baldilocks

Bremer says U.S. will leave Iraq if new government asks (King Buzz)

This is asinine. We've expended in excess of $100B, suffered thousands of casualties, thrown our reputation and national honor on the line and we're going to leave if the new provisional government asks us to? As someone who has served in Iraq, I can't imagine anything more ridiculous. We leave when there is a sufficiently stable government in place and not one minute before. To suggest that any other course of action is acceptable is irresponsible to the point of being criminal.

Conjuring images of "mushroom clouds" over the U.S. and using the inaccurate claims of the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD, the current administration used our military to invade a country and remove its government. Now, in the resulting chaos that has enflamed the Middle East and turned the world against us, we say we'll walk away, if asked. If we walk away now, we will only leave behind a danger to America that Saddam could only dream of becoming.

There was no credible Al Qaida-Iraq link before the war, but there sure is now. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq since it was proposed in 2002, but now that we're there, we have a responsibility to both the American and Iraqi people to stay there until a stable and secure government is in place; no if's, and's or but's about it. Leaving a weak and unstable government in power will give the terrorists fertile ground in which to recruit, rearm, and replenish their funds. It would be the second major mis-step in losing the War on Terrorism (the first being invading Iraq in the first place, when we should have been concentrating on finishing what we started in Afghanistan).

I recommend that you write your Senator or Representative and ask that they not allow a pullout from Iraq until the job is finished, irrespective of what any appointed, provisional, interim "government" in Iraq might say.

Getting Ready for Our Date (King Buzz)

Unfortunately, I missed the President's news conference last night and had only been able to hear and read news summaries and editorial commenting from either side of the aisle (including what's been written here). What I heard and read were a lot of things which are not really substantive and objective concerns of mine. So, I decided to quickly read the text posted at the White House website. My main interest was to understand what the President is telling the American people about the transition of power in Iraq and "The Date" - June 30th.

Below are the primary comments from the President:

"One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America…Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands."

This is true. President Bush did set a deadline of June 30th. What factors were key in choosing that date, I have no way of knowing. However, it is clearly a date set into a concrete calendar and not a date tied to any pre-existing conditions on the ground. In other words, it has nothing to do with how secure and stable the environment is nor does it have anything to do with how advanced or firm the planning is for the transitional government. This concerns me.

"The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come. On June 30th, when the flag of free Iraq is raised, Iraqi officials will assume full responsibility for the ministries of government. On that day, the transitional administrative law, including a bill of rights that is unprecedented in the Arab world, will take full effect. The United States, and all the nations of our coalition, will establish normal diplomatic relations with the Iraqi government. An American embassy will open, and an American ambassador will be posted."

In other words, there is not currently evidence of Iraq moving towards self-rule, but be prepared for some pomp and circumstance on June 30th. The clear implication is that Iraq is regaining its sovereignty on June 30th and we will become welcome guests of a legitimate and sovereign Iraqi government. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Hq will become the largest embassy in the history of the world. The Iraqi security forces (such that they are) will become junior members of our military Coalition and fall underneath the command of our top general. Perceptions of this are likely to be colored by the beholder's level of faith in the current administration. As a point of reference, I'd like to put forward a definition of sovereignty that I found on the web.

SOVEREIGNTY. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.

This is not a definition that will apply to Iraq after June 30th. Do I expect that Iraq is, in fact, ready for this kind of sovereignty? Absolutely not. Based on what I saw in the streets of Baghdad and on what I saw and heard in the CPA Hq, the Coalition military Hq, and Iraqi ministries, I do not believe Iraq is even remotely close to being ready for this kind of sovereignty.

I've previously stated on this site that the June 30th transfer date is either a tremendous gamble or a tremendous farce. The gamble would be if the U.S. is actually handing sovereignty over to the Iraqi people. However, I think it is pretty clear that it is a show. I'm sure it will be very clear to the group of Iraqis that "accept" sovereignty from the Coalition, that they will not be free to make any decisions to which we are opposed.

Despite the fact that Iraq is clearly not ready to be a sovereign democratic nation on June 30th, I am not criticizing sticking to that date. The President is correct is saying that we cannot change the June 30th date now without significant negative backlash on the streets. The President has made our bed and now we have to sleep in it with the Iraqis for a long time to come. Get familiar with the odors…and just leave the billion dollar bills on the nightstand.

A Desire for Wisdom and Truth (King Buzz)

Baldilocks guest blogger, King Buzz, here again.

These are difficult days for our troops in Iraq. I've only been gone from there for a month, but when I left, it was clear things would be taking a turn for the worse. While it may seem wrong to question what we're doing when our troops are dying their, we have to be informed and thoughtful citizens and follow that up with communication to our elected representatives.

My problems with the occupation strategy are difficult to articulate without having them sound like direct personal criticisms of specific administration officials. It isn't appropriate to go into that, but I'll be honest and say that I feel some anger and frustration in my heart. However, that is emotional and not constructive, especially in light of what is happening on the ground right now. We need to support our troops, but we also need to express to our political leaders the course of action we would like to see taken which is the best for those troops and for our country as a whole.

First of all, what options are actually available? Occupying a country and working towards a transition to a democratic government where there is no democratic tradition is extraordinarily complex. Basically, though, the courses of action can be boiled down to three options - 1) do more, 2) do the same, or 3) do less. I believe we have to do more - send more money, more troops, and take more time by clearly spelling out a more realistic transition period that is closer to five years instead of June.

Earlier, when I wrote about my opposition to the occupation strategy, I said that I was opposed to it based on the principle of judiciousness; that I did not feel that wisdom and truth were being employed. I won't speak to the potential motivations or rationales for that, because it is a subjective matter on which no one except those involved can speak with certainty. But, I don't believe that an accurate accounting of the current and future time and costs have been made clear to the American people.

Part of the reason for that is deficit spending and tax cuts. I believe it creates an illusion for the average person on the street that we're not pouring many billions upon billions of dollars into Iraq, which we are. I'm no economist, but I'm sure we cannot do this for long. The bill will come due.

When I left Iraq last month, the major rotation to replace troops who had been deployed for over a year was underway. As I attended planning meetings at CJTF-7 headquarters, it was clearly stated that a smaller and less capable force was replacing the main part of the experienced invasion force, even though the security situation was not improving. As I attended meetings with Coalition Provisional Authority personnel, they universally expressed frustration and uncertainty of how the turn-over could possibly be accomplished by 30 June. As I worked with senior Iraqi Ministry personnel in the appointed transition government, they were intending on jumping ship before the end of June. The current plan does not jive with the reality.

If we were to fail or quit what we've started in Iraq, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it was when Saddam ruled Iraq. Because we cannot fail, we must spend more money, more time and more blood. Those of you who scoff when someone mentions reinstituting the draft, reconsider your derision. The fact that those troops who've been in Iraq longer than a year are now being kept longer (again) and some units that have just returned are facing redeployment to Iraq again, you're likely to see some serious retention problems. Those of you are anticipating a repeat of tax refunds, forget it. Expect the opposite.

In fact, if you really want to see us succeed in Iraq, write your elected officials and ask for the draft to be brought back and your taxes to be raised in order to achieve victory in Iraq. Don't just "say" you support the troops, send them your money and be prepared to send them your kids.

Opposition - Before and After (King Buzz)

King Buzz here (baldilocks guest blogger). Thanks to all for the warm welcome into the wonderful world of blogging.

I can tell already that the hardest part of blogging is deciding what "not" to say. For me, even in relative anonymity, I do not feel it's appropriate to comment negatively directly about the President nor other senior government officials. But, I do take exception to some policies and I'll voice my concern about those. The other difficult part of deciding what "not" to say is keeping focus on particular points.

My intended points for this entry are to give a brief (at least, brief as possible) description of how my viewpoint on the invasion of Iraq, as a matter of national policy, was changed by my opportunity to put boots on the ground. Without going back too far, I'll start by saying that I was against the way in which the US invaded Iraq. This is not to say that I was opposed to the tactics or strategy employed, but that I was against the rationale given, the policy implemented, and the manner in which it was implemented. Obviously, these are contentious opinions and will require follow-up, but I'll make an attempt to quickly explain this point of view.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, my opposition to the course of action that was clearly being implemented was based on principles; the principles of international law and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. First, I believe in and support the concept of international law. International law is a bit like frontier law; it is not evenly understood, agreed upon nor enforced. However, frontier law is important to avoid complete lawlessness and international law is important, especially when our nation is the lone superpower, for the same reason. War between nations under international law is like inter-personal violence between individuals under frontier law. An unprovoked attack under international law is equivalent to murder under frontier law and a pre-emptive invasion is equivalent to a justifiable homicide for self-defense. To be acquitted in court for justifiable homicide for self-defense requires evidence that the other person clearly posed an imminent danger to the attacker or another innocent party. Prior to the invasion, I did not believe that the imminent danger requiring immediate military action was evident. After the invasion, I was almost certain the evidence was lacking. More on that another day.

Secondly, I did not believe that the authorization to use military force given to the President by the Congress in October of 2002 was adequate approval for war under our Constitution. It is clear to me that the Founding Fathers did not intend for one person to make the crucial decision of whether or not our country would go to war. The power to declare war is a power clearly given to Congress so that their vote to declare war is an unambiguous expression of the national will that no other course of action other than expending our "blood and treasure" in extreme violence is available in order to resolve an international dispute. That did not happen. I believe that Congress ducked their responsibilities and passed the vigorously requested buck to the Executive Branch. I did not, and do not, believe that was right. If the course of action was correct, Congress was obligated to declare war. If they could not, the President was obligated to not attack unless there was a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. or our Allies under existing treaty obligations.

Once the shoe dropped and we crossed the line into Iraq, some things changed for me. It was no longer a proposed course of action I didn't agree with, it was a war that we were engaged in and there is only one acceptable outcome in war - victory. During the initial part of the war, my duties involved working on my agency's crisis action team and providing support to our deployed site assessment teams. After the collapse of the Iraqi government, my agency moved into supporting the Iraq Survey Group as WMD hunters and when the opportunity for me to deploy there presented itself - I took it. I wanted to help my agency do what it was tasked to accomplish and I wanted to get a view of the ground truth from the inside.

Now, the things I experienced and other interesting anecdotes are fodder for other posts, but what I wanted to relay was how being there changed my view of the invasion. I saw that there were some good things happening in Iraq and I saw that there were some awful things happening in Iraq. I won't argue with those who say that the average Iraqi on the street is better off today than before we ousted Saddam. It's probably true, but the real "final" truth still remains to be seen. However, I'm sure that the American public did not agree to deaths and severe injury of thousands of American soldiers and the spending of hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars in order to "probably" make the life of the average Iraqi better.

My opposition to the course of action on Iraq has changed from being one based on principle to being one based on judiciousness. It became clear to me that a combination of inadequate planning and poorly utilized intelligence assets had resulted in either a misunderstanding or lack of concern over what would happen once the Iraqi government fell. I worked with personnel in the Coalition Provisional Authority and with Iraqis, up to the Minister level, in the appointed Provisional Government and there is a lack of vision of where things are going and how we're going to get there. It's a rudderless hodgepodge, however well-intentioned and hardworking the involved personnel. Also, in my estimation, the June 30th hand-over is either a tremendous gamble or a tremendous farce. If we really hand control over the Iraqis, there will be even greater chaos than there is now and no one will be safer. If, on the other hand, we only pretend to hand over control to the Iraqis, we're perpetrating a crime against them, the rest of the world and ourselves.

We've created a power vacuum, with very long-term consequences and costs. We will be spending huge amounts of tax dollars and dying in Iraq for years to come. It is well-known axiom that war is inherently unpredictable. Our inability to control the chaos unleashed by war was evident to me when I was there and is really evident to everyone, today more than ever. Basically, my opposition based on judiciousness comes down to my belief that wisdom and truth has not been, and is not being, employed in our occupation strategy.

That's as small as I can make today's bite-sized piece of blogging. I hope somebody finds some value in it as food for thought. Until next time, and as always, please keep all of those Americans still in harm's way in your thoughts and prayers.

Greetings (King Buzz)

Greetings to all. It is sincerely my pleasure to accept the invitation from my friend, baldilocks, to post some observations and thoughts in her forum. I’m not a blogger, though I have enjoyed reading this site for the past several months. I certainly have not agreed with a lot of the things I’ve read here, but very much respect my friend and have applauded the way in which she’s shared her thoughts and opinions.

I suppose the best way to approach this is in bite-sized pieces. So, I’ll start with a little self-introduction. I’m using the moniker “King Buzz”; because that’s the nickname (rather, one of the nicknames) I was saddled with “back in the day” when baldilocks and I first met. We worked together on doing some intel work in Berlin for the Air Force during the Cold War and were on the same flight – Baker Flight. Baker Flight was known as The Buzzards. It was a wonderful group of people, doing an amazing job, at an extraordinary place. I was lucky enough to be selected by my peers to serve as flight president, organizing activities for this great group of folks and we all had a lot of fun. There was a lot of drinking and in the midst of all that happened then, someone (yes, I know who) started calling me King Buzz. It stuck.

I’ll give you just a little bit of what my background is so that you know where I’m coming from. I’m an active duty Air Force officer with 20 years of service. My primary professional areas of expertise are intelligence, nuclear weapons and arms control. Academically, my undergraduate and graduate studies have been in political science and international relations. Not surprisingly, I have had and continue to have some strong opinions about the situation in Iraq. Last year, when the opportunity arose, I volunteered to do a tour in Iraq to work in the Iraq Survey Group. I went over in November and got back home in the middle of March. My good friend, baldilocks, was a super e-mail correspondent while I was over there. She knows that my take on some things is a little bit different and she invited me to share some of my observations related to my Iraqi deployment.

My first observation will be a short one (since my greeting and intro have gotten too long) and it will be something you already know. There are some awesome American men and women over in Iraq doing some great work. I had the chance to work with active duty members from all the services, National Guard, Reserves, DoD civilians, other US Government civilians and contractors – and there are a lot of fantastic folks in all of those groups. Please keep them all in your thoughts and prayers.

My next post will be a tougher one. I’ll aim to explain my views of the invasion of Iraq before I deployed and how that opinion was affected by having boots on the ground. Again, thanks to baldilocks for inviting me into her blog and for being such a good friend, keeping me in good spirits while I was far from home.