Author: Robert Barrimond

TIME.com: Why Iraq Was a Mistake — Apr. 17, 2006 — Page 1:

Ret. General Newbold:

“From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq–an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots’ rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat–al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11’s tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I’ve been silent long enough.”

…

“Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear–I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general’s stars for a captain’s bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And while I don’t accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view–at the moment–is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists’ message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts. If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position.”

Finally someone who talks plain sense. I wondered how going after a should-a, would-a, could-a ally of al-Qaeda was equivalent to eliminating the actual, original threat: Osama bin Laden and the organization he leads. Instead of a president who “doesn’t spend much time thinking about” one of the America’s mortal enemies, I’d prefer one who will dispatch this threat with prejudice.

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increase clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligenc officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government, ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me. No matter how undeniable the threat from Iran is, George W. Bush is not the man to face it for me. Put in people like Powell or Zinni on this, who think and tell the truth before they act. W. has absolutely no creditability with me.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

Once again the professionals are saying no and Administration is overriding them with so-called experts. Political neo-con craziness, which is proven stupidity as Iraq clearly demonstrates. We know what happens when this Administration does this.

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

Let’s hope so.

Grim forecast for young black men – Race in America – MSNBC.com:

“Making matters worse, a forthcoming book, which includes a study of nearly 1,500 private employers in New York City, found that black job applicants with no criminal records weren’t any more likely to get a job than white applicants who were just out of prison.”

Black folk who know that racism, albeit in different forms, is still part of the problems surrounding black men in our society. At Church you’ll hear about personal responsiblity, morals, etc. (“Being a father ain’t just about makin’ babies” and so on.) But you will also hear about racism in our society. When studies show employment issues for black people, we call that institutional racism. When a clean black man is as likely to get hired as a white ex-con, that’s pretty bad. That racism isn’t carried out by aliens, or “institutions” or “society;” it’s carried out by people. No amount of personal responsibility on the part of victims will cure this. Personal, or rather social, responsibility on the part of the prejudiced is also required. Prejudice is in all of us and is most dangerous in those with power. If you want to talk about racism in our society in the context of personal responsibility, then ask that we all accept it.