America's current anti-war movement is resourceful and persistent, but often seems to lack the vibrancy of its counterpart in the Vietnam era when protesters burned draft cards, occupied buildings and even tried to levitate the Pentagon. Refresh my memory. Did they succeed?
The biggest difference, say activists and historians, is the lack of a draft. Today's college-age youth face no threat of conscription to fight in Iraq, and campuses are more tranquil than during Vietnam. Comparing the two movements, Frida Berrigan suggested today's protesters perhaps have a broader sense of compassion and global awareness. We're relevant. Really!
"A lot of the opposition to Vietnam was motivated by people's fear of going to war maybe it was pretty self-centered," she said. "With this movement, maybe it's not as big, but it comes from a deeper place than 'Hell No, We Won't Go.'" Those damn me-me-me baby boomers! What struck me about this article was the lengths they had to go to justify the movement and how they claim to be even more anti-war than those Vietnam era wankers.
#1
Unlike Vietnam, the Internet is going to allow the opposition to these bastards to be mobilized and ready for them. If they want trouble, they'll get it, and from people far more capable of dishing it out than they are. They were cowards then and they're cowards now.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/21/2007 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It is precisely a greater "global awareness" - made possible in large part by the internet - that means so many Americans support fighting the Long War.
#6
Now campuses are quieter, and some liberal baby-boomer professors grumble that students are too detached. But 24-year-old Miranda Wilson, national campus coordinator for Peace Action, says such stereotyping is wrong and contends there is broad, though often low-key, opposition to the war.
"During Vietnam, people were questioning the government itself it got a lot more coverage," she said. "What's happening now isn't so dramatically visible from the outside."
Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who returned from Vietnam combat duty to join the anti-war movement, said the lack of a draft "has greatly affected the level of activism and the intensity" of today's protest campaign.
"Right now, it's not changing a lot of minds," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday. But the anti-war movement is "putting some pressure on people as they run for public office. It will help change the makeup of Congress it already has."
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/21/2007 17:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Now campuses are quieter, and some liberal baby-boomer professors grumble that students are too detached. But 24-year-old Miranda Wilson, national campus coordinator for Peace Action, says such stereotyping is wrong and contends there is broad, though often low-key, opposition to the war.
"During Vietnam, people were questioning the government itself it got a lot more coverage," she said. "What's happening now isn't so dramatically visible from the outside."
Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who returned from Vietnam combat duty to join the anti-war movement, said the lack of a draft "has greatly affected the level of activism and the intensity" of today's protest campaign.
"Right now, it's not changing a lot of minds," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday. But the anti-war movement is "putting some pressure on people as they run for public office. It will help change the makeup of Congress it already has."
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/21/2007 17:30 Comments ||
Top||
by Peter Wehner, Real Clear Politics (republished by The Wall Street Journal)
Last Thursday, by a vote of 50-48, the Senate rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in early 2008. The House Appropriations Committee, meanwhile, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The full House is expected to vote on that legislation later this week. In the words of the New York Times, "The action in both houses threw into sharp relief the Democratic strategy of ratcheting up the pressure, vote by vote, to try to force the White House to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq."
Given these unfolding events, it is worth taking a step back and holding up to scrutiny the effort by Democrats. What follows is a detailed analysis of just what's wrong with the Dem strategery. Hit the link and go read it all.
The conclusion is good, too:
Many Democrats believe an American defeat in Iraq is etched in granite. They would not be the first to lose heart and will in war. Yet it is one thing to give up on a cause; it is quite another to advocate legislation (17 different proposals in all, according to Sen. Mitch McConnell) that would guarantee failure even before a new strategy is given time to work. This is especially the case when the preliminary trajectory of events is encouraging.
There will continue to be ebbs and flows in this war, as in all wars. But virtually everyone agrees that a loss in Iraq would be catastrophic for American national interests. We are facing among the most sadistic enemies we have ever encountered. There is much we do not understand about them and their worldview--but one thing is clear: They probe for weakness; they interpret retreat as a supreme sign of weakness; and when they find weakness, they strike.
If we retreat from Iraq, Islamic jihadists will not go gently into the good night.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/21/2007 06:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Democrat=Criminal=Traitor.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/21/2007 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
March 20, 2007 -- 'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added.
Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go."
What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen."
More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough."
In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess.
And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it."
A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it's back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects.
The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.)
Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad's Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic."
"We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold."
Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. "We initiated Operation Safe Markets," Petraeus said, "and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets." Car bombings have dropped precipitately - the limited access thwarts them.
As a result, "The marketplaces, including the book market that was targeted for an especially vicious attack, are rebuilding and doing great business. It is helping the local economy enormously to have this kind of protection in place." With jobs plentiful and demand growing, the appeal of militia armies declines proportionally.
Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people - "acting like a politician," Petraeus said, without malice. "He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots."
Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy.
"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue."
Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate."
Virtually everyone who knows him says that David Petraeus is one of the brightest, most capable officers in today's Army. "He is the perfect person for the job," retired Major Gen. Paul Vallely noted.
Early signs are positive; early indicators say that we're winning. As Petraeus cautiously concluded, "We'll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer." That's his job. Our job? We need to give him the time and space needed to win this war.
Gordon Cucullu is a retired U.S. Army officer and a member of Benador Associates. His book on Guantanamo is due out this fall.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/21/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down.
#3
Changing the ROE and having it be consistent is HUGE.
So is getting out in the bush (or the streets in the case of Baghdad and Ramadi, etc) and styaing there. If you keep going back to the rear with the gear, then the opponent will figure it out and so will the people: you leave and they pay the price. You stay, and they might start trusting you.
Ship: God's honest truth for that - some dumbass Colonels and LTC's had their own rules and were hamstringing their troops. Mostly frikken control freak "blanket folders", not combat arms men. More Courtney Massengale than Sam Damon. Now that the general has taken those assholes out of the loop, things will get done.
And if any of you readers dont know those names, go to the library and get "Once an Eagle" and read it. Every senior NCO and officer that are worth a damn have read it and takenthe lessons there to heart.
#7
Id say something, but its like two, maybe three innnings in, and the other side aint gotten on base yet, and like any baseball fan knows, you dont call attention to that yet. You just look around, and, wonder, and hope.
#8
The reason the "surge" is working is that the enemy is hunkering down and waiting for the surge to recede. These troops are just staying in the neighborhood for the duration of the surge. When the surge is over, they'll go back to their bases and the terrorism will start all over again.
#9
Naw, this is time for a high hard one right under the chin.
Posted by: Bob Gibson (stay the fuck away from the plate asshole) ||
03/21/2007 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Gromky, if the people are coming forward with tips much more frequently, then any enemy who is hunkered down will eventually get a knock at his door and a search of the grounds for IED parts.
I agree that al Q will go underground, but tips will clean up many neighborhoods at the same time.
The key is whether peaceful Iraqis will continue to control the streets long after the surge is finished. That is assuming there are peaceful Iraqis.
#11
A big part of the key is money. With stability comes rebuilding and rebuilding means jobs and money for lots of people. When people have these things the alure of planting IED's and other mayhem diminishes. When people have these things for a while and get used to them then they are a lot more pissed off when some islamic nut job pulls a stunt that takes their financial security off track. If the power stays on and the water starts to flow and the streets get paved, the hospitals built, etc, etc and the workers are paid to do all of these things then AlQ is screwed.
Go General Patraeus!
NY Review of Books
On Israel, America and AIPAC By George Soros
The Bush administration is once again in the process of committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East, one that is liable to have disastrous consequences and is not receiving the attention it should. This time it concerns the IsraeliPalestinian relationship. The Bush administration is actively supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the US State Department considers a terrorist organization. This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East. Note the use of "liable" instead of "likely." That type of language is 2nd grade ebonics. "Liability" is a legal term that refers to the compensatory consequences of culpability. NYRB pinkos should proofread their deranged ideology.
The United States and Israel seek to deal only with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, in the hope that new elections would deny Hamas the majority it now has in the Palestinian Legislative Council. This is a hopeless strategy because Hamas has said it would boycott early elections, and even if their outcome would result in Hamas's exclusion from the government, no peace agreement would hold without Hamas's support.
In the meantime Saudi Arabia is pursuing a different path. In a February summit in Mecca between Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, the Saudi government worked out an agreement between Hamas and Fatah, which have been clashing violently, to form a national unity government. According to the Mecca accord, Hamas has agreed "to respect international resolutions and the agreements [with Israel] signed by the Palestinian Liberation Organization," including the Oslo Accords. According to press reports on March 15, the new government, like the present one, will be headed by Ismail Haniya, the Hamas prime minister, but Hamas will get nine of the government's twenty-four ministries, as well as an additional minister without portfolio; President Abbas and his Fatah party will control six ministries, and independent representativessome said to be under the control of Hamas or Fatahand other political factions will fill the nine remaining ministries. They want unity, so that they can focus on attempting to destroy Israel.
The Saudi government views this accord as the prelude to the offer of a peace settlement with Israel, along the lines of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, a settlement to be guaranteed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, based on the 1967 borders and full recognition of Israel. The offer was meant to be elaborated by Saudi King Abdullah at the Arab League meeting to be hosted by Saudi Arabia at the end of March. But no progress is possible as long as the Bush administration and the Ehud Olmert government persist in their current position of refusing to recognize a unity government that includes Hamas. The recent meeting between Condoleezza Rice, Abbas, and Olmert turned into an empty formality... Any member of the parasitic House of Saud, is a born terrorist.
Why doesn't the United States have a mechanism in place by those who become naturalized citizens are reexamined as to their actions in regard to the beliefs they espoused to become citizens in the first place?
If the sum of your actions since being granted citizenship are to subvert the constitution and government of the United States there should be a way to revoke that citizenship and expel the offender.
Disgusting.
Posted by: DanNY ||
03/21/2007 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Someone needs to have a look at the early life of Soros.
#6
1. The Hamas position, of refusing to accept the quartet position, combined with the Saudi initiative in its current form, would start negotiations on a very unfavorable basis for Israel.
2. Interesting that Soros thinks no negotiation can stick that Hamas opposes, but doesnt seem to hold the same view vis a vis, say, Likud. Ultimately if Fatah makes peace, and Hamas THEN attempts to undermine Fatah, it will be up to the international community to back up Fatah.
3. Its not surprising that Soros is taking this position. The question will be, how much does this make him untouchable in Dem politics?
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 21, 2007
WASHINGTON Leading Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, are distancing themselves from an essay published this week by one of their party's leading financiers that called for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.
The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign issued a dissent from the Hungarian-born billionaire's assessment. " Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view."
The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes, and the pro- Israel lobby, whose members are also active in campaign fund-raising. Pressed by The New York Sun, some Democrats aired their differences with Mr. Soros.
Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat of Florida who sent out an e-mail to Jewish supporters in his home state last week vouching for Mr. Obama's pro- Israel bona fides, said he too rejected Mr. Soros's comments. " Senator Obama says until the Palestinian government fulfills all three of the quartet requirements, the United States should not and would not recognize the Palestinian government. Senator Obama is clear, Mr. Soros appears to have a different position," Mr. Wexler said. "I agree with Senator Obama and have felt that way for a long time."
#17
The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Garsh, wouldn't that be caving in to the demands of those who wish to restart the Holocaust? Doesn't that violate a host of moral and ethical tenets all at once? Shouldn't Soros just go and piss the hell off?
#18
It looks like Mr. Soros is starting to force a real separation between himself and any Democratic candidate with real intentions of winning the presidency. About bloody time.
By: William Harris
Almost unnoticed by the global media, a crucial turning point has arrived in the U.N investigation into the murder of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, in February 2005. It is also a turning point for the credibility of the international community.
A report by the chief of the investigation, Belgian Serge Brammertz, presented to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on March 15, establishes that the specific motives for the assassination were strictly political. They involved reactions to U.N. Security Council resolution 1559, which demanded Syrias withdrawal from Lebanon; Hariris opposition to the Syrian-driven extension of the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud; and Hariris bid to end pro-Syrian domination of the Lebanese regime in the May 2005 Lebanese parliamentary elections.
Last week Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) admitted to having been responsible for planning no fewer than 28 acts of terrorism, including the horrific September 11 attacks, from "A to Z." The sensational confession, made during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, raises a number of serious questions--most pointedly about the decision of the 9/11 Commission to rely on the CIA for information about this terrorist leader, who was captured in 2003.
Although the 9/11 Commission identified KSM as a key witness in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, it never was allowed to question him or his CIA interrogators. Instead, the staff received briefings from a CIA "project manager"--who was himself briefed by other CIA case officers on what KSM had putatively revealed during his interrogation. As the 9/11 Commission chairmen noted, this was "third-hand" information; but it allowed the CIA to fill in critical gaps in the commission's investigation. Now KSM's claims throw this reliance on the CIA into question.
Consider the Feb. 26, 1993, attack on the north tower of the World Trade Center. A 1,500-pound truck bomb was exploded by Islamist terrorists, intending to topple the building. Over 1,000 people were injured, and eventually five of the perpetrators, including the bomb-builder, Ramzi Yousef, were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Yousef is a relative of KSM, and was involved with him in a subsequent plot to blow up U.S. airliners. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission concluded that KSM had played at most a "cameo role" in the 1993 attack, limited to providing Yousef with $600 and having a few phone conversations with him. And it based this conclusion largely on the CIA briefings of what KSM had said during his interrogation.
According to the CIA, for example, KSM had maintained that "Yousef never divulged to him the target of the attack." The 1993 WTC bombing, therefore, appeared unrelated to the 9/11 attack--and so the 9/11 Commission had no need to investigate it, or the conspirators involved in it.
In his confession, however, KSM says that he was responsible for the WTC bombing. If so, both it and 9/11 are the work of the same mastermind--and the planning, financing and support network that KSM used in the 1993 attack may be relevant to the 9/11 attack. Of especial interest are the escape routes used by Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef, both of whom helped prepare the bomb and then fled America.
Yasin (who is not even mentioned in the 9/11 report) came to the U.S. from Iraq in 1992, at about the same time as Yousef, and then returned to Iraq via Jordan. Despite being indicted for the World Trade Center bombing, and put on the FBI's list of the most-wanted terrorist fugitives with a $5 million price on his head (increased to $25 million after 9/11), Iraqi authorities allowed Yasin to remain in Baghdad for 10 years. (In 2003, after the U.S. invasion, he disappeared.)
His co-conspirator Yousef, who entered the U.S. under an alias on an Iraqi passport (switching passports to his Pakistani identity), escaped after the 1993 WTC bombing to Pakistan, where, after being involved in another bombing plot with KSM, he was arrested and is currently in a U.S. prison. But if indeed KSM had been behind the 1993 bombing--and the 9/11 Commission had not been told the opposite by the CIA--the question of what support KSM had in recruiting the conspirators and organizing the escape routes of the bomb makers would have become a far more pressing investigative issue for the commission.
Of course, KSM's credibility is a very big "if." He might have lied in his confession about his role in the 1993 WTC bombing; he might have lied to his CIA captors (which itself would say something about the effectiveness of their aggressive interrogation); or, in selecting bits and pieces out of their full context, the CIA project officer may have accidentally mis-briefed the 9/11 Commission staff.
But at the root of the problem is the failure of the commission itself to question KSM. This was not for lack of trying. The commission chairmen fully recognized the need to gain access to the author of 9/11, and took note that their staff was becoming "frustrated" at their inability to get information from KSM and other detainees. On Dec. 22, 2003--with less than seven months remaining before they had to deliver their report--they brought the problem up with George Tenet, then CIA director. He told them, point blank, "You are not going to get access to these detainees."
The commission considered using its subpoena power, but was advised by its general counsel that since KSM was being held in a secret prison on foreign soil, it was unlikely that any court would enforce a subpoena. The commission also decided against taking the issue public, believing it could not win in a battle with the administration, at least in the time it had left. So, lacking any viable alternatives, it allowed the CIA to control the information it needed from KSM and other detainees.
The result is that basic issues concerning KSM's interrogation--and the dozens of crucial citations in the 9/11 Report--are now in such doubt that 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey suggested last Sunday, in his Daily News column, that KSM be put on trial in New York, where presumably he could be properly cross-examined. While that remedy may be far-fetched, some resolution of this investigative failure is necessary.
#1
Does KSM confession show links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam? The sensational confession, made during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, raises a number of serious questions--most pointedly about the decision of the 9/11 Commission to rely on the CIA for information about this terrorist leader, who was captured in 2003.
Besides investigative reports of Iraqi refugees seen with McVeigh, I've also read the OK City bombers traveled to the Philippines to learn bomb making from Ramzi Youssef, also calling a front business there on at least two prior occasions. The FBI also had to accept CIA assessments that denied any ME connection to OK City. I've had serious questions for some time why anyone, especially our own agency, would deliberately ignore any possible tangent regarding pre-war intelligence.
#2
She has been turning the written threats of violence, rape and murder over to the campus police. Why does her lawyer not recommend she turn them over to the city police? All to often campus police are required to act as nothing more than security guards walking girls and drunks home, not real police who investigate and make prosecutable arrests.
#3
And if these leftists were in charge of this country she would have been forced into a reeducation camp, expelled from school or simply disappeared.
#6
This really is an outrage. The young woman has every right to pursue her beliefs and every right to safety on the campus. It's time for this issue to become sufficiently public to cause Georgia Tech the embarrassment it deserves.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/21/2007 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
the Georgia Legislature and Governor need to take action. Turn the evidence over to the AG. The school President needs to find other employment
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/21/2007 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
America's current anti-war movement is resourceful and persistent, but often seems to lack the vibrancy of its counterpart in the Vietnam era when protesters burned draft cards, occupied buildings and even tried to levitate the Pentagon.
NY Review of Books
