with firm timelines for U.S. withdrawal.
The previously improbable scenario of Democrats wresting both Houses of Congress away from Republican control in 2006 became reality, and world wide that shift in Congress was perceived as a mandate for Democrats to establish a timeline for a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq".
That shift preceded "the surge", and that shift enabled "the surge" to later succeed Regardless of John McCain's poor vision, the handwriting has clearly been on the wall, both in America and in Iraq. The U.S. is very unlikely to remain in Iraq for 100 years. The U.S. is unlikely to remain in Iraq for two years after the November Presidential election, with the public mood strongly supporting Democratic chances. All throughout the prolonged contest to determine the Democratic presidential nominee, all of the leading Democratic candidates were firmly on record supporting a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Whether Clinton or Obama, there was never any doubt what position the U.S. would take with a new Democratic President in 2009.
And that's why the surge worked. The wrong message didn't get sent. The surge was not mistaken as indicative of a U.S. resolve to remain inside Iraq for as long as it took for America to achieve its national strategic interests inside of Iraq, whatever they might be. Instead "the surge" was rightfully viewed as a final stop gap effort by a lame duck Republican Administration to give Iraq's leaders the breathing room they needed to come to grips with the fact that it is Iraq's war to win now, not America's. And with a Democratic Presidency looming on the near political horizon, the time for Iraqi's to get their own house in order was and remains: Now.
It took that switch in attitude to enable our additional troops to do what was asked of them with "the surge", and do it they did, very well indeed. That's because Iraq isn't listening to George W. Bush now, nor to John McCain. It is listening to Barack Obama, and counting the months until a complete U.S. withdrawal from its sovereign state.
Driving home today listening to NPR News I heard Obama say....paraphrasing.......
Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear bomb. They should not wait until the next President is in office, they should take care of it now because the "pressure will just mount"
Tough talk. No one asked him what he will do if Iran does not follow his advice.
He also says that he will send more troops to Afghanistan. And will make forays into Pakistan if needed.
Make of this what you will......but to me, there is a good chance he will try prove his manhood by being hawkish on NS.
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
FYI: Juan Cole explains "surge" cause and effect in Iraq...
"As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the US inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods."
Much to learn from Cole in the article. He concludes with...
"So did the "surge" "work"?
..."The troop escalation in and of itself was probably not that consequential. That the troops were used in new ways by Gen. Petraeus was more important. But their main effect was ironic. They calmed Baghdad down by accidentally turning it into a Shiite city, as Shiite as Isfahan or Tehran, and thus a terrain on which the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement could not hope to fight effectively.
It is Obama who has the better argument in this debate, not Senator McCain, who knows almost nothing about Iraq and Iraqis, and overestimates what can be expected of 30,000 US troops in an enormous, complex country.
But the problem for McCain is that it does not matter very much for policy who is right in this debate. Security in Iraq is demonstrably improved, for whatever reason, and the Iraqis want the US out. If things are better, what is the rationale for keeping US troops in Iraq?"
****
...and Tom, I again ask, how can Obama state he is going to end the war in Iraq at the same time he plans on keeping troops stationed in Iraq, a "residual" force, etc., he keeps using the word "redeployment" doesn't it follow then that what he is really advocating is reducing troops in Iraq and moving them to Afghanistan? This approach is not exactly ending war.
Is this what those who support Obama support? More troops in Afghanistan involved in war, threats of military force against Iran, permanent military forces in the ME? How important are these issues to the average Obama supporter? Do Obama supporters understand fully what his military plans are and support those plans? Because I sure don't understand. I hear Obama keeping on with the current, maybe a shift here and there but essentially there is not much of a change. Obama supporters appear to have complete confidence with their candidate so it would follow Obama supporters understand fully what he is advocating when detailing his ME strategy.
Any insights?
Not huge numbers, but more. I believe they can still make an overall positive contribution there, both from a U.S. and Afghani perspective.
I am not a military tactician, but if one out of every 20, 10, or even 5 troops that the U.S. withdrew from Iraq instead did a tour of duty inside of Afghanistan, it would still remove a lot of strain off of our currently over extended military.
Some posters on CCN seem more concerned about the possible military plans of Barack Obama then they do over the possible military plans of John McCain. I'm not in that group obviously. I believe a McCain Administration poses more risk of extended and expanding military conflicts than does an Obama Administration.
As to the meaning of redeployment, and the direction that redeployment might take, I know it's a complex world so I take some comfort in having General Wesley Clark as my personal advisor. Will we need to keep some troops in Kuwait for example? I don't know but I'll ask the General and take it from there.
It would make some sense for some of the troops now in Iraq and who wouldn't go to Afghanistan to send them to Kuwait. Troops in Kuwait could be the "backstop" if conditions in Iraq worsen after we've withdrawn most of our combat forces.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
However, that big base we built there is going to need protection - we are not going to leave Iraq. Obama is not going to END the war - he can't. No combat troops doesn't mean no combat.
Yes, that makes sense.
Afghanistan is confusing to me because we have put so much money there and not much has been gained. Corruption seems to be the ruler there. I hate to see our troops involved with such corruption-conflicts. Fighting for a "good" cause is hard to define I suppose. There has to be a better way. Bombing people cannot be the only answer. I won't accept that. Ever. Likewise, I expect more peace strategy discussion from a presidential candidate. Similar to the words spoken by Gen. Clark.
Admittedly, war is much too complex for my understanding. Gen. Clark's insights are always enlightening and are, for the most part, easier to understand than what Obama has stated. What is troubling is Obama ran on and prides himself on being against the Iraq war and states he is determined to END the war. But in reality he is not going to END war. This is confusing. I know we are up against worse with JMc - but voters are rightfully suspicious these days, no more voters remorse. I really want to know what I am supporting not so much voting for what I am not supporting, meaning, voting for Obama because he isn't McCain. That argument cannot be the weight of my support. I really want to go to the voting booth and be absolutely sure what I am voting in support of. I am not so sure with Obama, I wish this wasn't the way, but he is not so clear cut to me. His policies can be broken down and I am left with more questions.
I keep hoping, I keep trying, I read, I try to understand, I see others like yourself who appear reasonable and I wish I could understand like you understand, but, it still rings hollow. UGH
What's a voter to do?
which actually explains why there has been some success in Anbar - and it had very little to do with the surge, which was limited to Bagdhad. Unfortunately all that is ever talked about is did the surge work or didn't it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601143.html
A Potentially Winning Tactic, With a Warning
By Walter Pincus
Monday, August 27, 2007; Page A11
Fourteen months ago, a 300-page Defense Department-sponsored research paper titled "Iraq Tribal Study: Al-Anbar Governorate" was completed and delivered to the Pentagon. That report -- put together by a distinguished group of retired military counterinsurgency specialists and academics, each with Iraq experience -- was circulated in the Army's Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., at the time led by then-Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the top U.S. commander in Iraq. The study proposed changing how the United States interacts with Sunni tribal leaders, eventually contributing to winning their support in fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq forces.
In early 2006, U.S. government experts disagreed over whether to seek cooperation from the Iraqi tribes in what was then termed the Sunni Triangle. Some wanted to gain military control over the area and wipe out resistance. Others proposed arming selected Sunni sheiks who were showing opposition to al-Qaeda in Iraq's own foreign forces, knowing this could harm the longer-term effort to create a unified Iraqi identity.
Today, the support of Sunni tribal leaders against al-Qaeda in Iraq is hailed as one of the few successes from the U.S. troop increase this year.
The Iraq Tribal Study provided a handbook on how to gain that support by covering the basics. One section, titled "How to Work With Tribesmen," explains that "RESPECT ( Ihtiram in Arabic) is the key," and also warns: "Do not assume that they want to be like you."
The study summed up how the Sunni tribes viewed the conditions that Washington established in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. "Throughout the modern history of Iraq, the Sunni tribes have occupied a privileged position in Iraq society and enjoyed wealth, autonomy and political clout," the report said. "To lose those advantages in a system of proportional representation that empowered the Shia, or in a truncated Iraq with a Kurdish autonomous province, would bring shame to a long and prosperous Sunni history."
It also cautioned that the main themes of the U.S. message in Iraq -- "freedom and democracy" -- do not resonate well with the population "because freedom is associated with chaos in Iraq." In addition, the Sunnis "are deathly afraid of being ruled by a Shia government, which they believe will be little more than a puppet of the Shia religious extremists in Iran."
The study identified three tribes in al-Anbar province, all of which initially fought as insurgents against U.S. forces. But more recently, all three tribes -- or "significant parts of them" -- joined the movement against al-Qaeda in Iraq. "This presents a window of opportunity for engagement and influence of the tribes by the coalition," the study stated.
However, the study warned that with two of the tribes, such cooperation "should not be considered as support for, or even acceptance of, coalition activities." Instead, it occurs "for no other purpose but to rid the area of a common enemy, al-Qaeda and its allies." With the third, it cautioned, "the recognized leadership plays both ends of the insurgency, coalition versus the insurgents, against the middle while maintaining a single motive, to force the coalition to leave Iraq."
In short, the study's experts pointed toward what has become a short-term U.S. success, while warning more than a year ago -- as the intelligence community did last week -- that it is all temporary.
National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them
.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
I agree that whatever positive "the surge" may have accomplished is extremely minor in the larger scheme of things, and that only because of the more significant changes that have been taking place, some of which this article deals with, some having to do with the growing certainty the the United States is on it's way out the door in Iraq.
But I think Democrats have gotten suckered into a no win situation in debates with Republicans in regards to the surge whereby we seem to argue against the effectiveness of American forces while Republicans praise the troops. Whether or not the surge did any good is a minor side show. Knowing that America will pull out of Iraq soon I think is what is driving most progress there now.
IMO, the surge was w/o question the catalyst that created the current level of stability. A bright spot in what has been a fiasco. The military establishing a meaningfully communication with the different faction and maintaining a presence of duration long enough to drive out the undesirables and give the residents and leadership some breathing space.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR20
"
Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.
As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.
Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."
A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."
Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."
It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.
There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces."
Pat Lang. Here it is in it's entirety. (The 'respect' part is his, too.) Great post.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/the_athenaeum/files/iraq_tribal_study_070907.pdf
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."
Gen. Omar Bradley
is that NOBODY is talking about the endgame in the perpetual war. If we pull out all but a "residual" force to protect our Taj Mahal and transnational corporate interests in Iraq, and turn up the heat in Afghanistan by sending more forces there, THEN WHAT? Where does it end?
Charley Reese (who is an isolationist like Pat Buchanan, I'll grant, but these guys have been asking some of the hard questions that nobody else wants to ask) put it very concisely in his latest column:
President Bush's war on terror is a false metaphor, and a dangerous one at that. There is no terrorist army or air force. There are some gangs of criminals. What the president did when he adopted this specious metaphor about a war on terror was to commit the United States to perpetual war. Ask your local warmonger how he defines victory in the war on terror. Ask why when Iraq was very violent we couldn't leave, and now that it's less violent, we can't leave. Ask him how he defines victory in Iraq or in Afghanistan.
The Taj Mahal is one man's memorial to his wife, an Islamic man in fact. There's nothing that the US has built in Iraq that could remotely compare to that.
But I agree with your point. The answer to extremists is education, opportunity and most of all communication.
Barry
Are you safer today than you were seven years ago?©
for our relations with the rest of the world, but with the Islamic world in particular. As we all know, General Clark has periodically spoken in those terms. He talks about an exchange of ideas, and he talks about opening doors, not closing them.
It has been so easy for me to support the General because he thinks deeply and clearly about the immediate steps forward, the intermediate steps forward, and about the long term steps forward. On an intermediate level Clark talks about a framework for peace and security for the entire Middle East region. We have to stop making individual strategic moves as if they each exist totally isolated from each other in a vacuuum.
Any reshuffling of U.S. forces outside of a comprehensive regional framework that enables the nations in that area to see their own vital interests respected is piece meal at best and probably doomed to ultimate failure.
The problem is that the terrorists are more patient than we are. They know that we won't be in all the needed places forever. All they have to do is lay low and allow a feeling of security to grow. Then when we retire, as we inevitably will unless we have several new "Koreas," they can resurface and do their business.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
....is always a danger especially when the guy in charge knows nothing and will have to make decisions based on conflicting advice.....as Wes used to point out.
As for Afghanistan....it is currently under NATO control. So does more American troops signal taking it back from NATO or what exactly?
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
More or less U.S. troops inside Afghanistan need not fundamentally alter any control equations. I believe the expressed plan is to strengthen the U.S. committment to Afghanistan and to see if some other N.A.T.O. allies will follow suit also.
The ultimate mission creep was invading Iraq. The mission in Afghanistan was never completed due to lack of focus, failure to follow through, and overall insufficient resourses.
or Defense, do you think?
Phil Gramm Sec't of the Treasury?
or 'Health and Human Welfare', do you think?
Assuming McCain doesn't tap him for VP which I doubt that he would.
Lieberman would be a perfect Secretary of State choice for McCain. McCain likes and trusts Lieberman for one thing. For another it would allow McCain to claim a false vanere of bipartisanship for his foreign policy with Lieberaman as S.o.S.
McCain has to give Lieberman a major post in his Administration as a reward for campaigning against the Democratic Party for him. Lieberman's life in the Senate would be Hell after the November election. It is a dead end for him and Lieberman knows it. He can't get reelected in CT again either.
Republican conservatives won't want Lieberman anywhere near Domestic policy because they don't trust him in that regard, so I strongly suspect Lieberman is slated to take over the State Department. How do you think that will play out in the Middle East?
Gramm I'm less certain of what his public role will be in the wake of his hoof and mouth disease, but I know he will cary major influence with McCain in public or in private.
How do I think Lieberman as SoS will play out in the Middle East?
night terrors, Tom
As for Phil Gramm? Mr. Forbes assures us gleefully in an interview, that yes, Phil Gramm, John McCain's dear old friend, will hold a top-level position in a McCain cabinet. He seems 100% happily sure about that.
Tony McPeak.
The soldiers would be wonderfully dressed tho'
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
If you're talking about a McCain cabinet? (staying on topic here if possible)
I don't' think he would choose McPeak. Afterall, McPeak opposed the AUMF.
If you're talking about an Obama cabinet? I think he can do better.
watch and listen...
Lieberman can catch and correct all McCain's geographical gaffes.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats, but he votes with the Repubs on a lot of issues, especially those that are war related. If he were taken out of the Senate, CT would almost certainly elect a real Democrat and McCain wouldn't want that.
after the November vote. Republicans know that Democrats will have a working majority in the Senate either way. How much Lieberman can help the Republicans by voting with them on foreign policy only might not make much difference overall, at least not compared to how much good it can do Republicans pursue their foreign policy having a nominal Democrat as Secretary of State, one who still has some friends among some Blue Dog Democrats.
And it could be a deal already done. Lieberman could have demanded an important role in a McCain Administration in return for his presidential endorsement. That would not surprise me, and I can see why McCain could have signed off on such a deal. He has to win first before he worries about how friendly the Senate will be to his Presidency.
"I strongly suspect Lieberman is slated to take over the State Department. How do you think that will play out in the Middle East?"
Enough to give me nightmares
were more likely the type Obama would appoint.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Obama veep team floats GOP name
By AMIE PARNES & BEN SMITH | 7/25/08 6:41 PM EST
Obama's vice presidential search team has floated the name of a former member of President Bush's first-term cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate.
Photo: APBarack Obama's vice presidential search team has floated the name of a member of President Bush's first-term Cabinet, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, as Obama's running mate.
The search committee, now led by Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, raised Veneman's name — among others — in discussions with members of Congress, said two Democrats familiar with the conversations.
The mention of Veneman's name surprised Democratic lawmakers. The low-profile Republican was close to food and agriculture industries but clashed with farm-state Democrats and environmentalists during her tenure, which lasted from 2001 to 2004......
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12059.html
hhhmmmmmm.
A Republican woman with close ties to BigAg.
One wonders just how many Democrats is he trying to piss off with this name?
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
How to Work With Tribesmen RESPECT (Ihtiram in Arabic) is the key to working with tribesmen anywhere in the world. Laotian Muong or Somali herdsmen, it is always RESPECT that tribesmen look for from outsiders who come to their lands seeking their help and friendship. This is true whether tribesmen are nomads or villagers. Many tribal peoples have been encouraged by their governments to settle and take up farming agriculture as a way of life. In many cases money and construction inducements have been provided in an effort to “tame” the tribesmen and make them easier for the governments to deal with. As a result, many tribal groups who were once nomadic are now living in villages. In some cases, parts of the tribe are now villagers and others of their relatives still follow the rains and grass with their flocks. Some other tribes, like the mountaineers in Yemen, have always been villagers. Nevertheless, in all cases, tribesmen prefer their own folk ways to those of the peoples of the cities in the countries in which they live. Usually the tribal peoples look down on non-tribal city dwellers considering them to be no more than servants of the government. Carlton Coon in his excellent book, “Caravan, the Story of the Middle East,’ tells the story of the meeting of a Bani Sakhr Jordanian Bedouin with a Palestinian at a market place outside Amman, Jordan. According to Coon, the Palestinian city dweller lectured the Bedouin about his backwardness and lack of modernity. The Bedouin listened for a while with the courtesy natural to his kind and then responded by saying that it was clear to him that “modernity” had cost the Palestinians their homeland and that God had cursed the Palestinians for their abandonment of traditional life. With that he walked away. Some guidelines for living and working with tribesmen: tribal social structure usually have chosen to do so and continue to live this kind of life because they find it satisfying and protective. If they had wanted to stop living within the tribal community, they would have done so. There is almost always a de-tribalized urban area available to them into which they could have disappeared to become taxi drivers or some such thing. They often could have joined the local military if they wished and some do so. cont'd http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/files/how_to_work_with_tribesmen.pdf
We're so lucky to have you posting here.
Now I must finish my supper or I would say more.