Cut and Run

Re: # 21 masadi: You are definitely laughable. The question on the table was thank god that the US involves itself in world politics. The only time that it did not was after World War I, and we got in WWII. The US isolated itself from world affairs after World War I and the world was in ruins.

Your deceiving self, however, [ presented an excuse to its people on why it was entering WW2. ] And this is not the question on the table.

And then, as usual, you presented all kind of bogus references that had nothing to do with the item of why we need the US to exert its moral authority over the entire world.

[What is so difficult to understand in that?] Obviously it is very difficult for you to understand.

#18, unlike behram1, who is busy kissing his American master`s behind, when I post items, I give historical references for sources you can check up. He, on the other hand, just as he has been doing on the other posts about Israel/Palestine, makes claims that are illogical and ahistorical and as usual lack any documentation whatsoever. Regarding the US entry in World War 2, let us see the hypocrisy of the US elite:

The United States’ entry into World War 2 against Germany was marketed to the public as a move to defend helpless countries against an evil foe that had violated the principles of nonintervention into the affairs of other countries. Considering the track record of the U.S. at the time of entry, this appeal to “liberation and freedom” was hypocritical to the extreme. The historian Howard Zinn in his, “A People’s History of the United States: 1492 –Present” (1995), summarizes U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other countries prior to World War 2:


The U.S. had instigated a war with Mexico and taken over half that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and right of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats…It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years… It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the canal. It sent 5000 Marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution and kept forces there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years… Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America. Just before World War 1 ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia and remained there until early 1920. Five thousand more troops landed at Archangel, another Russian port…”.(Howard Zinn 1995, People`s History of the US:399-400)

My sincere advice to all of you readers here, go through behram1`s posts and look at the claims he makes, without any references to back him up, except for insults and allegations that further lack any references or documentation. He should change his name to FOX NEWS- they do much the same even as they deceive tens of millions in the US. Because of such baseless propaganda most in the US believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and the number of those who watched Fox News was EVEN higher, over 80% of their viewers believed that nonsense.

Re: # 19 masadi: You have gone crazy. First you start your post with [ Regarding the US entry in World War 2, let us see the hypocrisy of the US elite: ]

Then you post [...summarizes U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other countries prior to World War 2:]

Only a corrupt mind like yours can come up with this. But, again you are surrounded with liars, tricksters, and deceivers. And you are surrounded with the forces of darkness and forces of evil.

[... without any references to back him up, except for insults and allegations that further lack any references or documentation.] The above is just one sample of your stupid references. Talk about ``flowers`` and then give references of ``cauliflowers``.

Sub tau laye phool bhuda ghobi lay kar aa gaya......Now that is the quality of your references.

[.... He should change his name to FOX NEWS- ] Stop worrying about what I should or should not do, but, you must change your name to Aljazeera. You are the aspiring writer!!!!!.... Blah, blah, blah....US elite has done this and US elite has done that....There is probably a US elite hiding in your toilet.... Blah, blah, blah

I refer to #3, the article posted by behram1, written by Wesley Clark:

The Wesley Clark article is useless. We don`t expect peace-talk from a warlord like Wesley Clark. All he knows is war. His whole life has been war. He is a damn warlord. That is how the power elite in the US come to be of a single world view- the military metaphysic, Mills called it. Clark started off in command of the military institution, wanted to become president (command of the political institution), and will probably end up as CEO or board member of one of the corporations of the Military Industries, like Raytheon, Northup Grumann or Lockheed Martin etc. Yes, they want to perpetuate war, and suffering. Iran emerging as winner, so what, they play one side against the other anyway there is nothing new in this; in Afghanistan the group Iran was siding with was supported by the US, so also in Iraq, because the Sunnis are challenging the American imperialism at present. Tomorrow, it might be some ohter group that they support and benefit (once they supported Osama`s people, remember Afghanistan in the 1980s?).

The fact is the US might go along with one group or the other in the short run, but in the long run they ensure their own benefits and hegemony. Clark`s article just tries to confuse using short run analysis even as his main goal is to perpetuate the conflict that feeds the US permanent war economy and ``footprint`` (an official US term) in an oil rich region and as well the protection of Israel from a God forbid developed Arab world! This they want to avoid at all cost. They do not even hide these reasons, the Project for the New American Century (they now populate the Bush Cabinet, or other high ranks in his Admn) wrote all these reasons to Clinton in their 1998 letter asking him to take military action against Iraq, back in 1998 same reasons and same excuses that were resurrected after 9/11 by Bush and co to lie to the American people to invade Iraq. Their 1998 letter to Clinton can be read on their website at
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Eventually, the truth always ruins falsehood. That is what is going to happen. The US will be forced out of Iraq, with its tail between its legs. And if Israel doesnt make a just peace with the Palestinians, it will lose big time. Mark these words, it is going to happen eventually.

I recommend this presentation to get a good background of the Iraq war, http://war.asadi.org

And I would like to end by stating, the US is not the world`s policeman, neither does it have any moral superiority or authority (given its track record of won ton killings post World War 2), to talk about human rights.

# 17 masadi: And now you are posting the same rubbish on this site as well, eh!

Since your logic works backwards, I will answer your last para first.
[...to talk about human rights.] Oh yeah! And you with your kind in Sudan would know about human rights. Yeah right! You must have your upper chamber examined. But, the indoctrination you got from the liars, tricksters, and deceivers would be hard to be removed from your hard disk drive.

Which Islamic society would say has any appreciable human rights? For that they have to consider their people that they rule over as humans first.

[...the US is not the world`s policeman,] No, and the US does not want to be one. But the US is the last hope for humanity. Just look at what happened after World War I when the US entrenched and all hell broke lose in the world. Today, God forbid, if the US entrenches then all the leftists and commies will have a field day.

[.... neither does it have any moral superiority] You are absolutely incorrect. If any country has any moral authority in today`s world it is the US...Or do you want to say that Iran has the moral authority? Or, that stupid idiot Hugo Chavez has the moral authority?

The rest of your post is so rubbish that it does not deserve a response at this time.

As for Gen. Odom`s creditials, they could be superior to those of Mr. Gill or anyone else contributing to Chowk. Here are a couple of paragraphs that ought to support that contention (go to this URL for the entire resumè: http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86)

``Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation`s signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army`s senior intelligence officer.

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President`s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970.

General Odom’s latest book, America’s Inadvertent Empire, co-authored with Robert Dujarric, was published in early 2004 by Yale University Press. His previous book, Fixing Intelligence For a More Secure America, was published in January 2003 (Yale University Press). His book, The Collapse of the Soviet Military (Yale University Press, 1998), won the Marshall Shulman Prize. General Odom has also written America`s Military Revolution: Strategy and Structure After the Cold War (American University Press, 1993); Trial After Triumph: East Asia After the Cold War (Hudson Institute, 1992); On Internal War: American and Soviet Approaches to Third World Clients and Insurgents (Duke University Press, 1992); and The Soviet Volunteers (Princeton University Press, 1973). He coauthored Commonwealth or Empire? Russia, Central Asia, and the Transcaucasus with Robert Dujarric (Hudson Institute, 1995).``

Ref: Cut and Run by Mohammad Gill

By all means no one here should fail to read this article by Gen. Odom:

``What`s Wrong With Cutting and Running?``

You can find it at this address: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

Here`s more of Gen. Odom`s commentary (go to this URL for his complete statement: http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=0063&stoplayout=true&print=true )

Withdrawal is the Precondition to Progress

Once we recognize these two realities, it becomes clear that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is the precondition to winning the support of our allies and a few others for a joint approach to the region. Until that has been completed, they will not join such a coalition. And until that has happened, even we in the United States cannot think clearly about what constitutes our interests there, much let gain agreement about common interests for a coalition.

By contrast, any argument for ``staying course,`` or seeking more stability before we withdraw -- or pointing out tragic consequences that withdrawal will cause -- is bound to be wrong, or at least unpersuasive. Putting it bluntly, those who insist on staying in Iraq longer make the consequences of withdrawal more terrible and make it harder to find an alternative strategy for achieving regional stability.

Once the invasion began in March 2003, all of the ensuing unhappy results became inevitable. The invasion of Iraq may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in American history. In any event, the longer we stay, the worse it will be. Until that is understood, we will make no progress with our allies or in devising a promising alternative strategy.

``Staying the course`` may make a good sound bite, but it can be disastrous for strategy. Several of Hitler`s generals told him that ``staying the course`` at Stalingrad in 1942 was a strategic mistake, that he should allow the Sixth Army to be withdrawn, saving it to fight defensive actions on reduced frontage against the growing Red Army. He refused, lost the Sixth Army entirely, and left his commanders with fewer forces to defend a wider front. Thus he made the subsequent Soviet offensives westward easier.

To argue, as some do, that we cannot leave Iraq because ``we broke it and therefore we own it`` is to reason precisely the way Hitler did with his commanders. Of course we broke it! But the Middle East is not a pottery store. It is the site of major military conflict with several different forces that the United States is galvanizing into an alliance against America. To hang on to an untenable position is the height of irresponsibility. Beware of anyone, including the president, who insists that this is ``responsible`` or ``the patriotic`` thing to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html


Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders` rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean`s declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that ``the idea that we`re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.``

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president`s growing political problems on the war and other issues. ``Dean`s take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful,`` said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean`s famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi`s recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush`s hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

``What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president`s policies have led to,`` Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, ``the how and when gets buried`` and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.

Pelosi last week endorsed a plan by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq within six months, putting her at odds with most other Democratic leaders and leading foreign policy experts in her party.

Democrats, who have not controlled the White House since 2000 and the House in more than a decade, have tried over the past year to put aside deep philosophical differences and rally behind a two-pronged strategy to return to power: Highlight the growing number of GOP scandals and score Bush`s unpopular war management.

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush`s policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush`s handling of Iraq.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy and persuaded most Democratic senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 ``a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty`` and to compel the administration ``to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq.`` While Republicans introduced the resolution, it was prompted by a Democratic plan.

Democratic Reps. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position during a closed-door meeting today that is to include debate on the Pelosi position.

Despite Pelosi`s claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on an Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans do not support, but she also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender.

``We have not blown our chance`` of winning back the House but ``we have jeopardized it,`` said a top strategist to House Democrats, who requested anonymity to speak freely about influential party leaders. ``It raises questions about whether we are capable of seizing political opportunities or whether we cannot help ourselves and blow it`` by playing to the liberal base of the party.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today`s meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.

Without naming Pelosi, Vice President Cheney told troops yesterday that terrorists will prevail ``if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission,`` saying such precipitous move ``would be unwise in the extreme.`` Cheney, addressing Army units at Fort Drum, N.Y., said that ``any decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground and the judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timelines set by politicians in Washington, D.C.``

In his comments Monday, Dean likened the president`s optimistic assessment to those offered by the government during the Vietnam War. Bush fired back yesterday. ``There are pessimists . . . and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead us to victory,`` Bush said in response to a question about Dean`s comments after a meeting with Lee Jong Wook, director general of the World Health Organization. ``Our troops need to hear not only are they supported, but that we have got a strategy that will win.``

DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said Dean`s comments were taken out of context. Dean, she said, meant the war was unwinnable unless the Bush administration adopts a new strategy. Still, a number of Democrats distanced themselves from Dean. ``I think Howard Dean . . . represents himself when he speaks,`` Tauscher said. ``He does not represent me.``

Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush`s handling of the war as criticism of U.S. troops who are fighting in Iraq. ``I absolutely disagree`` with Dean, said Patrick Murphy, a Democrat who is running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by GOP Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. ``The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq,`` he said. ``We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace.``

And here`s what another combat veteran says about U.S. presence in Iraq (go here for the full story: http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20051201-054122-4745r):

General Odom Calls for Immediate Exit from Iraq
United Press International

Friday 02 December 2005

Washington - The US general who used to head the National Security Agency says the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to leave Iraq.

Retired three star Lt. Gen. William Odom, writing for NiemanWatchdog.org, wrote that while President George W. Bush wants to bring democracy and stability to the Middle East, the only way to achieve that goal is for the US armed forces to get out of Iraq now.

Odom, one of the most respected US military analysts and a prominent figure at the conservative Hudson Institute in Washington, wrote, ``We have seen most of our allies stand aside and engage in Schadenfreude over our painful bog-down in Iraq. Winston Churchill`s glib observation, `the only thing worse that having allies is having none,` was once again vindicated.

``There is no chance that our allies will join us in Iraq,`` he wrote. ``... Iraq is the worst place to fight a battle for regional stability. Whose interests were best served by the US invasion of Iraq in the first place? It turns out that Iran and al-Qaida benefited the most, and that continues to be true every day US forces remain there.``

It is absolutely critical that the US stays the course and installs a freely and democratically elected government in Iraq. The US must pressure Shias and Kurds to bring the disenfranchised Sunnis to the central government. The Sunnis must realize that they are no longer the ruling elite and must accept their minority position. These three major communities must share the oil revenues proportionally. The coalition forces should then invite NATO forces to help out, and to gradually move out of the urban areas. Muslim nations could help out with their forces. UN can become the guarantor of an effective regime in Iraq.

#8 by freethinker on December 7, 2005 12:15pm PT


The war in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war; Shiites and Kurds are pitted against the Sunnis, the so-called insurgents.


Fantastic...

Arm the shias and kurds...they`ll pay us back in oil...They`ll use the arms to take care of the sunni ``insurgents``..American forces back by xmas 2006...


Americans get out and get to buy oil and sell weapons.
Shias and kurds take control of their own destiny.
sunnis insurgents get to meet their designated 72 virgins..


Sounds like a win-win-win..

mirmir #7:
The war in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war; Shiites and Kurds are pitted against the Sunnis, the so-called insurgents. The US is fighting on the side of the Shiites. It is causing a great deal of frustration in the army. Murtha has the inside information of the army`s frustration. The generals are terrified by the administration and they don`t vent this frustration openly. If the American army succeeded to put down the insurgency and install the Shiite government, it is feared that the new Iraq will be another Iran in the Middle East. The argument for staying the course may be true but the outcome also is not very favorable for the US. I have developed this argument in another article which is under review with Chowk. It appears that the US is caught in the horns of a dilemma.
Mohammad Gill

Mohammad Gill quotes Rep. Murtha:

``Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region…Our military has done everything asked of them, the US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. (John Murtha)``

I wonder why it is that U.S. combat veterans like John Murtha and I think that ``it is time to bring them home`` while the most belligerent of the hawks (Bush, Cheney, Rice) who never served in the military and, in the case of Bush and Cheney (variously called draft dodgers, chichen hawks, etc.) actively and successfully avoided the draft while the U.S. was at war in Vietnam, insist on ``staying the course.``

I also wonder how many of the ``Chowkies`` who insist on ``staying the course`` have experienced combat in any of the U.S.`s wars.

# 7 mirmir: {I also wonder how many of the ``Chowkies`` who insist on ``staying the course`` have experienced combat in any of the U.S.`s wars. } You are totally stupid to wonder this thought on Chowk. This is totally irrelevant and absurd.

There is no clamor to “cut and run”. Even Murtha hasn’t called for cut and run.

Iraq is now a bitter pill that no one is ready to swallow. Bush can’t get out of it easily so he will continue his rhetoric. The dems are testing waters, sending out trial balloons to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

People that can take the heat in elections or have safe seats will continue to speak for withdrawal. But the other part of the dems would just continue to hold the line until they are sure which way the wind is blowing.
The US public is going against the war but the sentiment is still very soft. Any incident, minor or large, would send the war support skyrocketing again.

Dean is right when he says that US can’t win this war because there is nothing there to win in Iraq. The real issue is that this war is linked with the war on terrorism- would leaving Iraq means losing the war on terrorism? That is where the problem lies. The Bush admin or even establishment Dems are not ready to close this chapter.

Has anybody ever thought of who is the biggest beneficiary of the War on Terrorism?
Unbelievable; but it is Pakistan! Pakistan lost a big stake in Afghanistan in 2001 but GWOT turns out to be an even bigger winner for Pakistan.

With India hitting the skids in stupid political fights and its inability to convince the US of its role in the International and regional politics, Pakistan has certainly emerged as the force to reckon with in the area.

Two things that are working for Pakistan: 1) The US grip on Afghanistan and the Karzai govt in Afghanistan are now completely dependent on Pakistan. 2) Pakistan holds all the big guns of Alquaeda thus making it impossible to end the war on terrorism without its support and capture of the Alquaeda leadership.