Juan Cole sticks another needle in the “winning in Iraq” balloon.

The One that Got Away

CNN is reporting that Iraqi authorities had arrested Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist, in Ramadi, but mistakenly released him. Nic Roberts reported that Zarqawi had put on weight, grown a beard, removed a tattoo, and was using a Kurdish passport, making him unrecognizable to Iraqi security forces.

What I take away from this report is that if the Iraqis cannot recognize a Jordanian master terrorist, the American military has zero chance of fighting the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement in Iraq, because most of them don't even know enough Arabic to distinguish an Iraqi from a Jordanian accent. And if all it takes is putting on weight and growing a beard to disguise oneself, then we're in deep trouble.

When this news was first announce yesterday there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth and throwing of hands up in the air in dismay. But Professor Cole makes a very valid point. The mysterious and fog-beshrouded master criminal Zarqawi has again been resurrected in the news just to remind everyone that he’s still out there, so be afraid, be very afraid. Oh, and he’s changed his appearance so he could be anywhere and we wouldn’t know him. And, since all this happened last year, we’ve been given a handy reason why the inept Bu$hCo still has not made Iraq into a democracy. It’s just not their fault! The dog ate the homework!

And take special note of the little comment about dialects and accents, since this is crucial. I’ve commented on this before. When you don’t speak the language of the country you’re trying to conquer, you can’t win. Handing out candies and school supplies to children is a good thing, and the US troops are to be highly commended for this humanitarian effort to win over the Iraqis. Americans, as a country, truly want to be liked and want to help those less fortunate.

It’s only the Bu$hCo malAdministration that doesn’t give a crap about anyone else.

Emmanuel Wallerstein writes a listserve article twice a month. Access is through dupont@binghamton.edu.

"Losing One's Nerve in Iraq"

In response to the ever-growing sense that the United States is doing poorly in Iraq, indeed in the view of many is actually losing the war, the U.S. government has launched a campaign to persuade everyone that this is not so. In November, 2005, the U.S. National Security Council published, with great fanfare, a document entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." And President Bush has been pushing its line vociferously in public speeches.

What this document argues is that victory is occurring, but occurring in stages, that victory is a vital U.S. interest, that the U.S. has a quite clear strategy for victory, but that this victory will take time. The key sentence in this wordy document, which evades all concrete analysis of what is actually going on, is a quote from President Bush's speech on Oct. 6, 2005: "In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve, and we will win that victory."

We will keep our nerve, says Bush. But his Rasputin, Vice-President Cheney, is not so sure, since he constantly asserts that U.S. critics of the Bush administration, however mild their criticism, are undermining this "nerve" and risk making the U.S. lose its resolve. The number of Republican Congressmen and Senators who are worried that the voters have already lost their "nerve" and might vote against them seems to be increasing at a very rapid pace, and seems to be having a great impact on the "nerve" of these Republican politicians.

When Rep. John Murtha, ex-Marine and longtime stalwart hawk, called for pulling out of Iraq, most commentators felt he was the unofficial voice of large numbers of senior military officers who were unable to voice their concerns publicly. Is this loss of their nerve? Neither Murtha nor the hidden senior military officers would define it this way. They see a situation in which the U.S. will not at all be able to win the kind of victory Bush is talking about, and by staying in Iraq they believe that the U.S. armed forces are being weakened as a military force able to do its work elsewhere in the world. They want to cut their losses before the U.S. armed forces lose even more.

It seems clear now that virtually every member of the U.S. coalition that has military forces in Iraq intends to reduce its number, if not fully withdraw them, in 2006. It seems fairly clear that the U.S. itself will do this. Nobody of course admits to losing their nerve, but public opinion at home and impending elections are taking their toll.

What about the Iraqis? There are two main groups of Iraqis - those who are energetically fighting the U.S. forces and any Iraqis thought to be cooperating with them, and the others. Those who are energetically fighting the U.S. are said, in this U.S. document, to be composed of three groups: rejectionists (Sunni Arabs who have not "embraced" the changes); Saddamists (who wish to restore the old regime), and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaeda. The U.S., according to this document, has more or less given up on the latter two categories but hopes to persuade "many" of the first group to reduce their opposition. There does not however seem to be much evidence that this is happening. In short, those whom the U.S. calls its "enemies" do not seem to have lost their nerve, or their competence in fighting.

But what about the other Iraqis? Here the U.S. seems to be counting on the new Iraqi security forces, presumably under the authority of the new Iraqi government. I say presumably because it is obvious that these security forces are deeply infiltrated both by the "enemies" of the U.S. and by various militias - two kinds of Kurdish militias, and at least three kinds of Shi'a militias - who are pursuing their own objectives under the cover of being the national army. The U.S. says it is counting on these security forces to take over its task of fighting the "enemy" - that is, those who reject all legitimacy to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But is the objective of those who control various parts of the new security forces really the same as those of the Bush regime? Do they intend to be "a full partner in the global war on terrorism" - the longer-term goal of the U.S. according to this document? Is this credible over the longer run? Even if those who are in the new government now are still there two years from now (itself a dubious proposition), why would they want to play this role when it can only make it more difficult to create even a moderately stable political situation in Iraq?

And finally, among winners and losers, more attention is being paid by observers today to the possibility that the big winner will be Iran. It is not that even a Shia-dominated government in Iraq will be in any sense a stooge of the Iranians. It is simply that they will not in any way want to play a role of being hostile to Iran, and therefore could not, will not, be sympathetic to U.S. objectives vis-a-vis Iran.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls in Iraq. They toll for George W. Bush, and the United States. Bush claimed the U.S. went into Iraq so that it would not have to fight this "war" on U.S. soil. But the contrary is happening. The turmoil is coming to U.S. soil with a vengeance. One of the claims as to why the U.S. should not immediately withdraw from Iraq is that it might result in an Iraqi civil war. But no one discusses what kind of civil war might be in the process of developing in the United States.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

Mr Bush has so polluted the American discourse with his pretensions to dictatorship, that he has inspired his vassals to consider themselves as already rulers of the entire world. The go forth in their polyester livery, comfortable in the knowledge that the world is their fiefdom and all and sundry must wait in attendance upon their regally lifted brow.

Our neighbor to the north, Oh! Canada! (you know the place – Great White North, terrific Labatts and Molson Golden beers, some of the most vicious hockey players I’ve ever met – thank God I never played against the men - yeah that place)…. Well they’re having an election, and the word I hear is that it’s going to be free, fair, and best of all, no one will know who won until AFTER it’s over. How’s that for exotic?

So, we’ve had our problems with this Canada place, because The Great White North has a lot of trees, which seem to cost a bit less to cut and turn into building material than our much more regal and Imperial American trees, and some of the American softwood suppliers were complaining. They consider themselves partners in the American government, or maybe co-owners, considering how much they’ve invested in the Republican Party, and Canadian wood was cheaper than theirs and they weren’t getting 98% of the market in wood for building houses. And after all, it’s their right to have 98% of the market for themselves after all they spent on the Republican Party, right?

His Most Puissant Majesty sent an ex-speaker of the South Carolina House, and (most importantly) a stalwart campaign donation bagman, David Wilkins, to be Ambassador in Canada. Ambassador Wilkins gave a little speech the other day to the assembled vassals at the Canadian Club in Ottowa, [ed: Canadian Club the building, not the booze] and chided them for allowing themselves to be critical of the US in their electoral politics.

"It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But it is a slippery slope, and all of us should hope that it doesn't have a long-term impact on our relationship," said Ambassador Wilkins. "It shouldn't be lost on any of us that some of your politicians use my country to score political points."

Josh Marshall has the goods:

It was hardly the most caustic speech you've ever heard. But it's the essence of diplomatic etiquette that foreign ambassadors simply don't poke their noses into their host country's election campaigns, especially not to tell them not to criticize his country, except in cases where the host country amounts to a dependency or de facto protectorate.
So what was this guy thinking?

Those old rules of diplomatic etiquette are obviously meaningless when you’re a bagman for the Great 21st century American Empire. Now, our international representatives traipse around the world spreading ill-will and dandruff wherever they go, impressing the natives with their grandeur.

Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada was less than overawed. In fact, he politely vommented – (new word created by Bu$hCo diplomacy. One vommets when one spits out a load of bile along with a cutting remark in response to something an ignorant American says when dissing your native land.)

Josh Marshall again:

The whole thing vaguely reminds me of Gerhard Schroeder’s 2002 reelection campaign. In the world of Bushdom, every center-left leader gets to win once on his own steam and then a second time by running on domestic disdain for George W. Bush.
It's good politics.
Everywhere.

Excuse me, sir, but I think you've gotten this wrong.

Marine Major Ben Connable wrote this in today's WaPo:

The common wisdom seems to be that Iraq is an unwinnable war and a quagmire and that the only thing left to decide is how quickly we withdraw. Depending on which poll you believe, about 60 percent of Americans think it's time to pull out of Iraq.

How is it, then, that 64 percent of U.S. military officers think we will succeed if we are allowed to continue our work? Why is there such a dramatic divergence between American public opinion and the upbeat assessment of the men and women doing the fighting?

The only poll I could find that came close to agreeing with this statement was a November 17, 2005 poll by The Pew Research Center For the People and the Press.

In the poll, military "opinion leaders" did indeed believe that a stable democracy will succeed in Iraq. However, there's nothing that says, as Maj. Connable does, that these are the people "doing the fighting." In fact, many of the military "opinion leaders" weren't even asked this question. Or any questions. The methodology explained:

The military leaders sample was drawn from a Lexis-Nexis search of retired generals and admirals quoted in American news sources in the past year. Also included was a sample of outstanding officers selected to participate in the Council on Foreign Relations' Military Fellowship program since 2000.

The major goes on to say that mid-level officers and NCOs also seem to be optimistic about Iraq, but there's no data except his personal impressions and, I'll tell from an NCOs perspective, a Marine major probably has little chance of actually knowing what his NCOs really think. That's not a dig on him. It's just the truth.

One thing that Maj. Connable didn't mention from the same poll was that those same military "opinion leaders" were all but evenly split on the topic two major issues: A) military leaders support the choice to go to war in the first place by only 49-47 percent; and B) believe that the Iraq war has helped make us safer by only 47-45 percent.

So this poll really tells me that military "opinion leaders" (whoever they are) still believe in the ability of the military to pull America's fat out of the fire in Iraq even though they're evenly split over whether we should be there in the first place and whether it's doing us any good.

Cross-posted at Nitpicker.

The parents of Marine Lt. Ryan McGlothlin were on CNN tonight. It turns out that the lieutenant and I would have agreed about a lot.

Let's remember first what Bush said today.

The work ahead will also require continued sacrifice. Yet we can be confident, because history has shown the power of freedom to overcome tyranny. And we can be confident because we have on our side the greatest force for freedom in human history: the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.)

One of these men was a Marine lieutenant named Ryan McGlothlin, from Lebanon, Virginia. Ryan was a bright young man who had everything going for him and he always wanted to serve our nation. He was a valedictorian of his high school class. He graduated from William & Mary with near-perfect grade averages, and he was on a full scholarship at Stanford, where he was working toward a doctorate in chemistry.

Two years after the attacks of September the 11th, the young man who had the world at his feet came home from Stanford for a visit. He told his dad, "I just don't feel like I'm doing something that matters. I want to serve my country. I want to protect our lands from terrorists, so I joined the Marines." When his father asked him if there was some other way to serve, Ryan replied that he felt a special obligation to step up because he had been given so much. Ryan didn't support me in the last election, but he supported our mission in Iraq. And he supported his fellow Marines.

Ryan was killed last month fighting the terrorists near the -- Iraq's Syrian border. In his pocket was a poem that Ryan had read at his high school graduation, and it represented the spirit of this fine Marine. The poem was called "Don't Quit."

In our fight to keep America free, we'll never quit.

But here's what Lt. McGlothlin's mother had to say.

Actually, I don't feel Ryan felt that when we first went to war that was the right place or the right time. And that's why we wanted to make sure that the White House understood that. He felt if we were going to go to war we should have been in Afghanistan, and I think he felt war should have been the last resort or last possible resort. And I'm not sure he felt that it was.

What he did feel that once we went there, and we tore down the government they did know, and disrupted their country, we had an obligation to fix what we had destroyed. And he very strongly believed in that.

In other words, we're seeing the results of what Colin Powell called the "Pottery Barn" policy. McGlothlin believed that, since we'd broken Iraq, we were responsible for fixing it. He knew that the initial move was a mistake and, while he grew to admire and want to help the Iraqis, he didn't think this war had anything to do with keeping America free.

I believed the same thing until very recently.

Let's run down the list: Bush has sent our lost soldiers home as freight, joked while discussing their (and Iraqis) final sacrifices and, now, he now misrepresents the values of the dead for his own purposes. He has no shame.

Cross-posted at Nitpicker

More good stuff on l’affaire Froomkin, from Ezra Klein:

It is, of course, interesting timing that Harris let slip the dogs of cowed objectivity at exactly the moment when the Whitehouse Briefing, by virtue of Bush's real life woes, had no choice but to be biased. Over the past few months, reality has simply refused to be objective. It has refused to portray Iraq in a suitably hopeful yet tough-minded manner. It has stubbornly resisted advice to give Bush approval ratings above the low-40s and high-30s. It has routinely proven obstinate on almost all indicators of the country's mood and well-being, perhaps not realizing that, while things look very bad, some would say they are, in fact, quite good. Reality is biased. There can be, of course, only one response. Reality is going to have to change its name. Can't have folks mixing it up with objective fact. Unless it develops a bit more fair-mindedness, we're simply going to have to call it something different to ensure no one gets confused.

As more shoes fall, the actual problem begins to congeal in WaPo's corporate consciousness. The Emperor really is naked, people are bginning to notice, and Froomkin comments on the fact, sometimes in a brutally candid manner. The courtiers at the WH dislike this sort of heretical treatment. This of course, embarasses the dancers and prancers at WaPo's politcal news section, since they're still personally and professionally dedicated to continuing to publicly declare Mr Bush's near divinity.

As far as they're concerned, the last time a human was this perfect was about 2,000 years ago. This time, however, WaPo seems to be convinced there will be no crucifixion.

There’s a newspaper called the Washington Post. It’s supposed to be one of the country’s leading newspapers. Situated in the nation’s capitol, it is alleged to be the “inside” paper, with excellent connections to all the power centers, the movers and shakers, the nomenklatura at the center of the wheel of power. People too close to the centers of power seem to invariably become part of that center. Reporters and journalists, tasked with reporting on the movers and shakers at various levels of power, begin to socialize with them and depend on these folks to provide them with news, information, tidbits, leads, and insider gossip. Then these movers and shakers become “sources” and the reporters become gullible sycophants, eager to transmit any iota of spin thrown at them to the waiting readers. The reporters and sources form a symbiosis, two animals dependent on each other in a vulgar parasitic way of life. Washington journalists call this “getting your foot inside.” In other cities they call this corruption.

Thus, the Washington Post, established as a means of reporting on what’s happening around the world, and within the US government, became part of the machine, and since the Republican Party had more money for entertainment and gratuities, the Post slowly was corrupted until it became a megaphone for Republican lies and propaganda. Under the capable leadership of Mr. Fred Hiatt, the Post seems to have been inseparably absorbed into the Republican Party.

Like all newspapers today, WaPo has an online edition (WPNI), and a man named Dan Froomkin writes a column for the online edition called White House Briefing. Mr Froomkin is also deputy editor of Neiman Watchdog.org, described as “a Web site from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University that encourages reporters to ask more probing questions and hold the powerful accountable.” Mr Froomkin discusses his professional resume and his beliefs about reportage here.

Because Mr Froomkin believes reporters have a sacred trust in a democracy to hold the feet of the nomeklatura to the fire, he is unpopular in the corridors of power. On Sunday 12/11, Deborah Howell, who is rumored to be the WaPo’s ombudsman wrote an opinion that Mr Froomkin’s column might be confusing readers, since it’s title, White House Briefing could cause people to infer that Mr Froomkin is, somehow, a WH reporter. She took pains to explain that there are two different WaPo’s: the dead tree edition with a daily subscription of 600,000+ and 925,000+ on Sunday. The online version, washingtonpost.com which has at least 8 million monthly visits. Ms Howell described how the two different WaPos are incestuously supportive, since the dead tree’s contents end up in the online version, and it’s confusing readers, and upsetting the paper’s political reporters because Mr Froomkin is “highly opinionated” and “liberal”.

These are both State crimes in Bu$hCo’s Washington.

Enter John Harris, WaPo’s national political editor who was quoted as saying, "The title [White House briefing] invites confusion. It dilutes our only asset -- our credibility” and Mr Froomkin writes the kind of column "that we would never allow a White House reporter to write. I wish it could be done with a different title and display."

Ms Howell continued her hatchet job on Mr Froomkin by describing the differences between the two WaPos and stating that WPNI adds to the print paper’s prestige, but it’s just terrible that Mr Froomkin has a public forum to dispense his vicious liberal opinions to the public.

Mr Harris followed this up with a Monday column (on the WPNI, not in print) stating that “several” readers seem to be confused about Mr Froomkin’s column and really, all things considered, it would be much better if Mr Froomkin were demoted, or humiliated by being forced to change the name of his column.

People in the newsroom want to end this confusion. We do not want to spike his column--or at least I don't. It might be the case that he would be writing similarly about John Kerry if he were president. But I guarantee that many people who posted here would not be Froomkin enthusiasts--or be so indifferent to the concerns I raise--in that case. In his comments, Dan pleads with reporters to stop complaining about him and start doing more to hold the White House accountable.

Perceptive observers of the Bu$hCo machine will immediately understand that reporters who attempted to hold the White House accountable for anything at all would very soon be spending a lot more time with their families.

There were hundreds of responses to Mr Harris’s opinion piece, ranging from a suggestion that Mr Harris change the paper’s name to White House Post because of its unparalleled allegiance to Bu$hCo all the way down to several suggestions that Mr Harris immediately consider spending a lot more time with his family.

By Tuesday l’affaire Froomkin had generated well over 1,000 repsonses, all of them apparently supportive of Mr Froomkin. Executive Editor Jim Brady opined that things are just fine as they are right now.

Editor & Publisher has revealed that the readers concerned about possible confusion all sit at desks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Over at firedoglake.com, Jane tackles the issue in some excruciating detail.

Lots of pithy comments on Jane’s blog, by the way. Well worth reading, although be sure to bring a large sandwich and some popcorn with you because you’re going to be very entertained. My favorite comment, ably summing up the entire matter, is from a poster named “Karl Rove”, writing to Mr Harris:

John,

You really need to take down this part of the website soon. It will just be more and more embarrassment to all of us if readers keep making comments like the ones above.

It is particularly bothersome that these readers are not only criticizing you but hinting at our cozy deal.

You were not supposed to do it this way. Maybe I was a little distracted by my pre-indictment packing of my office files, but I thought I could trust you to do this quietly.

It looks like the trouble is that you hired Deborah and she made it all public in her Sunday column. If she keeps this up, you'll have to dismiss her after you dismiss Dan. We can't have this kind of public exposure of our conversations. You people are getting to be as bad as the people at TIME who blab all over the office about my conversations with them. But you and Deborah went a step further and put it all on your website. Don't you understand that when I go on super double-secret background, you are NOT SUPPOSED TO WRITE ABOUT IT.

By the way are Froomkin's resignation papers on your desk yet? That was supposed to have occurred already.

Casualty (n.) One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.

There’s lots of dead bodies to be counted, and it seems no one can quite agree on how to count them. We have the Pentagon method, and the civilian method. It’s already been quite adequately explained why the Pentagon casualty figures are as useful as milk ducts on a bull. See here and here and here and here

See, the Pentagon figures only count dead US bodies in Iraq. That’s US troops, men and women, killed by bullet or IED in country. A troop wounded and evacuated, who dies en route or later at Landstuhl Medical Center in Germany, doesn’t count. There’s quite a lot of them, but you won’t get too much information about them from the Pentagon. They think dead bodies are embarrassing, and don’t want Americans to know much about them.

Similarly, troops killed by “other than hostile means” don’t really count in the Pentagon’s official figures. Fall asleep at the wheel of a HMMMV because you’ve been on duty for 18 hours straight? Drive into a canal and drown? Too bad. Unofficial death not counted in the figures. Get sick and die from some exotic disease over there? (They’ve got a lot of them.) Same thing. Died after evacuation to Landstuhl, or Walter Reed, or even after you return home to your loved ones, and it’s the same thing. It’s not the “official” Iraq death total. As we said in the late unpleasantness in SE Asia, Xin Loi.

This is not to say you’re completely ignored. Your body gets shipped home under official seal, sometimes via Air Force C-141, and met at Andrews AFB by a quiet corporal’s guard of flag bearers and some camouflaged soldiers who’ve become all too used to unloading flag-draped coffins and carrying them into a warehouse. And sometimes they’re shipped home in a very surprising manner. The garish “transfer tube” tastefully disguised inside a cardboard shipping carton, so no one will realize that the carton contains the sum total of the hopes, prayers, love and dreams of an American family.

A quick side note: I started writing this article around 3 PM, Monday, 12/12, at which time the confirmed death total was 2,135. There were 11 additional reported dead, unconfirmed. Heartsick, I put this story aside and only picked it up again after midnight. It’s now 230 AM, Tuesday, and the count is 2,141 confirmed, 5 pending. Oil gets more expensive every hour.

So, the “real” figure is significantly, perhaps even frighteningly, higher than the official figure. This administration has worked so hard to hide so many things that it’s quite hard to learn the truth about anything. Estimates range from 15,000 to 48,000, and that’s actually only a guess.

And then there’s the Iraqi bodies. Lots of them. Again, there are no reliable figures, because the Pentagon can’t be bothered with an accurate count, satisfying itself with press releases full of braggadocio jubilantly proclaiming 30 or 40 or 50 dead “insurgents” during the latest full scale destruction of an Iraqi city. Round numbers are always suspect. I learned that in Nam. You’d look at an area, make a box with your two hands, count how many bodies were inside the field of vision through the box, guesstimate how many boxes there were in the area, and then do your multiplication. You’d report the figure to your 6, and by the time it had gotten to Brigade the figure had been doubled, for sure. And the other thing, of course, was that a dead body was always a VC. Age, gender, or physical condition meant nothing, because after all, we never killed civilians, right?

I understand Commander Codpiece spoke in Philadelphia yesterday. The Commander-in-Chief (there can be only one) admitted to 30,000 dead Iraqis. That means that the real figure is undoubtedly much closer to the 100,000 estimated by Lancet Magazine. One thing I've learned in the last five years is that this guy lies about everything.

Oil sure is getting more and more expensive all the time.

Stolen Copied in toto from Susie Madrak

The National Veterans Foundation has opened a toll-free helpline (1-888-777-4443) for Troops, Veterans and their families.

All calls are answered live by trained veterans, who listen, provide crisis intervention services, emotional support and information, or immediate referrals to local providers who can help. The NVF Helpline has already served more than 275,000 people in need.

NVF aims to get the helpline running 24/7, but it currently operates from 9a.m.-9p.m., M-F. All messages received during off hours are returned the next business day, and requests for assistance can also be submitted via e-mail at vetsupport@nvf.org.

The NVF is headquartered in Los Angeles, and as the press release indicates, is only answering calls part time. I'm sure they'd appreciate call center help from any of you sleepless vets out there in the area.

They're headquartered online here.

Not to say that the Veterans Administration isn't ready and poised to help a needy vet at any hour of the day and night.

But it isn't.

Remember what I said a while back? That when you need the National Guard, there would be no one there except a couple guys to answer phones? Observe:

(New York- WABC, December 8, 2005) - Equipment shortages within the New York and New Jersey National Guard are raising serious questions about their ability to respond to disasters.

A month-long investigation by Eyewitness News has discovered large quantities of equipment to be used for "at home" emergencies, are now in Iraq.

...

When national guard troops come home from Iraq, much of the critical equipment that makes them an effective force stays behind.

...

Since the war, New Jersey National Guard has left one thousand humvees and trucks back in Iraq.

And during the past year, 16 of its 20 helicopters were in Iraq. They are now being shipped home, but it could be months before they're operational.

...

A more revealing picture of New York equipment shortages are found in numbers we obtained from the House Armed Services Committee.

They reveal New York is authorized to have more than 900 humvees, but currently have only 266. They are also authorized to have more than one thousand night vision goggles, but have only 264.

Rep. [Steve] Israel [D-Suffolk]: "Humvees and night vision goggles are mission critical equipment. If the New York National Guard only has 25 percent of what it needs that suggest a real problem."

...

Why do we have a National Guard anymore? We might as well put everybody on active duty and leave disaster response to the incompetents at FEMA. If the Guard has no equipment, the results will be the same.

Cross-posted at the Brain.

No, really. Remember, as Steve Gilliard says, the republicans and the 1600 Crew love our troops ... us Democrats we hate'em according to the hyper-traitorous wingnuts.

A local family said fallen soldiers and Marines deserve better and that one would think our war heroes are being transported with dignity, care and respect. It said one would think upon arrival in their hometowns they are greeted with honor. But unfortunately, the family said that is just not the case.

Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag -- greeted by a color guard.

But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners -- stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo.

John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.
...
The bodies of dead service members arrive at Dover Air Force Base.

From that point, they are sent to their families on commercial airliners.

Reporters from 10News called the Defense Department for an explanation. A representative said she did not know why this is happening.

The parents of the late Marine are both Army vets, so they knew the protocol and got Senator Boxer to help them get their son home with the honor and dignity he deserved.

Given the numbers of middle-aged men and women whose exposure to the military has been Gomer Pyle, Rambo and all the Chuck Norris war movies, I doubt that many would be saavy enough to know the difference. They probably get a letter or telegram notifying them of the shipment, and instructions for to have their funeral home pick up the remains from the airline cargo office.

You have to wonder what's happened to the whole Casualty Assistance Calls Officer program, that used to be sort of the province of local reserve units (now probably in Mess O'Potamia), and local active duty folks (if any). I'm sure that Dancing Donnie has found some local CheneyBurton affiliate to outsource it to, on no-bid basis of course, and they don't work evenings or weekends.

I'm sure that the 1600 Crew is not too interested in the process, because once they're in "transfer tubes" they can't stand behind Beloved Leader for a political speech on base anymore.

Republicans ... loving some service people, as long as there's no actual time, money or inconvenience involved.

Props to Shakespeares Sister for the hat tip.

Capitol Hill Blue is reporting one of the more disturbing things I have heard from the Immoral Moron. If this can be verified, it clearly deserves really wide dissemination among military, ex-military, and really, any real patriotic citizens.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

I don't really think it matters what he was reacting to but, it is worth it to read the whole thing. Boys and Girls,this is a scary monster to have as CinC.

CAFKIA

So, as usual on the way home from work, I'm listening to NPR. (except for a four month period following Dumbya's reselection where everything political I saw or heard pissed me off too damn badly to endure.) They were discussing one of the sources of Iraq intel with a NYT reporter who apparently had done a story on the guy. Essentially, what they say is that pretty much all the really damaging stuff that he told his "interviewers" (wink wink) was crap that he made up cuz that was what he thought they wanted to hear and (big freakin AND here) AND he thought that it would cause his "interviewers" (wink wink) to "go easy" on him. REALLY?

Now, this gent had been rendered, extordinarily or just plain old every day rendition, I'm not sure which, to Egypt and was apparently expecting some "aggressive interviewing" (wink wink) to take place. If I heard correctly, the guy said that the threat of torture (or maybe they actually warmed him up a little) convinced him to lie. The lies he told were used as a considerable portion of the justification for us attacking Iraq. Now, is there anyone here who does not understand why torture is pretty much useless?

Under extreme tactical situations, the likes of which few of us will be so unfortunate as to encounter, torture might well be used as a last resort but, the patriot will stand up and say "Yes, I did what I thought I had to do to save my team and stand willing to accept the consequences". In strategic situations, as most of them are, they tell you whatever they think you want to hear to stop the pain or, they tell you what they have been trained to tell you. Unless you already know the truth, you might well never know you are being lied to. If you already know the truth, what is the purpose of the torture?

There is NO possible governmental justification for torture save, it gets these guys off. And really, I'd just as soon not have to think about that.

CAFKIA