Robin Reports From In The Thick Of It

At This Point The Deadline In Iraq Is Pure Negligence

Are we seriously realizing our risk at home if we pull our troops out of Iraq in the midst of a civil war? I have read about the record numbers of American troops killed in Iraq this month.  How can this number not be disturbing?  The fighting that is going on there is painful to hear, painful to read about.   The common belief among the public is that we should pull out of Iraq now, and this was a disasterous mistake. What are we doing there, are we just costing us more tax dollars and having more of our military people dying?  With all this criticism and resentment building, President Bush still takes the heat with the Democrats striking hard, and even some Republicans joining in, but he holds the line in staying the course with stabilizing Iraq.  He vetoes Iraq Withdrawal Legislation, with congress putting up a strong fight demanding troop removal. A friend sent me an article today, knowing my stance and interest in American troops being in Iraq today.  We the public, here at home, are not in Iraq fighting this war.  How are we to know how to fight this war or for how long?  Sometimes having a little knowledge is dangerous, we think we know better, when we don't. Little do we realize how much we are still speaking out of ignorance. Kudos to Senator Joe Lieberman for sharing with Congress and President Bush what is really going on in Iraq and why we need to be there without a random deadline. Given this is not what the majority of Democrats are preaching right now,  you have to give the guy credit for speaking from his conscience and not just by his party line. (On a personal note, I have voiced before and will voice again, I do not vote by party alone).

 

[Image Removed] Special to The Daily Standard
Senator Joe Lieberman's Senate floor speech on Iraq.
04/26/2007 12:00:00 AM



Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today addressed the Iraq withdrawal
provision in the supplemental appropriations bill on the floor of the
U.S. Senate.

  Below is the full text of Senator Lieberman's speech, as prepared for
delivery:

  "Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating
today contains language that would have Congress take control of the
direction of our military strategy in Iraq.

  Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow
Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do
this--why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a
viable alternative strategy for Iraq.

  I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has
offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up
in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in
depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.

  In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps
that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said,
is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war--to
training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces,
and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."

  I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this
plan.

  When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that
their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions,
what does this actually mean?

  To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect
the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to
terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which
General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any
counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be
ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian
violence happening all around them--no matter how vicious or horrific
it becomes.

  In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously
turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the
slaughter of innocent civilians--men, women, and children singled out
and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our
backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in
Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to
call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

  Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they
intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are
trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope
of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their
best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected
government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the
heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

  That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year.
And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al
Qaeda in Baghdad now.

I have hated the idea of a deadline at this point all along.  I am glad to hear someone with a great mind is able to aptly explain the dangers involved in setting such an arbitrary date at this time.

  The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order
American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same
sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The
suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping
terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of
this reality.

  I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is
trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

  The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will
still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his
plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other
words, we can still go after the bad guys.

  But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military
reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not
gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional
formations?

  By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know
where, when, and against whom to strike--and that in turn requires
accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

  This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary
Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in
turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal,
daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining
their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them
safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them.
This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that
General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

  And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority
Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's
neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be
"interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort
friend from foe."

  Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are
U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom
to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi
population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted
counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the
very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

  This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of
life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can
fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing
battlefield.

  In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops
from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no
hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not
worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as
possible.

There is another irony here as well.

  For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the
United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather
than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the
focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces,
protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids--in
other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the
legislation before us.

  That strategy failed--and we know why it failed. It failed because we
didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an
opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this
security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of
fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became
impossible.

  For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about
this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and--for that
matter--a new secretary of defense.

  And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around--just as he has
recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to
focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of
defense and a new commander in Iraq--now his critics in Congress have
changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so
bad after all.

  What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we
criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

  The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on
Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October
1, 2007."

  Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would
impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from
Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the
ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short
regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

  As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have
attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date--what strategic or
military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1?
This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible--a deadline for defeat.

  How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid
gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts
"pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political
compromises."

  But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the
withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

  How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you
any incentive to make the right choices?

  On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively
directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite
effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

  This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence
Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months
ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase
in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni
resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."

  Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and
again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which
gives fuel to the insurgency."

  My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the
insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops.
By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will
diminish.

  But I ask my colleagues--where is the evidence to support this theory?
Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were
ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and
regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And
what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops
left? Did the insurgency go away?

  On the contrary--in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled
back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they
became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

  So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have
you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency,
when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this
legislation will strengthen it?

  Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni
tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side
against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked
last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal
opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said,
"if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and
the area will fall into total chaos."

  This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his
life every day to work with us--a man who was described by one Army
officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the
coalition has worked with in Anbar [since] 2003."

  In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that
there is "a large and growing population of millions--who sit
precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to
terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of
America and Americans. We must win them over."

  On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to
him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how
does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this
population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?

  What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in
Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer
make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads?
How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our
forces--regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months
towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better
life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition
for the security and stability they yearn for?

  Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis,
and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in
this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for
withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's
reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more
hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?



Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

  The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible,
measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."

  I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among
the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi
government.

  But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or
any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon
them--regardless of how they behave.

  We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation
in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis,
Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.

  But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot
rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will
simply vanish.

  Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad
because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim
in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

  It wants to blow up the table--along with everyone seated at it. Al
Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will
not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and
defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no
redeployment from this reality.

  The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a
"diplomatic, economic, and political offensive starting with a regional
conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the
region."

  I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of
the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American
people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and
easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

  But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We
delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and
suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al
Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly
settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or
that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop
destabilizing Iraq.

  Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress
we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are
still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of
the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in
Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months
before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

  In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of
success--but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

  The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no
such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than
military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we
have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

  Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost--but
if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope
for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at
home.

I yield the floor."

The Danger Of What Our Children Are Exposed To

I am deeply saddened by the tragic shooting of over 40 people at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg VA.  Not only am I saddened and angered, I am deeply disturbed. I am sure I am not alone in this.  I have read in depth on the massacre and  what the student, Cho Seung-Hui wrote as to why he took on such a grizzly act. He was seriously mentally ill and obviously a threat to society for a few years now.  There are two major concerns that stand out for me.  One-why was the school or the police, after being notified of the disturbing behavior he was demonstrating, not able to have better control over this person and the people he was associated with? Should a private investigator, or monitor of some sort been assigned to keep an eye on him? The other concern, a serious concern, is where did all this anger- rage originate? 

The only way to put an end to tragedies like this from occurring is to have an educated understanding on what events lead a person in becoming so angry that he takes on killing so many people including himself. We need to have preventative measures taking place in society to lessen the chances of people taking on mass murders for revenge. It will have to be implemented in the schools, starting in grade school. In one study, I read that they have found a high correlation with high school shooters being kids with a history of being teased and picked on. We are forced to study the life of this killer prior to this disastrous event. Too easy to say he was just a sick man and not look further. However, if we only look to blame him and call him emotionally disturbed, and do not dig further for the responsibility society plays into it, we will see more and more of these events occurring in the future.  And tragically so, the amount being killed in these scenarios is becoming greater.

Bullying is abuse!.  I was not surprised in the least to see there were suggestions in his writing of being picked on and bullied. How haunting were his words, "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience," he goes on to say, "You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing, Thanks to you I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." We may call him sick and deranged, and choose to play down those words.  What I hear is someone who felt trampled on. I saw no hope of ever being accepted. He was someone who over time has been seriously wounded and wanted to hurt back.  I hope there is a full investigation into his childhood and what significant events took place or what seemed insignificant and how it truly ended up creating a young adult- out to retaliate against all his aggressors.

The most recent report on how Cho was bullied came out in an article on AOL today:

Classmates in Virginia , where Cho grew up, said he was teased and picked on, apparently because of shyness and his strange, mumbly way of speaking.

Once, in English class at Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., when the teacher had the students read aloud, Cho looked down when it was his turn, said Chris Davids, a Virginia Tech senior and high school classmate. After the teacher threatened him with an F for participation, Cho began reading in a strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.

"The whole class started laughing and pointing and saying, `Go back to China,"' Davids said.

This is a sad event for us all on a universal level.  He is a statistic in society now, an ugly statistic. We have failed him and his victims. He is one who felt he had to harm others in revenge and then take his own life to send a strong message to we the living. There has been controversey as to weather airing it on TV is appropriate.  I think with responsible reporting we can learn from this.  How can we in society make changes and take on preventive measures so children do not evolve into angry, hostile and vengeful adults? Where were the teachers and the administration to support Cho through hard times through grade school and then high school?  Why was teasing and bullying tolerated?  Why was there no one to teach him coping mechanisms to handle such difficult situations?  Why did the bullies not  have serious consequences for their actions? Lastly, we need to figure out how to stop copy cat crimes.  Where it becomes trendy to follow what other offenders have done. We need to stop the vicious cycle of mass killings of students.

One of my children had been bullied in middle school.  One incident was, a group of boys took on spitting on my seventh grader's food at lunch during school, resulting in their being punished.  What followed was other boys, friends of the perpetrators, pushing my kid into lockers in the hallways between classes retaliating for the boys being punished.  I remember the pain my child felt, the anger-humilation. After the incident, he did not want to go to school and would yell at me saying so. He said he hated school.  I spoke with the administrators of the school.  They were having issues with boys in the class and how newcomers to the school were having difficulty fitting in and being accepted.  They explained how this year specifically they were having problems with the boys in the class. The good thing was how serious the school took it on, making sure my child could be comfortable in the school once again. They talked with all the parents and all the instigators and serious consequences resulted.  They hooked my child up with other kids during lunchtime.  They brought in specialists to work on handling the bullying that was going on. With all the crisis management the school took on, I think for my child he still has a sensitivity to being teased years later.

The wounds from such bullying go deep. I removed my child from the class he was in and put him in another school, where he is accepted, having fun with others and thriving.  But I will never forget the emotional damage and the duration it took to heal from his  middle school bullies. He would share how they all laughed at him as they were hurting him, crying as he shared the tale. Bullying in school needs to be monitored and controlled.  Right now I have a friend dealing with the same kind of issue with her son in sixth grade, I see the pain in her face as she shares how  a child has threatened her son and picked on him. She is keeping a close eye on the day to day events he experiences. Sadly, the school denies anything she has said about what has happened with him. And yet her child fears going into certain classes each and every day. I believe the school is doing themselves a disservice and the children that attend the school. At the very least their response should be, we have not seen it as of yet, we want all our children to feel safe and welcome here.  We will take a serious look at what happens during these classes and how your child is being treated. How difficult would that be?

Is it that these killers are kids that tried for years to be accepted and were only teased and bullied? Their sadness and frustration evolves into anger and resentment.  No longer able to get positive attention they seek negative attention.  Which would explain the gory plays Cho wrote, or how he would take pictures of girls legs etc. making classmates uncomfortable.  His resentment festered into evil thoughts on how to retaliate and eventually did.

The family has finally spoken.  His sister pointed out how they were a peaceful loving family, she further went on to say how Cho was quiet and reserved yet struggled to fit in.

For further understanding on the tragedies that come with being bullied or being the bully, check out this unfortunate but true story in paper back, Bully: Does Anyone Deserve To Die? A True Story of High School Revenge, by Jim Schutze. Possibly schools should have required reading on the topic.

Children are a product of their genes and then in society with what they are exposed to. Seriously, though, how many babies or toddlers for that matter do you look at and feel deeply concerned they may kill 30 or so people in anger with a gun in years to come? How about when they are five for that matter? You know, the age we say, basically who they are is pretty much determined by then. I have never.  I believe come the school years, what children are exposed to plays a major role in how they behave later in life.  We let our children into society for the majority of their day starting at 6 years old.  They are home but a few hours with their parents.  We therefore lose a lot of control over what events happen during their day and the effects they have. It is not only during school, but after school.  They are exposed to music and movies and TV that as far as I am concerned have totally inappropriate material for their impressionable minds to be exposed to. If they are not exposed in their own home they will be exposed in a friends home.

At what point will we as a society step in and refuse certain material to be watched , heard or seen by our children of all ages? We complain of how sexually active our children are being at younger and younger ages.  We get angered by the violence they express towards their peers in words or actions.  This is a reflection of what they have been exposed to coming out in their acts. We need to limit the graphic material our children are exposed to.  It starts at home, but  that is not enough.  There is power in numbers.  We need to gather together and shut down the sites that expose our children to inappropriate material that leads them on a bad path toward destruction to themselves or others. I am talking about sites on the computer, on TV on the radio. Right now I have to go into a school and notify them I am disturbed by the sexually explicit music that is being played during middle school sporting events. What kind of example are we setting allowing such music to shout from the school speakers? 

How many disturbing events will take place before we recognize the need to band together for the sake of all and make sure we better control what our children see, hear, or experience?  With the freedoms we are allowed in society-we are therefore also given the responsibility to monitor on our own what we will tolerate and what we will not. We need to notify the schools when we see something inappropriate taking place. Shut down the channels on the TV or the sites on the computer that contain inappropriate material. If we refuse to watch this stuff the shows will be taken off the air given there is no audience. We have power. We need to take action-every little bit counts!  Does it anger you to hear how the actions of Cho, who killed all these students, emulated people in movies?  Cho had a photo of himself that he sent to NBC where he held a hammer, he posed like the guy in a South Korean Film, "Old Boy".  How often do we see our kids act out actions they see on film after the viewing?  What they are exposed to is impressed on their minds. The more they are exposed to certain behaviors the more it appears natural to them. 

This is an awful way to have to learn  lessons, but shameful if we don't. We need to recognize the problem  early on, during grade school years. Early intervention can save many lives.  Coping mechanisms need to be taught to those who have been mistreated.  A zero tolerance policy  need to be enforced against any abuse in the classroom or any other organized setting. Lastly, for those who walk around angry and depressed, we need to be able to identify them and get them help before it is too late for them and anyone else around them.  God help us all.

My heart goes out to all the victims and their loved ones.  The pain will be felt for years to come.

In Spite of the Nay Sayers, We Are Showing Progress in Iraq

Recently, I wrote a blog about the public smearing the President's name and proclaiming the war in Iraq as a mistake, check out my blog, The War In Iraq.  I have had people write me about this blog in agreement with my feelings.  This came as somewhat of a surprise, as the people who are agreeable with what Bush and his administration are doing in Iraq seem few and far between.  I was fortunate to have one reader send to me an article written in The Washington Post, Turning the Corner in Iraq:Democrats are Ignoring Real Progress.

This article put a smile on my face.  As I shared with my readers earlier, the people serving over there that I have spoken to want to go back, and have.  They have reported they are making a difference over there in many ways, training the army, providing security so the new government can function, and more.  And for our future security, we need to make sure the new government can function under stabile conditions before they leave. Given I have not been there myself, I have felt it necessary to give weight to what they share as they are living it.  I only know what I know from the news. 

Once again, Iam left disenchanted with our established system for elections and our short terms for elected officials. The four year term for President does not seem long enough for me.  There is always the year before elections that seems so unnatural.  It seems we always are faced with power struggles between the Democrats and the Republicans, that the needs of our people as a whole becomes secondary.  There is all this propaganda that is being sold to the public.  There is a hold back on doing necessary things due to how it may effect the future vote. There is the lame-duck congress.  I get so aggravated by this whole scenario until one of my friends eventually points out to me the reality that America is still the best country to live in on this planet, even with all our idiosyncrasies.  This is true.

I have felt there has been posturing going on between the parties using the war and the issues of Iraq as a way to gain more influence over the public for the coming election. A lot of pessimism has been sold to the public: that we are in another Vietnam,  that this is all about oil, that we make money selling guns and machines to terrorists to fight the war so we continue on.  I can go on and on. It is easy to buy in on these statements, if we are not fully informed on all the actions going on in Iraq.  This is why, having the article written by Charles Krauthammer gives me a feeling of vindication.  I really do hope we make a difference over there, a profound difference.  The people living under "Sadman Insane" were living a meager existence and in fear of being iniolated for the most absurd of reasons.  They are due a descent living. The problem is it will take time.  Our patience is running out. We have to be careful.  Do leave before the job is finished due to our impatience, may cause for a serious regression in stability over there and therefore hurt the Iraqi people far worse.  We need to finish the job we started.

I still have many ask, why are we the ones that have to go in, why is it always America? For me this is not so difficult to understand.  We have so much, we are one of the bigger guys.  The bigger guys should look out for the little guys.  We were raised with this understanding since we were youths. We also have so much in America , it is easy to be envious of us. If we are not out to make a difference to help those suffering, foreigners may want to take us down. Envy is the root of all evil. 

We are making progress. Our boys (and girls) will be out, eventually. Hopefully, in years to come, we will be proud of what we accomplished in Iraq.  I know how Bush is taking a lot of heat today. It will take years before we get an accurate read on how well we did in taking out a grizzly dictator prone to cleansing campaigns that killed tens of thousands and then rebuilding a government that was safer for the people- where people did not have to live in fear and could openly speak their minds. 

Bashing The President, Killing Our Soldiers

President Bush is being totally bashed now by more and more of the populace. It has become the "In Thing" to bash him. I just read in a news article he has had a very low approval rating for the last three months, less than 40%.  I fear for our country when we publicly bash our leaders.  I also fear for the soldiers fighting for us in Iraq as well.  Our negativism toward our president only fuels the terrorists hatred, and feelings of entitlement to keep sending suicide bombers and making attacks, as Iraq tries to get back on it's feet once again.

People die in war. It is a fact, a miserable one.   We have lived, for the most part, quite comfortable.  The majority of the population has not had to deal with a war like this ever in their lives. Even Vietnam was decades ago. We can thank those who fought for our stability and security that are no longer with us. We only need to read history books to find out how many fought for the comfortable lives we have had for so long. When we  started the war in Iraq, most of America was for it, Democrat and Republican alike.  911 woke us up to the fact we are not invincible. We wanted to fight back. I don't think any of us were prepared for the fact, taking out their leader, a grizzly dictator, Saddam Hussein, and trying to build a new government was going to take so many lives of our soldiers.  And, that getting Iraq to stabilize in the aftermath would take years.

I think leaders make unpopular decisions at times. President Bush has had to go through some hard times and has been put in the difficult position of making tough decisions. I am one of the few that respect what Bush is doing.  He is working on rebuilding Iraq. Given we started this deal, I think it would be inhumane to leave before Iraq is stable enough to go it alone.  Rebuilding Iraq will take time.  The President will make errors, have to learn some hard lessons, and have to take all our complaints and indignation.  I think the most difficult thing for him as President is he cannot fully share what he is doing, and why he is doing it all the time ,as it only gives information to the people we are fighting, and therefore works against us. How tricky and personally frustrating it must be for the President to maneuver in such a situation, an untenable situation. 

Recently, Several people holding government positions, who have helped the President fight this war have been let go for their part in the goings on in Iraq.  So many guys to take the fall. Somehow, it is supposed to give us some sense of security that things will change for the better if we get rid of this person or that.  Has anyone thought that now new guys have to come in and learn from point zero?  How are they supposed to do any better? 

There has been a lot of talk about the war being "unwinnable."  I promise you, if we say it is unwinnable we create, in fact, that it will be unwinnable.  We create our realities. I won't say it, because I know there is power in making it so just by the declaration of it.  And that is not a reality I want to live in to.  I say, it is not about winning at all. Not at this point, It is about getting Iraq on it's feet.  A while back, I read a book called, A Hundred And One Days, a Norwegian journalist wrote the book.  She was there a couple of months prior to the war and through several months that followed. 

In the book, she discussed how their government had regressed back to twenty years prior.  How people were dieing if they opened their mouth and criticized Saddam Hussein.  How the Iraqi people wanted us to help them, an yet hated us. One reason is there is brain washing about the ways of the West, the other is, it was showing the world how powerless they were in their own country.  How humiliating it must have been for them. Basically, it was come in, take our leader out, and get the hell out of here.  How naive on their part.  Of course, the problem would be in getting a new government going, and that does not happen over night. 

I find it frightening the power the extremists have over in Iraq and in the Middle East. I listened to our Congressman last week and how he said that is was surprising how many soldiers that were in Iraq wanted to return there after they came back to America. My brother has friends who are in the forces.  They insist we need to be there to get things to settle or the terrorists will be heading our way, on our land. Read The Terrorist Hunter, there are many people living in America today that are Anti-American.  It is frightening to say the least. The men in service again and again have said they are making a difference over there and are proud of it. One of my brother's friends lost partial feeling in one of his arms and hand.  He went back willingly.  These guys open my eyes. They are there risking their lives and want to go back. I only know what I read in the paper and hear on the news.

So much of what we read and see on the news is to stir up emotion and make head lines.  Pictures and videotape of people dieing surly will sicken us.  That is a 100% guarantee.  Over time it has made us decide we don't belong there-this war was a mistake- Bush is crazy and now working against us.  I wonder at times if I am truly one of the few that know I know very little about this war, I only know what I've been told. I don't feel I have much room to throw around any opinion.  I am not a soldier and my experience with war is nil. I feel it necessary to have faith in the President, he has the best advisers at his disposable to make his decisions. This is a complex situation, I expect it getting sticky at times.

Prime Minister Blair came to America and had a press conference.  He renewed my faith in our President and our reason for being in Iraq. It is taking time to get things settled.  Rome was not built in a day, why should we believe Iraq can be? I will tell you what though, our bashing of the President will only slow the progress.  That I am a firm believer of.  We cannot just support the soldiers there, we have to support getting the job done. Where is the faith?

I did a seminar once and we learned this, It "is" what you say it is.  We create our realities.  If we say it is unwinnable we will create "it is unwinnable. "  I refuse to say it.  Too many of our soldiers have died for it to NOT be unwinnable.  In their name, I just refuse.  I say, we will help build a new government there, make a difference, and will stand behind those words.

I don't fear not being part of the majority, I never have. I think in many ways in my life, it has helped me.  It never hurts to have a different perspective and at times it opens people's eyes to something they were not seeing.  I believe we started this war believing it was necessary, took out a leader and the government toppled with us being there.  I respect Bush being there to get the government back on it's feet now.  It seems the respectable thing to do.  It is awful that people have to die.  I don't blame Bush for the troubles in Iraq today.  I blame it on humanity as it stands now.  I have little respect for the United Nations and their ability to make necessary changes around the world.  As the world is getting smaller the need for the United Nations to monitor and control things globally becomes a geater necessity.  There should universal moral codes that are upheld. Our soldiers are being killed by other human beings in such destructive ways in Iraq.  I am not mad at Bush. I am mad at the United Nations for having greater control over groups around the world that kill people for obscene reasons, and in such ghastly ways.

I have read many books on the war.  Cobra II was quite an eye opening book. It's hard on the President.  But America wanted to initiate this war, no doubt. At least in reading this book you become more educated on the facts. It makes you realize how little information we the public really have. Keep in mind, does the president jeopardize his strategy by sharing all the facts? After reading this book, I keep up with the news daily. I listen to the guys who were there fighting and still are. I wonder how many Americans realize how little knowledge they have to go on before making their opinions on President Bush and weather we should still be in Iraq now.

If we leave early, will things regress to where they were before we came in in the first place? What a shame that would be.  How many lives have we lost just to have the result be a civil war that leaves Iraq worse than where it was when we arrived? And by leaving while things are a mess, are we showing the terrorists that their ways of handling things is powerful enough to make America retreat ?  Therefore, having them strike again and again like this in Iraq and elsewhere? I will say this,  I have respect for the President.  Can you imagine being in his shoes right now?  How difficult it must be coming up against all this criticism and public bashing and trying to make a difference in Iraq?  He is a strong man.  I respect him.  I have seen him again and again seek out information to determine what he should do next.  He has not given up.  He believes we need to be there and finish the job.

I don't believe the war is winnable because I don't believe at this time there is a win or loss to be had.  This idea seems ludicrous to me. I think we need to help Iraq get stable enough to get back on their feet.  Whatever it takes.  We started it over there, we should finish.  And the idea of it being done in one year or we should leave, I find this the most ignorant statement we can make.  We are telling the terrorists if you keep up what you are doing for one more year we are leaving and you can take over.  We are feeding them to come on hot and strong for a year, frighten the citizens there so they give in to them when we leave. We are creating more instability over there and destroying the progress we already have made when we push this one year dead line deal. Does anyone else see this?  Also, is it not arrogant of us to believe we can make things stabile enough in Iraq at this time, that we could possibly leave in one year?  New governments do not become stabile that quickly...show me any new government that thrived alone that quickly after their leader has been taken down.  I don't know of any.

War is ugly.  I feel for our President and the next one that comes in office.  It is not an easy thing to manage.  As for the Democrats...I would not want to be a Democrat and be the next President, not after all the bashing they have done to Bush anyway. (By the way, I don't vote on behalf of one party or the other) Iraq will not settle in a year or two or several years.  The next President will face problems just like Bush.  In time, he will not look pretty either.  To be the President is a very difficult job.  A job surely I would not want.  Three cheers for the President! He takes our shit and still stands on his beliefs, with a hell of a lot more information than any one of us citizens have on our own.

Here is my humble opinion about President Bush and Iraq. We wanted this war initially.  We went in and toppled the dictator.  But our work is not done. We are making progress. But there is a job to be finished. The negative opinion of our people is causing more deaths to our soldiers as we are feeding to the extremists we don't belong there and firing them up even more. We should stand for getting Iraq on it's feet before we leave. Show the soldiers that died in our name, their purpose there and the lives lost there was not in vain.  End of story.  Try on, if we say we can...We Can!