Thursday, 8 December 2005
Red State Christmas Deer
Hat Tip
Right Thinking From The Left Coast![](deer.jpg)
And always remember, Bambis are more tender and better eating.
|
Wednesday, 7 December 2005
The Needs of the Many
Any Star Trek Fan will recognize Spock's Parting words from The Wrath of Khan
"The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few".
Before we expound on any political derivation of those words, it is fitting that we acknowledge the truth of them. Men and women have willingly looked at and made that choice down throw the ages, some in obscurity and some recorded as the ultimate examples of valor and Honor.
"Go, tell the Spartans, thou that passest by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie."
It is not that decision, but WHO makes it that delineates the difference between Heroism and Tyranny.
When the FEW make it,for themselves, it is Heroism,of the highest order, when the MANY or those who claim to speak for the MANY make it we are crossing a Rubicon towards Tyranny.
We have seen this recently with a Supreme Court Decision Kelo vs New London.
The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of New London by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which found that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed (even if not blighted) urban area, it qualifies as a public use. The court also found that government delegation of eminent domain power to a private entity was also constitutional as long as the private entity served as the legally authorized agent of the government.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions last raised in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). Namely, does the Fifth Amendment protect landowners from the use of eminent domain for economic development, rather than, as in Berman, for the elimination of slums and blight.
In a nutshell the Supreme Court Broadened part of the
Vth Amendment
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Public use became public benefit, it became legal under the revised Vth amendment to take someone's home so a private development could increase the Tax Value of the property and enhance the economics of the surrounding area.
The needs of the many...outweigh the needs of the few
At our peril, we as Nation forget the words of Samuel Adams.
In 1772, four years before the Declaration was signed, Samuel Adams wrote a short piece entitled ?Rights of the Colonists as Men?. His words included the following
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them
in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of,
rather than deductions from, the duty of self?preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature.
In case this excerpt is not sufficiently explicit concerning the origin of the rights so mentioned, further words from this same piece by Samuel Adams will make the point more clearly:
Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,
in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men
are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable
laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations
and all well?grounded municipal laws
In the minds some these simple truths have been perverted. Forgotten is that neither the Constitution, nor the Federal Government GIVES the Citizen these rights, but rather the Constitution acknowledges that those Rights are the Inalienable possession of EACH of us as person.
It is the corruption of the Right of the Individual by an assumed Right of the Group, where in lies our greatest danger as a Nation and as a People.
It is the duty of all of us to take what steps are necessary to preserve these rights. One method can be information. One group endeavoring to this end is
the Internet community of
Life, Liberty, Property
![](LLP_4_150.jpg)
Each week it sponsors a Carnival of Liberty where topics are discussed and explored.
This week is
Carnival Of Liberty XXIII I encourage all to explore this weeks offerings and return weekly and also if you desire ADD to the sum.
YOUR Liberty is in YOUR hands, participate in maintaining it.
AS for Kelo vs New London? It is a loss, due to what in my opinion was judicial activism by the Supreme Court but it is ALSO an opportunity!
It puts this question back to the States and lesser forms of government. In a manner of speaking closer to where we may contact our representatives and ensure this travesty of justice does not endure.
We must use this opportunity and then move on to other areas where we as individuals my assert our inalienable rights.
When Life hands you a Lemon?
Grab a Shaker of Salt and a Bottle of Tequila. ;-)
|
Monday, 5 December 2005
The Open
Trackback Alliance V
For Monday
When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a
Statement of PurposeNow upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.
And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.
One of the most important discoveries I make in those early days was the website of Samantha Burns, which included a unique informal community of bloggers, who not only linked to each other but actually browsed and read the blogs they linked to.
Later I was honored to be allowed to join another more formal blog community. At that time I decided that while I welcomed blogs that wanted to link to me, I was not that interested in simply joining blogrolls to add links. After that I made no more attempts to join any blog alliances. I have been kept busy supporting the linkages I have and at times I feel guilty that I cannot get around to all the websites on my blogroll as I could when it was smaller.
So why do I welcome this recent invitation to join the Open Trackback Alliance? Have I reconsidered my former decision?
No I am posting and joining this Alliance because it is RIGHT for me to do so.
Because it FULFILLS my original Statement of Purpose that the Blogs are indeed the 21st Century Committees of Correspondence, whose duty and honor it is to SHARE information, thoughts, ideas, news and to discuss the same. To diligently search for the truths that lie behind the distortions and half-truths of the Legacy Media.
What the blogs associated with the Samantha Burns site did informally, and without structure, this Alliance only aids and structures. There is in fact no conflict between what I do now, and what I decided to do sometime ago.
For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.
HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.
And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.
As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.
The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the
OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCE
Blogs that Trackback to this Post:
On Monday
Diane's Stuff with The Joy and Wonder of Christmas
third world county with A question of intelligence
Y'al come back now, Y'heah? ;-)
|
Sunday, 4 December 2005
The Rape
of the Body Politic
I hate Gerrymandering. The artificial allocation of voting district demographics to fulfill a predetermined political outcome, in my opinion, is nothing more nor something less than the Rape of the Body Politic.
So when I saw in the Washington Post this article,
_
Justice Staff Saw Texas Districting As Illegal ,_it grabbed my attention. Gerrymandering is a vicious and venal practice that politicians AND voters cannot seem to resist. Greed is pernicious.
To blame these excesses totally on politicians would be simplistic. It is not unknown for the public to vote down redistricting referendums, to avoid the risk of the loss of political power by the Party in Control.
While I by no means agree with the political agenda of NOW I will have to admit that the information on redistricting issues and methods found here are quite helpful.
REDISTRICTING FOR ACTIVISTS 101 Here are the worst offenses.
Gerrymander: The drawing of political boundaries to give one group or party an advantage over another.
Packing: A form of vote dilution – unlawful under the Voting Rights Act - in which minority voters are concentrated in districts at levels higher than necessary in order for the minority voters to elect their preferred candidate.
Cracking: A form of vote dilution in which a geographically compact minority community is divided into two or more districts, illegally diluting the community's voting strength.You do not have to consider yourself an "activist" to support fair and impartial redistricting, that should be the hallmark of a good citizen.
Read and ponder these statements.
"The court ruled that, in fact, the new congressional plan created a sufficient number of safe minority districts given the demographics of the state and the requirements of the law," Holland said. He added that Texas now has three African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the redistricting.
"This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis."
The complexity of the arguments surrounding the Voting Rights Act is evident in the Justice Department memo, which focused particular attention on seats held in 2003 by a white Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry Bonilla.
Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little support from Hispanics. The question to be considered by Justice Department lawyers was whether the new map was "retrogressive," because it diluted the power of minority voters to elect their candidate of choice. Under the adopted Texas plan, Frost's congressional district was dismantled, while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.
"This result quite plainly indicates a reduction in minority voting strength," Rich wrote in his concurring opinion. "The state's argument that it has increased minority voting strength . . . simply does not stand up under careful analysis."Let me add one more component.
One person, one vote: Constitutional requirement that each district in a legislative body contain roughly the same number of people.One person, one vote. To me that is vital. Contrary to the wishful thinking of some, the Constitution does not support rights to groups but rights to
Individuals! There is a vast difference.
This statement bothers me.
"new congressional plan created a sufficient number of safe minority districts The creation of
safe minority districts should not be a consideration in redistricting, My position is that it should be done in an impartial and colorblind method, with the only considerations being, the population distribution, and
any changes whatsoever, no matter how well intentioned
are a violation of the very principles on which this Republic was founded.
If you will notice in one of the statements above,
a white Democrat, Martin Frost, and a Hispanic Republican, Henry Bonilla.
Voting data showed that Frost commanded great support from minority constituents, while Bonilla had relatively little support from Hispanics. Yes the VOTERS did not support a candidate merely because of the color of his skin.
Here is to my eyes the pernicious part of the procedure.
Frost's congressional district was dismantled, while the proportion of Hispanics in Bonilla's district dropped significantly. Those losses to black and Hispanic voters were not offset by other gains, the memo said.
Gains or losses to any particular minority group should never be an issue unless the redistricting process artificially deny them of representation.
The creation of "safe minority districts" by the altering of district lines is no different than a gerrymandering to artificially dilute their votes.
If Gerrymandering, to create a false degree of power and power for any particular group or political power is the Rape of the Body Politic, then in like vein Gerrymandering to "protect safe minority districts" can be described as a rapist who says.
But she
wanted it she
enjoyed it.
Rape is rape, you cannot oppose Gerrymandering and support the artificial creation of "safe minority districts" both are a perversion and a corruption of our political process.
To do so is to abrogate the rights of the individual.
I do not care how well intentioned the action is.
Linked to
Peakah's Provocations at Open Bar All Weekend!
Stuck On Stupid at Grandma Hoists Baby Jesus & Link Fest
The Uncooperative Blogger at Weekend Open Trackback Party!
Open Trackback) Weekend Round-Up
Oblogatory Anecdotes at Weekend Open Trackbacks
Colbert Report at Election Week 1 Open Trackback Party
MacStansbury.org at OPEN TRACKBACKS 10
NIF at It's the weekend
|
Saturday, 3 December 2005
Only in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades
We are continuously hearing excited and breathless pronouncements of the latest polls. The Presidents approval rating is etc etc.
Some polls that are not advertised too much are.
One I posted about in
The Lemming LeftDemocrats' own mood poll scares them
Jun. 29, 2005 at 10:48AM
A poll on the political mood in the United States conducted by the Democratic Party has alarmed the party at its own loss of popularity.
Conducted by the party-affiliated Democracy Corps, the poll indicated 43 percent of voters favored the Republican Party, while 38 percent had positive feelings about Democrats.
"Republicans weakened in this poll ... but it shows Democrats weakening more," said Stanley Greenberg, who served as President Clinton's pollster.It would appear despite wishful thinking that approval ratings are
not a Zero Sum game and a decline for one side does not necessarily mean an increase for the other.
There is also some more recent polling data I posted about in
The Lizard Brainfrom
Protein Wisdom "Full disclosure: I am not a pollster, nor am I a licensed statistician?so take my analysis with a grain of salt. But if I?m reading this right, 70% of Americans believe that Democratic party criticism of the war is motivated by partisan political impulses?a desire for power, to put it more forcefully?rather than a desire to help the US win the war in Iraq.
70%?
Similarly, 70% of Americans think that the Democrats? attacks on the war are damaging troop morale, which necessarily creates unnecessary problems in battlefield execution.
70% "
The above was reaction to an article in the
Washington Post:: Sympathetic Vibrations
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney?s suggestion that criticism of the administration?s war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney?s point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale?with 44 percent saying morale is hurt ?a lot,? according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The results surely will rankle many Democrats, who argue that it is patriotic and supportive of the troops to call attention to what they believe are deep flaws in President Bush?s Iraq strategy. But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to ?gain a partisan political advantage."I got to thinking about all these polls last night. President Bush's approval rating is the one we hear the most about. I checked Rasmussen Polls on a regular basis and today
President Bush Job Approval stands at 46, everyone knows it has been lower, we are most surely informed when that happens, if it climbs a little, well that is not News is it?
But today I decided to look at President Bush's approval rating from a different viewpoint. One I have not seen used before.
We all know that the Constitution prohibits The President from running for a third term.
But if it were possible what Democratic Leader do we hear about as one of the most likely to win the nomination in 2008?
Hillary Clinton and according to Rasmussen's Hillary Meter:
Support Falls to 2005 LowNovember 30, 2005--If Hillary Clinton runs for President in 2008, just 25% of Americans say they would definitely vote for her. That's down five points over the past two weeks. It's also the lowest level of support measured for the former First Lady in 2005. (Review Trends).
Forty percent (40%) would definitely vote against Senator Clinton. That's little changed from two weeks ago. Rasmussen Reports has conducted a Hillary Meter poll every other week since April. Only once has the number who say they would definitely vote against Clinton been higher than it is now.
Forty-five percent (45%) now see Clinton as politically liberal. Over the past seven months, the number viewing her as politically liberal has ranged from a low of 42% to a high of 48%, often settling around the current level of 45%.
Thirty-five percent (35%) view New York's Junior Senator as politically moderate while 6% say she's conservative.
Collectively, today?s Hillary Meter places Senator Clinton a net 56 points to the left of the nation's political center. Two weeks ago, she was 53 points to the left of center.So the Democrats are going to have to find another best hope. All the pronouncements about a Decline in Bush's approval rating are meaningless if the Democratic Party's is lower.
Close only counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.
Linked to
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns at OTA Weekend
Point Five at Carnival of the Ecletic
Stuck On Stupid at Grandma Hoists Baby Jesus & Link Fest
The Uncooperative Blogger at Weekend Open Trackback Party!
Oblogatory Anecdotes at Weekend Open Trackbacks
Right Wing Nation at Weekend Open Trackbacks
MacStansbury.org at OPEN TRACKBACKS 10
NIF at COUGH
Stop The ACLU at Weekend Party for the Politically Incorrect
UPDATE There is a military phrase, "Defeat in Detail" from the looks a new Washinton Post Article
Democratic Lawmakers Splinter on Iraq, the process may have already started.
Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican political strategist now with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said Pelosi may have resurrected her party's most deadly liability -- voters' lack of trust in the party on national security.
"If Karl Rove was writing the timing of this, he wouldn't have written it any differently, with the president of the United States expressing resolve and the Democratic leader offering surrender," Wittmann said, referring to Bush's top adviser. "For Republicans, this is manna from heaven."
|
Where My Readers Come From
![](http://www.world66.com/community/mymaps/worldmap?visited=CAUSAGDOGTJMMXPAVIARBOBRCLPEDZEGCINGSNZATGADATBEHRCZDKEEFIFRDEGRHUISIEITLVLTLUNLNOPLPTRORUYUSKESSECHUAUKBHCYIQILKWQASAAEBDCNINIDJPMYPHSGKRTWVNAUNZ)
Well it has been about 2 months since I checked this out and I seem to have picked up a couple of dozen new nationalities visiting here. Welcome all.
Readers from Seventy Three different countries as of today.
Here was the last map.
![](worldmap3.JPG)
Some day I hope to
CONQUER THE WORLD!
Yes the map will become
All Red!
do you hear?
ALL RED!
PS of all the Free Blogsite meters.
eXTReMe Tracker
gives the fullest list of Nationalities where others will go down to a certain percentage of visits and then lump the rest in "other". I would suggest signing up for it if you want to make one of these maps for yourself.
|
Friday, 2 December 2005
I Took,
You Took,
He Tookie
Which Is Out of Place?
If you choose Tookie as the word out of place, you would be correct as far as the grammatical rules of English Verb Conjugation are concerned.
As to the individual (I don't call rabid dogs that brutally murder innocent people a Man) called Tookie- Stanley Williams there are a range of reactions.
In the THE TOOKIE FILES By Michelle Malkin she writes
![stanleyTookieWilliams.jpg](stanleyTookieWilliams.jpg)
Convicted murderer Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the co-founder of the violent Crips gang who is on Death Row in California, is Hollyweird's current cause celebre. He is scheduled to be executed on Dec. 13 after 24 years of legal wrangling. The San Francisco Chronicle reports today that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided to hold a clemency hearing Dec. 8.
Among the Save Tookie brigades: Snoop Dogg, Bianca Jagger, Jesse Jackson, Margaret Cho, Mike Farrell, Jason Alexander, Laurence Fishburne, Danny Glover, Anjelica Huston, Bonnie Raitt, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, and Noah Wyle.
I wrote about Williams' bleeding-heart worshipers back in 2000, when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize:
San Quentin prison officials report that juvenile delinquents idolize Williams. His propaganda has been endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus. As part of an ongoing public relations campaign to soften his image while he ties up the courts with specious legal appeals, Williams has been profiled sympathetically by People magazine, Time, the Los Angeles Times, and the ethnic press. He even appeared on a TV special introduced by President Clinton. Barbara Becnel, a crusading journalist who "edits" Williams' writings, once gushed that if the death-row inmate had "been raised in Brentwood instead of South Central, he'd be head of the state Democratic party."
Williams' groupies would have us believe that their Nobel Peace Prize nominee is a helpless victim of his environment, addled by low self-esteem, forced to turn to violence by racist oppressors, and now apologetic "for the atrocities which I and others committed against our race through gang violence." Spare us the sob story. Here are the cold-blooded facts missing from Williams' Nobel Peace Prize application:
Williams was convicted of murdering four innocent bystanders with a sawed-off shotgun in 1979. There was nothing peaceful or compassionate about the way [Albert Owens], Thsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Yee Chen Lin died. Owen[s] was a white teen-age clerk at a 7-11 convenience store, shot twice in the back of the head -- execution-style -- as he lay unarmed on the floor during a hold-up. A witness testified that Williams mocked the gurgling sounds Owen[s] made as he lay dying. "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him," the witness quoted Williams.
The Yangs were Taiwanese immigrants who, along with their daughter Yee Chen Lin, were gunned down during a motel robbery two weeks after Owen[s] died. Half of the daughter's face was blown off by the shotgun blasts, former L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Robert Martin told me in an interview this week. Williams called them "Buddhaheads," Martin recounted, and robbed them of petty cash.
Williams has yet to apologize to the victims' families. When the trial ended, Martin told me, Williams muttered to the prosecution team, "I'll get every one of you m-----f-----s."
Spoken like a Nobel laureate.
Of course our Tookie has a multitude of supporters. He has his own website.
Tookie's Corner![](brbr.jpg)
He's got a book written about him. You may order the autobiography of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, Blue Rage, Black Redemption from Damamli Publishing Company. He even has his own movie. Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story played by Jamie Foxx, it is eery that Jamies birthdate 13 December 1967 and Stanley's date of execution Dec 13, 2005 are on the same day.
Yes those who hold forth that Stanley Williams is a redeemed man and has much to offer society are legion.
Then there are thos who think Stanley Williams is
not a special case but that the execution should be halted because.
![](PH2005062800455.gif)
Celebrities and Redemption Aren't the Point. States Shouldn't Kill.
No Special Break for Tookie
"Williams's case is about the power of redemption, his supporters say, but I think it's more about the power of celebrity. The state shouldn't execute Williams, but only because the state shouldn't execute anybody -- the death penalty is a barbaric anachronism that should have been eliminated long ago, as far as I'm concerned. But it can't be right to save Williams just because he's a famous desperado (or former desperado) with famous friends, and then blithely go back to snuffing out the lives of other criminals who lack his talent for public relations"
What does make him special, according to his supporters, is that he has been so lavishly repentant about the culture of violence he helped create.
Of course, there are hundreds of other men on death row who repent of their crimes and would appreciate a little executive clemency, but they don't have movie stars pleading their cases. Oh, and also lacking a publicity machine are the four people Williams was convicted of killing.
For me, this case just reinforces my belief that there is no way the death penalty can be fairly applied. Among the ranks of the condemned are few genuinely innocent men -- although one is too many. But death row is brimming with genuinely repentant men, not because some divine revelation has hit them but simply because they have grown older.
Tookie Williams is 51; his body has softened, his rage dissipated. The state of California will not be killing the same man it sentenced to death 24 years ago. But don't buy the argument that he's a special case, because he's not."
So it seems there is a division in the clemency side. One thinks his redemption and make him a special case the other that No one should be executed and he is not a special case.
Someone give me the odds on how many of these "we cannot execute any one person because we might kill and innocent", proclaimers ALSO support Abortion?
Mike Farrel is also a Supporter
![](indexbanner.jpg)
General statement by Mike Farrell concerning Stanley Tookie Williams
To Squiggy from Mike
Because there's been a significant reaction to the press coverage of my opposition to the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, I thought it might be a good idea to post a general statement for the benefit of anyone who has a question or concern.
I thought it was already quite clear that I oppose the death penalty. That means I'm against all state killing regardless of whether the individual in question is guilty or innocent. But some of those who have communicated their upset either aren't aware of that or feel this case should be an exception. Let me try to be more clear.
I believe killing is wrong. That being so, I believe that the state (or the people in a civilized society) have a special responsibility to always act in a manner that honors the principles of humanity that underpin our society. For the state to kill teaches that killing is appropriate under certain circumstances and, by extension, provides justification to those who believe that their particular case or circumstance warrants it as well. The young, in particular, learn behavior from us and this requires that we always reach for the higher standard
That apply to the unborn Mike? Is it against your moral standards to kill them? Me I am just an Unteachable Ignorant Red State Voter, I DO think that
"killing is appropriate under certain circumstances"
Though if someone were to be chopping Mike Farrel up with an axe, I might be willing to listen to him expound on his non-violent principles while he expired. Think he would? if he saw someone running up with a shotgun or would he be screaming
"Kill Them. KILL THEM!"
Despite being in agreement with Eugene Robinson Captain's Quarters in Celebrity Death Row Spotlights illuminates some glaring inconsistancies.
(One other point: does anyone else notice that three of four of Tookie's victims were Asian shopowners? Angelenos know what that entails for the gang culture of LA. These weren't just gang-banging murders but hate-crime executions, just the same as the dragging death of James Byrd. I notice Danny Glover and Jamie Foxx aren't clamoring for those murderers to get clemency from the governor of Texas, so why are they arguing for Tookie?)
I don't support the death penalty. Unlike the clueless Hollywood celebrities who manage to hijack this issue, I don't view the condemned as victims and moral guideposts, either. The elevation of Tookie to philosopher disgusts and sickens me, and it undermines the efforts to convince people of the uselessness and overreach of the death penalty.
But there is ONE THING I have not heard anyone mention or speak of. Particularly those like Mike Farrel who out of conviction, compassion and principle oppose this execution.
I it the other night when I heard Farrel talking about all this on TV.
If I could have looked him in the eyes after he had finished. I would have asked him something like this.
A lot of effort, and work has been expended to keep this bloodthirsty butcher alive , how about the families of the victims? What are their lives like these days.
Those who have lost loved ones at the hands of this thing, have they recovered? Do they still suffer.
Do you know?
Have you bothered to inquire.
Do you care?.
Linked to
third world county at Friday Featured Blogger/Open Post
Stray Dog at The Week in Review From You-Know-Who...
Bloggin' Outloud at Pastor Mark to Shave the Yetis
Right Wing Nation at Friday Open Trackbacks
MacStansbury.org at The Absolutely Earliest In The Morningest Friday Open TrackBack Post
NIF at COUGH
The Conservative Cat at Funny Stuff
|
Only An Avid Reader Could Understand
One who reads the printed word on paper not on a monitor, and one who reads the printed word in bound version, not in throw away.
If you are one of the above and particularly if you are one of the few who ever got in trouble as a child for reading under the covers with a flashlight instead GO TO SLEEP! it's a school night!
You will understand this little tale, you might even chuckle if something like this has ever happened to you.
Sometime back a friend came to me with a book he had just finished reading and said, "This is really good and I thought you might want to read it before I returned it to the person from whom I borrowed it."
Been there? Then you understand the obligation and the temptation, to yourself loan it to yet another friend who might like to read it before you return it to the person from whom you borrowed it. ;-)
But in this instance it turned out to be unnecessary to return that particular book. It did look interesting and also familiar. It was when I opened it up and saw some notes written in the front,
in my handwriting that I realized that the owner of the book was
meYou see I had loaned it to a friend a year or so previously, who I thought might like to read it, and obviously they had loaned it to yet another friend, who might like to read it before they returned it.
I had no idea where that book had been in its journey, but it had finally made its way back home.
Linked to
third world county at Friday Featured Blogger/Open Post
Stray Dog at The Week in Review From You-Know-Who...
Bloggin' Outloud at Pastor Mark to Shave the Yetis
Right Wing Nation at Friday Open Trackbacks
MacStansbury.org at The Absolutely Earliest In The Morningest Friday Open TrackBack Post
NIF at COUGH
The Conservative Cat at Funny Stuff
|
Thursday, 1 December 2005
Da Plan Da Plan!
National Strategy
for Victory
in Iraq
Topic: Iraq War
Tatoo is hollering Da Plan, Da Plan
![](Tatoo2.JPG)
Lots of strident voices have been raised, demanding
Da Plan. Well here it is.
The full document is a 38 page pdf file.
Below is the Executive Summary. Enjoy.
It's not Fantasy Island, it's
The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Hat Tip Captain's Quarters at Read My Lips: No New Timetables
He also released a book on the Iraq war strategy for those who just haven't paid any attention over the past two years. Bush and the White House should have just subtitled it "FOR THOSE WHO STILL THINK THAT THE US MILITARY DEPLOYS HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD WITHOUT A PLAN FOR SUCCESS".
November 30, 2005
The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining.
"The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more."
-- President George W. Bush
February 26, 2003
Table of Contents
![National Strategy for Victory in Iraq - Full PDF Document](iraq-national-strat.gif)
November 30, 2005
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Full PDF Document (386KB)
Executive Summary
PART I
Strategic Overview
- Victory in Iraq Defined
- Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
- The Benefits of Victory in Iraq
- The Consequences of Failure
- Our Enemies and Their Goals
- The Strategy of Our Enemies
- Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
A. The Political Track (Isolate, Engage, Build)
B.
The Security Track (Clear, Hold, Build)
C.
The Economic Track (Restore, Reform, Build)
- This Strategy is Integrated, and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing
- Victory Will Take Time
- Why Our Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions-Based
- Our Strategy Tracks and Measures Progress
PART II
Strategy in Detail
- The Political Track in Detail
- The Security Track in Detail
- The Economic Track in detail
- Organization for Victory
APPENDIX
Executive Summary
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
- Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
- Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
- Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
- Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
- Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
- Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
- The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
- Failure is Not an Option
- Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
- Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
- The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
- The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated
- The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.
- Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.
- Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.
- Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
- We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.
- The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:
- Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;
- Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and
- Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
- The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:
- Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
- Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
- Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
- The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:
- Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
- Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
- Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
- This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing
- Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.
- For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.
- Victory Will Take Time
- Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.
- Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.
- It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.
- Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.
- Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based
- With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
- No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.
- But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.
- We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.
- While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.
- Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
PART I -- STRATEGIC OVERVIEW
"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren."
-- President George W. Bush
June 28, 2003
VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
- In the short term:
- An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
- In the medium term:
- An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
- In the longer term:
- An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
- An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
- An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST
- The war on terrorism is the defining challenge of our generation, just as the struggle against communism and fascism were challenges of the generations before. As with those earlier struggles, the United States is fully committed to meeting this challenge. We will do everything it takes to win.
- Prevailing in Iraq will help us win the war on terror.
- The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
- Osama Bin Laden has declared that the "third world war...is raging" in Iraq, and it will end there, in "either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."
- Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared Iraq to be "the place for the greatest battle," where he hopes to "expel the Americans" and then spread "the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq."
- Al Qaida in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has openly declared that "we fight today in Iraq, and tomorrow in the Land of the Two Holy Places, and after there the west."
- As the terrorists themselves recognize, the outcome in Iraq -- success or failure -- is critical to the outcome in the broader war on terrorism.
- What happens in Iraq will influence the fate of the Middle East for generations to come, with a profound impact on our own national security.
- Ceding ground to terrorists in one of the world's most strategic regions will threaten the world's economy and America's security, growth, and prosperity, for decades to come.
- An emerging democracy in Iraq will change the regional status quo that for decades has bred alienation and spawned the transnational terrorism that targets us today.
- The terrorists' perverse ideology is countered by the advance of freedom and the recognition that all people have the right to live under democracy and the rule of law, free from oppression and fear, with hope and optimism for the future.
THE BENEFITS OF VICTORY IN IRAQ
- Helping the people of Iraq is the morally right thing to do -- America does not abandon its friends in the face of adversity. Helping the people of Iraq, however, is also in our own national interest.
- If we and our Iraqi partners prevail in Iraq, we will have made America:
- Safer...
- by removing Saddam Hussein, a destabilizing force in a vital region, a ruthless dictator who had a history of pursuing and even using weapons of mass destruction, was a state sponsor of terror, had invaded his neighbors, and who was violently opposed to America;
- by depriving terrorists of a safe haven from which they could plan and launch attacks against the United States and American interests;
- by delivering a strategic setback to the terrorists and keeping them on the run;
- by delivering a decisive blow to the ideology that fuels international terrorism, proving that the power of freedom is stronger than a perverse vision of violence, hatred, and oppression.
- Stronger...
- by demonstrating to our friends and enemies the reliability of U.S. power, the strength of our commitment to our friends, and the tenacity of our resolve against our enemies;
- by securing a new friend and partner in the fight against terrorism in the heart of the Middle East.
- More Certain of its Future ...
- politically, by bolstering democratic reformers -- and the prospects for peaceful, democratic governments -- in a region that for decades has been a source of instability and stagnation;
- economically, by facilitating progressive reform in the region and depriving terrorists control over a hub of the world's economy.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
- If we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, Iraq will become:
- A safe haven for terrorists as Afghanistan once was, only this time in some of the world's most strategic territory, with vast natural resources to exploit and to use to fund future attacks.
- A country where oppression -- and the brutal imposition of inhumane practices, such as those of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- is pervasive.
- A failed state and source of instability for the entire Middle East, with all the attendant risks and incalculable costs for American security and prosperity.
- Furthermore, if we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, the terrorists will have:
- Won a decisive victory over the United States, vindicating their tactics of beheadings, suicide bombings, and ruthless intimidation of civilians, inviting more deadly attacks against Americans and other free people across the globe.
- Placed the American people in greater danger by destabilizing a vital region, weakening our friends, and clearing the way for terrorist attacks here at home. The terrorists will be emboldened in their belief that America cannot stand and fight, but will cut and run in the face of adversity.
- Called into question American credibility and commitment in the region and the world. Our friends and foes alike would doubt our staying power, and this would damage our efforts to counter other security threats and to advance other economic and political interests worldwide.
- Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas.
- Weakened the growing democratic impulses in the region. Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the region -- a historic opportunity, central to America's long-term security, forever lost.
If we retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will pursue us and our allies, expanding the fight to the rest of the region and to our own shores.
OUR ENEMIES AND THEIR GOALS
- The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. These three groups share a common opposition to the elected Iraqi government and to the presence of Coalition forces, but otherwise have separate and to some extent incompatible goals.
- Rejectionists are the largest group. They are largely Sunni Arabs who have not embraced the shift from Saddam Hussein's Iraq to a democratically governed state. Not all Sunni Arabs fall into this category. But those that do are against a new Iraq in which they are no longer the privileged elite. Most of these rejectionists opposed the new constitution, but many in their ranks are recognizing that opting out of the democratic process has hurt their interests.
- We judge that over time many in this group will increasingly support a democratic Iraq provided that the federal government protects minority rights and the legitimate interests of all communities.
- Saddamists and former regime loyalists harbor dreams of reestablishing a Ba'athist dictatorship and have played a lead role in fomenting wider sentiment against the Iraqi government and the Coalition.
- We judge that few from this group can be won over to support a democratic Iraq, but that this group can be marginalized to the point where it can and will be defeated by Iraqi forces.
- Terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida make up the smallest enemy group but are the most lethal and pose the most immediate threat because (1) they are responsible for the most dramatic atrocities, which kill the most people and function as a recruiting tool for further terrorism and (2) they espouse the extreme goals of Osama Bin Laden -- chaos in Iraq which will allow them to establish a base for toppling Iraq's neighbors and launching attacks outside the region and against the U.S. homeland.
- The terrorists have identified Iraq as central to their global aspirations. For that reason, terrorists and extremists from all parts of the Middle East and North Africa have found their way to Iraq and made common cause with indigenous religious extremists and former members of Saddam's regime. This group cannot be won over and must be defeated -- killed or captured -- through sustained counterterrorism operations.
- There are other elements that threaten the democratic process in Iraq, including criminals and Shi'a religious extremists, but we judge that such elements can be handled by Iraqi forces alone and/or assimilated into the political process in the short term.
THE STRATEGY OF OUR ENEMIES
- Despite their competing goals, these disparate enemy elements share a common operational concept: Intimidate, coerce, or convince the Iraqi public not to support the transition to democracy by persuading them that the nascent Iraqi government is not competent and will be abandoned by a Coalition that lacks the stomach for this fight.
- The enemy's strategy, in short, is to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- a strategy with short-term advantage because it is easier to tear down than to build up. But this strategy is not sustainable in the long term because it is rejected by the overwhelming mass of the Iraqi population.
- Enemy Lines of Action. The enemy seeks to ...
- Weaken the Coalition's resolve, and our resolve at home, through barbaric mass-casualty attacks, public slaughter of Iraqi civilians and hostages, infliction of casualties on Coalition forces, and use of the media to spread propaganda and intimidate adversaries.
- Destroy confidence in the Iraqi government by sabotaging key essential service (oil and electricity) nodes and by derailing the political process.
- Damage trust in Iraqi Security Forces through propaganda, infiltration, and barbaric attacks on the weak and the innocent.
- Sabotage Iraqi unity through propaganda against the Shi'a majority punctuated with attacks intended to spark sectarian conflict and civil war.
- Establish safe havens to plan attacks and conduct intimidation campaigns.
- Expand the fight to neighboring states and beyond.
OUR STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IS CLEAR
- Our Strategy is Clear: We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing a comprehensive approach that involves the integrated efforts of the entire United States Government, the Iraqi government, and Coalition governments, and encourages the active involvement of the United Nations, other international organizations, and supportive regional states.
- Our strategy involves three integrated tracks -- political, security, and economic -- each with separate objectives, but together helping Iraqis to defeat the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists, and secure a new democratic state in Iraq.
The Political Track
(Isolate, Engage, Build)
- Objective: To help the Iraqi people forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic government, thereby isolating enemy elements from the broader public.
- To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
- Isolate hardened enemy elements from those who can be won over to a peaceful political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in a viable, democratic Iraq.
- Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of peaceful participation.
- Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
The Security Track
(Clear, Hold, Build)
- Objective: To develop the Iraqis' capacity to secure their country while carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
- To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
- Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven.
- Hold areas freed from enemy control by ensuring that they remain under the control of a peaceful Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence.
- Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The Economic Track
(Restore, Reform, Build)
- Objective: To assist the Iraqi government in establishing the foundations for a sound economy with the capacity to deliver essential services.
- To achieve this objective, we are helping the Iraqi government:
- Restore Iraq's neglected infrastructure so it can meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy.
- Reform Iraq's economy, which has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future.
- Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
THIS STRATEGY IS INTEGRATED, AND ITS ELEMENTS ARE
MUTUALLY REINFORCING
- Progress along one of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress along the other tracks. For example:
- As the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on their leadership and hideouts from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.
- As security operations in Fallujah, Mosul, Tal Afar, and elsewhere have killed or led to the capture of high-level terrorists and insurgents, residents in those areas have come forward to participate in the political process, registering and turning out to vote in vast numbers, and providing local residents a meaningful voice in the new Iraq.
- As economic activities have progressed, ordinary citizens have returned to normal life and developed a stake in a peaceful Iraq and thus become motivated to support the political process and cooperate with security forces,
- Part II of this paper will discuss the three tracks -- political, security, and economic -- in more detail, so Americans can better understand the elements of our vital mission, the nature of our strategy, why we believe this strategy will succeed, the progress we are making, and how our government is organized to help Iraqis ensure lasting victory in Iraq.
VICTORY WILL TAKE TIME
- Our Strategy Is Working. Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of Iraq's neglected infrastructure, and the ongoing training and equipping of Iraq's security forces.
- Yet many challenges remain:
- Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, under which governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality. Saddam Hussein devastated Iraq, wrecked its economy, ruined its infrastructure, and destroyed its human capital. It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.
- We and the Iraqi people are fighting a ruthless enemy, which is multi-headed, with competing ambitions and differing networks. Getting an accurate picture of this enemy, understanding its makeup and weaknesses, and defeating it, requires patience, persistence, and determined effort along all three strategic tracks.
- Terrorism and insurgencies historically take many years to defeat, through a combination of political, economic, and military tools. Iraq's violence is different from other such conflicts, where insurgents often had unified command and control or mounted a successful campaign to win the hearts and minds of the population. Nonetheless, Iraq is likely to struggle with some level of violence for many years to come.
- The neighborhood is inhospitable. Iran and Syria have failed to provide support to Iraq's new government and have in many ways actively undermined it. The region, while including some cooperative actors, has only recently mobilized to support the emergence of a democratic and stable Iraq.
- The Sunni community is still searching for strong, reliable leadership. Although many Sunnis also suffered under Saddam, leaders from their community generally associated with the Ba'ath Party, not the opposition to the regime. The Sunni religious community, moreover, is less hierarchical and more dispersed, which is reflected in Sunni politics. As a result of these realities, few Sunni leaders have spoken for the larger Sunni community in Iraq. Elections in December will produce elected Sunni leaders who can represent their community with legitimate authority.
- Many Sunnis are also coming to terms with the reality that their community no longer monopolizes power in Iraq. They are grappling with their role in a democratic country in which they are a minority, albeit with constitutional protections for minority rights and interests.
- Many of Iraq's communities remain skeptical of the central government and nervous about the creation of an Iraqi state where power is concentrated in Baghdad. Their allegiance to a united Iraqi government will depend upon the central government demonstrating the will and capability to govern effectively and fairly on behalf of all Iraqis.
- Earlier efforts to correct past wrongs have sometimes alienated Sunnis who were not complicit with Saddam's crimes. Iraq's leaders need to find a middle ground -- between pursuing justice for every past wrong and leaving the past unexamined.
- With democratization has come the emergence of new groups, not all of whom have shared the goal of a free, pluralistic, and democratic Iraq. Some groups -- like members of the Mahdi Militia -- have sought to maximize discontent with the Coalition presence and have at times clashed violently with other parties.
- The continued existence and influence of militias and armed groups, often affiliated with political parties, hamper the rule of law in some parts of Iraq. These groups have also infiltrated the police forces and sparked violent exchanges in areas of the country that are otherwise peaceful.
- Iraq's economy is still shackled with many vestiges of a highly centralized economy and stagnant and corrupt institutions. Creating new institutions, reforming old ones, and developing new policies will be necessary to encourage economic growth. The prosperity of average Iraqis will be enhanced only if Iraq reduces the massive subsidy programs that burden its economy.
WHY OUR STRATEGY IS (AND MUST BE) CONDITIONS-BASED
- Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy -- along the political, security, and economic tracks -- is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions include:
- Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge political compromises;
- Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
- Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
- Increased cooperation of Iraq's neighbors;
- Expanded support from the international community;
- Continued support of the American people.
- Although we are confident of victory in Iraq, we will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached -- because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables.
- Arbitrary deadlines or timetables for withdrawal of Coalition forces -- divorced from conditions on the ground -- would be irresponsible and deadly, as they would suggest to the terrorists, Saddamists, and rejectionists that they can simply wait to win.
- No war has ever been won on a timetable -- and neither will this one.
- Lack of a timetable, however, does not mean that the Coalition's posture in Iraq (both military and political) is static. On the contrary, we continually adjust our posture and approaches as conditions evolve and Iraqi capabilities grow.
- Coalition troop levels, for example, will increase where necessary to defeat the enemy or provide additional security for key events like the referendum and elections. But troop levels will decrease over time, as Iraqis continue to take on more of the security and civilian responsibilities themselves.
- We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process consolidates and as Iraqi Security Forces grow and gain experience.
- As Iraqis take on more responsibility for security, Coalition forces will increasingly move to supporting roles in most areas. The mission of our forces will change -- from conducting operations and keeping the peace, to more specialized operations targeted at the most vicious terrorists and leadership networks.
- As security conditions improve and as Iraqi Security Forces become increasingly capable of securing their own country, our forces will increasingly move out of the cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoy missions.
- While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may gather and organize.
- As our posture changes over time, so too will the posture of our Coalition partners. We and the Iraqis must work with them to coordinate our efforts, helping Iraq to consolidate and secure its gains on many different fronts.
OUR STRATEGY TRACKS AND MEASURES PROGRESS
- We track numerous indicators to map the progress of our strategy and change our tactics whenever necessary. Detailed reports -- both classified and unclassified -- are issued weekly, monthly, and quarterly by relevant agencies and military units.
- Many of these reports with detailed metrics are released to the public, and are readily accessible. For example:
- Some of the most important metrics we track are:
- Political: The political benchmarks set forth in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 and the Transitional Administrative Law; the number of Iraqis from all areas willing to participate in the political process as evidenced by voter registration and turnout.
- Security: The quantity and quality of Iraqi units; the number of actionable intelligence tips received from Iraqis; the percentage of operations conducted by Iraqis alone or with minor Coalition assistance; the number of car bombs intercepted and defused; offensive operations conducted by Iraqi and Coalition forces; and the number of contacts initiated by Coalition forces, as opposed to the enemy.
- Economic: GDP; per capita GDP; inflation; electricity generated and delivered; barrels of oil produced and exported; and numbers of businesses opened.
- Other indicators are also important to success, but less subject to precise measurement, such as the extent to which principles of transparency, trust in government institutions, and acceptance of the rule of law are taking hold amongst a population that has never known them.
- These indicators have more strategic significance than the metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use as a measure of progress or failure: number of bombings.
- The following pages break down the three tracks of our strategy -- political, security, economic -- and explain the logic behind them in more detail.
"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation's security, this will not happen on my watch."
-- President George W. Bush
June 28, 2005
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
PART II -- STRATEGY IN DETAIL
Linked to
TMH's Bacon Bits at Bacon Break ? (Stealth) Open Post
Right Wing Nation at Wednesday Open Trackbacks
MacStansbury.org at Middle of the Wednesday, Practically Thursday Open Trackbacks
NIF at COUGH
Choose Life at Cowering Chicken Open Post
euphoricreality.net at Space Aliens Inhabit Bodies of Democrats: No Sign of Intelligent Life
Lee over at Right Thinking from the East Coast
Thinks
Bush now needs to show a clear strategy as to why finishing the job is critical. This speech today is a good sign that, finally, he?s getting it. I hope he understands that this can?t be a one-time thing, that this message has to be stated over and over and over to get the pint across, especially in the face of a hostile media and a determined opposition. But the argument is there to be made, he just has to figure out how to do it.
This may be a good start.
|
Newer | Latest | Older