It began with the minority set asides in the affirmative action days and continues today all the way to the glass elevators of high finance. For those not familiar the scheme works like this. In many federal, state, and local contracts there is a certain percentage of the contract that is “set aside” for minority contractors, it allows them to share in the growth of the economy and get their fair share, so the thinking goes. This is supposed to allow smaller minority contractors to expand and become larger contractors and hopefully hire more minorities. On the surface this seems like a noble idea to help increase the participation of minority businesses.
Unfortunately, the greed of some men knows no bounds and they cannot allow even the small percentage of minority set asides to escape their grasp. There are some large white contractors that have created their own minority contractors so they can bid on the minority sections of the contracts. They will find a blackman, usually unemployed or addicted and set them up in business in name only. The blackman will technically be the owner of the business, but has no real say so in the business; many do not even work for their own companies. The white contractor has a figurehead for his “minority business” and can then go after the minority section of the contract as well as the regular contract.
This scheme has now been replicated by the big money hedge fund managers. In an effort to derail new taxation legislation headed their way which in effect would begin to tax their fees not as capital gains (15%), but as regular income (35%) they have advanced the argument that by changing the taxation rate this will hurt minority business owners and inner city investments.
If you’re lobbying to keep a tax break, rich white guys making astronomical sums by investing other people's money aren't the most sympathetic clients -- especially when they're paying taxes at a lower rate than firefighters and teachers. So the private-equity and hedge fund industry has come up with a cynical new approach, arguing that raising their taxes would hurt women- and minority-owned firms and dampen investment in needy urban areas.
Among those providing funding for the new group, called the Access to Capital Coalition, is the Private Equity Council, a trade association formed by 11 larger funds to stifle some pesky lawmakers thinking about ending their cushy tax deal. "The present carried interest policy has been essential to attracting top talented minorities and women to the industry as independent firms and fund managers. Its elimination, consequently, would have the unfortunate effect of impeding this great progress," Willie E. Woods Jr., a founding member of the new group, says in its press release.[1]
These assertions are false. The group Access to Capital Coalition is a group of minority and women money managers who are being funded by the large money managers to put a minority face on the hedge fund business that is overwhelmingly white and male. It is a blatant attempt to try to block pending legislation to begin to tax the income (carried interest) as regular income. It is a shame that these multi-million and sometimes multi-billionaires are being taxed at a lower rate than teachers and they still want a break. By enlisting the aid of these minorities with their contributions they have attempted to buy some sympathy in the Congress. They can now parade this group of “minorities” in front of the committees and make the claim that the new legislation will harm minorities when in fact it will help minorities. The money being taxed is not the return on investments; it is the fees being charged by the managers.
Once again you have Blacks who are willing to sell out other Blacks to make a little money for themselves. The revenue from these fees generated by the hedge funds could go a long way to actually increasing investment in the inner city through block grants and other forms of government renewal funding. It is only now that these large funds are concerned about inner city investments; if they do have a genuine concern let them show it by directly investing in inner city development and projects. It is a shame that these successful Blacks do not want to see other Blacks get the chance to replicate their success.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602265.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Monday, September 10, 2007
Uncle Tom’s Hedge Fund
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Progress On The Curve
Well, it’s September. The month we’ve all been waiting for. The kids are back in school, the long days of summer are shortening, and the Iraq dog and pony show continues. I am reminded by the changing of the leaves of how often this President has changed the meaning of progress in Iraq. Let’s have a recap of just what exactly progress in Iraq has meant over the last four years, because if you are like me it has been hard to keep track. Under this administration progress has been such an elusive concept to define because every time I think I understand what it means it changes. Here we go I hope you have your scorecards ready.
1) The first use of the term “progress in Iraq” came in June 2003, on June 23rd in a speech President Bush outlined what progress in Iraq would entail.[1]
2) Progress – Free and democratic Iraq with elections.
3) Progress – Restoring Iraq economy and oil revenues.
4) Progress – Iraqi Constitution and Iraqi sovereignty.
5) Progress – Unified central government and reconciliation.
6) Progress – Iraqi government benchmarks.
7) Progress – Secure and stable Baghdad.
8) Progress – Sunni tribal chiefs stop attacking American troops.
So, as you can see progress in Iraq is a very obscure concept, as the years have gone by its meaning has evolved. The question is why has the definition of progress changed? Could it be because every benchmark of progress that this administration has setup has yet to yield any real progress? Let’s look at the record after over four years in Iraq and see how much progress has been achieved.
Free and democratic Iraq with elections: While there were democratic elections, I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim freedom and democracy in Iraq at this time. What the election demonstrated was what the real experts in the region already knew, that the Iraqis would split along sectarian lines in their voting. By voting along these lines instead of unity we have sectarianism, instead of a central government with a popular mandate to govern we have a sectarian government rife with division.
Restoring Iraq economy and oil revenues: The Iraqi economy is in shambles for the Iraqis, however for the American contractors working in Iraq and the corporations doing business in Iraq, it could not be better. Rather than improving the lives of the Iraqis we have improved the lives of our corporations. This is not progress, this is war profiteering. The oil industry is under constant attack and the price and supply of gas in Iraq is outrageous.
Iraqi Constitution and sovereignty: Yes, Iraq does have a Constitution written under our tutelage and representing our values. Does it reflect what the Iraqis want? I happen to believe that it does not and that is why the current government is dysfunctional. We tried to instill western values into their culture rather than conforming our values to their culture, just another display of western arrogance and hegemony towards those heathen Arabs.
Unified central government and national reconciliation: Any thoughts of this being a sign of progress should have been dispelled at the execution of Saddam Hussein. It’s funny how the signs continue to appear that there are problems and yet they continue to be ignored. There has been no national reconciliation, if anything there has been more sectarianism and division. The central government is paralyzed and the local councils feel no loyalty to the central government in Baghdad.
Iraqi government benchmarks: According to the recent GAO report, the Iraqi government has failed to meet 11 of the 18 benchmarks. Remember it was this administration that created and defined these benchmarks, so it is tragic that they are now attempting to back away from these benchmarks as a measuring stick of progress. No matter what your political stripe, I have yet to hear even the wing-nuts proclaim this government as progressing. The PM has stated that he does not feel obligated to meet these arbitrary goals set up by politicians in Washington; he represents the citizens of Iraq.
Secure and stable Baghdad: This of course will depend on who you talk to in order to gauge any progress. If you talk to Senator McCain and his straight talk, you will learn that it is as safe as a market in Indiana. If you talk to the locals, they tend to disagree. Though the deaths of American service personnel have dropped, the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods, the sectarian violence, and the number of attacks outside of Baghdad have not. The surge has managed to relocate the violence out of Baghdad and into the other parts of Iraq. The security has also been increased in the Green Zone, one of the few safe havens in Iraq.
Sunni tribal chiefs stop attacking American troops: In an effort to generate support President Bush has redefined progress in Iraq to getting the Sunni tribal chiefs to accept our money and our guns in exchange for no longer supporting the insurgents, whom they had come to resent. It seems that this administration has finally come to accept its limits in Iraq. The President seems to be moving away from his grandiose vision of Iraq as the beacon of democracy in the Arab world. Right now it seems he would settle for just a little peace of mind, if he finds it it will be short-lived. The Sunni chieftains have shifting loyalties and no loyalty to the central government; so on the one hand Mr. Bush is becoming cozy with the Sunnis and alienating the government. This truce will not last long.
So based on the data it would appear that in all areas being touted at one time or another by this administration as progress, they have failed miserably. But yet they continue to create newer, lower benchmarks, if this were a school in the “No Child Left Behind” program it would be condemned. My fear is that we as a nation are still not that outraged by what is happening, we are still willing to grade this assignment on a curve. Soon, there will be no curve that can measure complete failure.
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030723-1.html
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?
As an Orthodox Christian, I have read and listened to non-Christians who have read the letters of Mother Theresa and have come to the conclusion that they somehow demonstrate that God does not exist. For those looking for reasons not to believe these letters provide a convenient place to hang their hats, only because the Christian faith is so foreign to them. The non-believer approaches God and faith by logic, if it doesn’t make sense then it must not be real. Rather than being created in God’s image, they have created God in their image.
Anyone familiar with the life of Christ and His teachings recognizes the suffering that he endured and predicted that those who followed Him would also endure. In an effort to fill the pews of the modern Church, the true message of Christ has been replaced by this “easy Gospel”. The true nature of Christianity is replaced with this sanitized version of happy days. According to the Gospel of Jesus, it is written, “If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me.”[1] This doesn’t sound easy to me. Why God would require suffering from those whom He loves is beyond my comprehension. I know this though, when I surrender my life to God, I gave up my why. I no longer get to ask God why me, why this, and why now.
What the average person, the non-believer, and those who are accustomed to the easy gospel doesn’t understand is that despite all of her doubts and feelings of abandonment she continued to serve and to seek God. At no time did she reveal a desire to stop seeking the One who had called her; she remained faithful in her service to the end. If being a saint was easy, we’d all be one. It’s amazing how modern man can be loyal to a team, a job, or another man, but speak of loyalty to God and the room clears. We will be loyal to our beliefs about God, but not to God.
The thing I have found in the letters that I have read is a profound sense of desperation to know God, not to know about Him but to know Him personally. It was in that desperation that God used her to provide for those that no one else cared for, the forgotten, the untouchables. It has always amazed me when studying the Church saints how so many of them never realized the work God was doing in their lives. To them it was just everyday common things and that’s how God works. He doesn’t use the majestic; He uses the simplest of people and things.
So many times the Christian wants to obey God in the mighty works, but not in the common things of life. Will I continue to obey in the common things of the day? Will I continue to obey when everyone and everything has deserted me even you my God? These are the questions that we as Christians must ask ourselves. I never try to prove anything to anyone, especially non-believers because to them it is foolishness, but to us it is the power of God.
There will always be those seeking after signs and there will be none given. If you need a sign you will never believe, because you will always require a larger and larger sign. It is like going to the movies, we always want to see more. I remember when the first Star Wars came out; I thought those were the best special effects ever. You look at them today and they appear amateurish in comparison. I guess it’s just human nature to want more. Those who believe will never need a sign because that’s not why they believe. We believe because, just as Mother Theresa knew deep inside, that He is there despite all evidence to the contrary. God has used the simple things of this world to confound the wise. The simplicity of a poor peasant girl to pour out rivers of life to the weak and the suffering, only God could have made that happen.
The beautiful thing about God is that even the non-believers are blessed by His work and they don’t even know it or recognize it. The little bit of love and goodness in this world would be gone without God. Could you imagine how bad this world would really be without those like Mother Theresa, who despite her doubts continued to serve? I know for me it is simple. I would rather believe in a dream (that God exists) than what I know is a lie (that I am God). Remember, faith the size of a mustard seed is all that is required to move mountains. So, the next time someone talks to you about the pain of Mother Theresa, you talk about her truth and her obedience. Obedience is better than sacrifice.
[1] Matthew 16:24
Read more!
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Little Engine That Couldn’t
The memo said there are reports of "intervention by the prime minister's office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq's most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries."
The report said it isn't clear that al-Maliki is "a witting participant" in this push for Shiite power, but "the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
"The information he receives is undoubtedly skewed by his small circle of Dawa advisers, coloring his actions and interpretation of reality. His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shia hierarchy and force positive change," the memo said. It was referring to al-Maliki's Dawa Party, one of the major Shiite political movements in Iraq.
Because of such problems, the memo concluded that "we returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others."
"Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the same vision for Iraq?" the memo asks.[1]
These are excerpts from a memo by National Security Advisor Steven Hadley dated 11/08/2006, after meeting with the Iraqi Prime Minister. In the memo he discusses if Mr. al-Maliki will be able or willing to reconcile the people of Iraq. This administration has been playing this back and forth game of support and non-support with al-Maliki from almost the beginning. One moment they are lavishing him with praise and the next they are fermenting a coup against him.
It appears that Mr. al-Maliki has had about enough of the American politicians calling for his ouster or interfering in his government. It is reported that he has become angry and frustrated with the American's criticism and has spoken out against it.
Maliki fired back at his U.S. critics at a news conference Wednesday, saying the United States has no right to impose a timetable on his government.
"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at the end of a three-day visit to Damascus, according to the Associated Press. "Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere." Maliki said.[2]
Once again this administration and the war planners don’t have a clue. First of all, al-Maliki was a compromise candidate for prime minister. He was the guy with the least amount of baggage and had no direct ties to Iran. He did not come in with a mandate or a majority of support. His control of the government was tenuous at best. In order for anyone to make the wholesale changes that are needed in Iraq, he is going to need more support than this guy has. Just because Bush felt like he had a mandate even though he lost the popular vote in an election doesn’t mean that logic is going to work in an infant democracy. Mr. al-Maliki was chosen to be a caretaker at best, until there could be a candidate who could garner broader support to be able to pull all the factions together. Remember, it took a dictator to hold the country together before, so some compromise choice is not going to have the necessary credibility to unite so many different factions.
I don’t think that al-Maliki is incompetent, he is just being asked to do a job that I believe is currently not humanly possible. You have all of these warring factions and all of these personalities who have been exiled from participation in their homeland, all wanting to get a piece of the action. There can be no unified government without some unity. About the only thing the Iraqis are united about is wanting us out of their country. It will take a dynamic and charismatic leader to unite all the Iraqis, the problem is they don’t have time to wait on him to come. This is why liberation must be homegrown and come from within; it builds credibility for the leadership to govern. Mr. al-Maliki has no credibility to govern short of what we give him; he has not won any popular support through commanding battlefield operations. Where does his authority to lead come from? He has no standing in the community at large; he is not a figure to rally around.
To lead a fledgling democracy requires deft political skill and charisma, Mr. al-Maliki does not seem to possess either. In order to get the people to sacrifice their sectarian loyalties for the good of the country, the leader has to be someone that commands the respect of the people or he must be someone the people fear. I do not believe that Mr. al-Maliki is capable of doing the job he has been asked to do, there will be no unified government under his leadership. I believe that he wants to unite his country, but as much as he tries this little engine can’t get over the mountain. We should be considering other options, this government will not stand for long.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/hadley.memo/index.html
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082200323.html?sub=AR
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Jason, Jena, & Justice
I recently read an article by Kansas City Star reporter and rising media star Jason Whitlock concerning the Jena Six. Unless you have been living in a cave in Pakistan, I’m sure you are familiar with the case. For those that aren’t, I have included a couple of links to the story to provide some perspective of both sides Jason Whitlock and Democracy Now.
While I don’t claim to have all the answers to this tragedy and as my website plainly states I believe that there are three sides to every story. I won’t try to resolve the legal aspects of a case that I don’t have all the facts to and I wasn’t a party in. The purpose of this post is to discuss the writer of the article, Jason Whitlock and his seemingly cavalier attitude towards the situation in Jena. Mr. Whitlock has caused quite a bit of controversy in the black community for this and some other articles he has written, critical of Blacks in general and athletes in particular. There are many in the black community who have labeled Mr. Whitlock an Uncle Tom and a house Negro.
I would first like to start with an excerpt from his original article to highlight what I find disturbing about Mr. Whitlock’s attitude toward the six black youngmen from Jena.
On the surface, the story sounds like a horrifying tale of Emmett Till-style justice. At a predominantly white high school in a segregated town (Jena), a black student sat under a shade tree that was traditionally used by white students. The next day three white students hung nooses from the tree, sparking racial tension and a sit-in (under the tree) by black students. The principal attempted to expel the three white students, but the school board overruled the principal and the students were given a suspension, which sparked more racial tension.
Police patrolled the school's hallways. The town's district attorney visited the school for an impromptu assembly, allegedly looked at the black students and said he could end their lives with one stroke of his pen. A little more than three months after the noose incident — and just days after two off-campus fights/heated exchanges involving a black student and white former students — the "Jena Six" punched, beat and stomped a white kid who made fun of a black kid for getting whipped in a Friday-night fight.
The white kid was knocked unconscious. After a three-hour hospital visit, he was released. The town prosecutor initially charged the "Jena Six" with attempted murder. Mychal Bell, the first of the six to stand trial and a Division-I football prospect, was convicted of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy by an all-white, six-person jury, a white judge and a white prosecutor. His public defender did not call a single witness in his defense. Bell could be sentenced to 22 years.
Whew![1]
Mr. Whitlock provides the basic storyline seemingly intact. This is how the MSM has for the most part reported the story, not a lot to be upset about here. It is his next statement that I find so alarming. Mr. Whitlock has essentially stated and acknowledged that there was a racial incident precipitated by the white students with the nooses. He states that the all-white school board reversed the expulsion that the principal had given the three white students. He further states that the six young blackmen were subsequently charged with attempted murder which considering the case was over-charging them. So with all of this being said, here is what Mr. Whitlock had to say about the other culprits in this incident.
Before I go any further, let me state this: The prosecutor should've never charged these boys with attempted murder. The entire school board should be replaced for stopping the noose-hanging kids from being expelled.[2]
That’s it! That is the extent of his outrage. Some people just don’t get it. I am all for personal responsibility and I do not believe that all whites are racist, nor do I believe that the biggest problem facing Black America today is day to day racism. But when you are confronted with such a blatant example of it, it must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. So, Mr. Whitlock is able to muster enough outrage to carve out two sentences towards the whites that began this whole incident.
Here is where I take exception to Mr. Whitlock’s characterization of the case. For the next eight paragraphs he takes the young blackman to task. He proceeds to lay out the case for Mr. Bell, the defendant who could receive 22 years, getting all 22 of those years. Never once does he lay out the past of any of the whites, not the three original clowns that put out the nooses, not the all-white schoolboard, not the white DA, not even the all-white jury. Obviously their histories were not relevant to this case, according to Mr. Whitlock.
Using Mr. Whitlock’s rationale if any rape victim can be proven to have had sex in the past, then she is deserving of the rape she in fact encouraged today. I believe in fair and accurate reporting, but let’s be sure we include all the information that is relevant to both sides. If the history of one side is relevant then the history of the other side should also be relevant. What are the histories of the others Mr. Whitlock, I bet you haven’t been fed that information from your sources.
It’s easy to kick folks when they're down, it is always a lot harder to bend down and give them a hand. Mr. Whitlock complains that the other MSM reporters are providing a lazy version; I submit that he is as well, by providing research of only the history of the accused. Let’s have justice for all, I believe there is enough to go around.
Read more!America Supplying Arms to Kurdish Insurgents In Turkey
WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 — Weapons that were originally given to Iraqi security forces by the American military have been recovered over the past year by the authorities in Turkey after being used in violent crimes in that country, Pentagon officials said Wednesday.
The discovery that serial numbers on pistols and other weapons recovered in Turkey matched those distributed to Iraqi police units has prompted growing concern by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that controls on weapons being provided to Iraqis are inadequate. It was also a factor in the decision to dispatch the department’s inspector general to Iraq next week to investigate the problem, the officials said.[1]
In the echo of the drumbeat to war with Iran, I found this article very interesting. It is a glimpse into the hypocrisy of not only this administration, but all the media outlets that support it and in a larger sense the idea of American supremacy in the world that so many people support. To view the article in and by itself it appears completely harmless, a few lost American weapons show up in Turkey big deal. It’s not like that region isn’t awash with weapons that we have supplied to help arm the Iraqis, so what if some of them happen to end up in Turkey. It’s not like our government is party to supplying these “insurgent groups” with American arms to kill Turkish citizens.
However, according to the logic of the Bush administration, our government must be involved in their distribution. We have serial numbers that tie them to purchases made by the US military for distribution in that region. This of course is the same logic being used to justify the claim that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with arms to kill US forces.
Markings on the EFPs and mortars, as well as the machining processes, identified the weapons as being Iranian made. "The weapons had characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran ... Iran is the only country in the region that produces these weapons," according to the anonymous defense official. "The dates of manufacture on weapons found so far indicate they were made after fall of Saddam Hussein."[2]
So if confiscated weapons can be traced back to the country of origin or to the purchase made by a certain country then that constitutes unequivocal evidence that the “government at the highest levels” is involved in the supplying of arms to the insurgents, case closed. So using this logic, then it only stands to reason that our government at the highest levels is also supplying the Kurdish insurgents with weapons that are killing Turkish military personnel. This of course is not how the story is being played, because see in America our motives are pure as the driven snow. Unlike those filthy Persian heathens who are aligning themselves to attack and kill Americans with WMD’s and of course we don’t want to wait for the mushroom cloud before we act.
The amazing thing to me is that there are not more weapons being touted in front of the media from a host of countries. I would be willing to bet if all the information concerning the origin of arms found in that region were published, you could make a case against Israel and most of Europe. Let’s face it there are more weapons in that region, thanks in large part to our weapons giveaway program, that who and how they are being supplied is a lesson in futility. You could make the case of arming the insurgents against a number of countries, including our own. So, after Iran, do we attack ourselves? We have seen the enemy and you know the rest.
Is Iran using the instability of Iraq for its own policy goals? Of course they are, but let’s remember who created this situation for them to try and exploit. I guess Iran is the only country that ever tried to extend its influence on another country during a chaotic situation, those bastards. The insanity of all of this is that we want other countries to help so long as they do it for our benefit and the way we want them to. If they are not there to serve our interests then the hell with them, Iraqi neighbors you can help stabilize the country so long as you don’t interfere with our agenda. So Syria, Jordan, and Iran we will have a conference, but don’t expect to have any input in the outcome. You are only there as a courtesy, for photo-ops for the American media and public.
For many years while we were supporting Saddam Hussein, the Iranians were supporting the Shiites that are now in power. Is it a far stretch of the imagination that they look to those that provided them support and a refuge from the brutality of the Sunni minority, now that they have achieved majority political status. How foolish it must seem to the Iraqis to hear Washington say “stay away from Iran”, sure we supported the brutal dictator and we encouraged you to rise up against that dictator and left you hanging, but we're here now. Forget the fact that they provided you material support and comfort in your darkest days and that many of your current leaders were exiled to Iran, they are bad. They are supplying arms to insurgents, we are supplying arms to insurgents, everyone is supplying arms to the insurgents. No wonder there is no shortage of materials to kill US service people and Iraqi civilians.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/washington/30contract.html?hp
[2] http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/02/evidence_of_iran_sup.php
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Clowns To The Left, Jokers To The Right
There has been a subtle change going on in Iraq for the last couple of months. The change has been so subtle you may have missed it. In an effort to position itself in the event of a withdrawal from Iraq, this administration has been arming the Sunnis as they are also arming the Shiite government. Why would we be arming the Sunnis you might ask, aren’t they suppose to be the insurgents and Baathists? Yes, they are, but in the event that our current policy fails, it seems like the answer will be to arm all parties and keep Iraq destabilized for any foreseeable future.
How could this strategy benefit the Neo-Cons? The administration is convinced and with good reason that Iran is positioning itself to be a major power broker in Iraq whenever we leave. The thought of having another Shia led country in the region under Iranian influence has the Sunni led countries many of whom are our allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan) a bit nervous.
The strategy appears to work like this; we arm the Saudis and Israel to the teeth and under the guise of arming the loyal tribesmen of Iraq we are arming the local Sunnis. Then of course there are all those missing weapons (190,000), just what a civil war needs is 190,000 unaccounted for weapons. My guess is that the plan is to ensure the Sunnis will be a thorn in the side of any central government until the Neo-Cons can come up with a new strategy or figure out a way to blame the failure on you peace-loving anti-war communists. This is part of the scorched earth fall-back plan, if you can’t win destabilize. Basically you’ll have the Saudis on one side and the Iranians on the other, fighting a proxy war for Iraq on our behalf and with our arms.
How awful it must be when your best strategy is to stoke the fires of sectarianism and arm both sides in a bloody civil war. This of course would prevent al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations and at the same time prevent the Iranians from setting up a client state. Throw into this mix the Kurdish rebels in the north attacking the Turks and you have the recipe for a successful conclusion to the invasion of Iraq. We are going to once again find ourselves in the middle of two warring factions playing both sides against the middle and pretending to be an objective arbitrator.
Now, there is even talk of bringing the ex-Prime Minister Allawi back for a second tour. Mr. Allawi an ex-Baathist and a secular Shia would play the role of strongman to offset the sectarian influence of the current government. The administration is becoming frustrated with the lack of progress of the current government, with many believing that PM al Maliki is too weak and too sectarian to resolve the current stalemate. With the surge in full effect the talk of political breathing room for this current Iraqi government is losing steam. PM al Maliki has made it clear recently in the press that he does not feel bound by any American benchmarks and is attempting to exert some independence from what is perceived as American pressure. Just how long the PM can holdout is up for debate, with defections from his coalition government occurring almost weekly he will be hard pressed to produce enough of a majority to appoint dog catchers in Baghdad let alone attack the issues that are currently dividing the country and fueling the insurgency.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the success or lack of success of the surge and what the ramifications will be in September. One’s position on the surge will of course depend on what that person’s goal happens to be. From a military standpoint the surge has managed to curb some of the violence in Baghdad, but this has only caused the violence to move. It should come as no surprise that increasing the troops would increase the security. I remember at the beginning of this fiasco a certain General Shinseki who stated the following:
Shinseki, who commanded the NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia, testified in Congress in February 2003 that peacekeeping operations in Iraq could require several hundred thousand troops, in part because it was a country with "the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."[1]
So, it was known from the beginning that an increase in troop presence would increase security, but what was the reason for the surge? A military victory was not and is not the purpose of the surge. The surge was to provide cover for the current Iraqi regime to unite behind reconciliation for the entire country. Well, this has been a disaster to all no matter what side of the issue they are on. So how anybody can come in September and claim success will be a mystery to me.
At the current time all we are is a buffer for all sides. We are giving all the players a chance to train and arm themselves for the upcoming battle for Iraq. We are the arms dealer and training facilitator for the Sunnis, Kurds, and the Shiites. Currently, we are showing loyalty to no one beyond our own failed policy. It is no longer about accomplishing the possible; it is about supporting the foolish. We have no one we can trust on any side and we are stuck in the middle of a further escalating crisis.
Read more!
Stumble It!