Wednesday, October 8, 2008-Friday, October 10, 2008-Monday, October 13, 2008-Tuesday, October 14, 2008-Thursday, October 16, 2008
Dear friend and fellow Jewish American,
I know that when it comes to security, that of Israel is as important to you as that of America, and I know that we have long shared a concern for this s nation that represents the hope of Jewish security, particularly in light of our history of non-sovereignty and the price we've paid.
In viewing the two candidates in the current election campaign, as in every past campaign, I know that you are asking yourself that most paramount serious question, “Which of these two candidates will be the greater guarantor of Israel's safety and security in this time of increased turbulence in the Middle East?.
I am writing to you as someone who is confident that Barack Obama, through his policy of building strong alliances and tough diplomacy, is the one who can best ensure the safety and protection of all of Israel's citizens and I will outline below the various reasons I believe John McCain's presidency promises instead a tone of recklessness that ultimately will plunge all of us, but particularly Israel, who, as you know, is in the midst of this region that has become much more tense during the Bush administration's tenure, into great and unthinkable danger, even if unintentionally.
I know that some of you may be supporters of John McCain while others among you may just not like Barack Obama. That is fine. I hope you receive my plea and supporting evidence for it in the spirit in which it is intended and give it a chance by at least taking the time to read it, and, if it stirs you to be of like mind, to pass it on to others in the Jewish community who you feel will be touched by these words, and if not, I apologize if I've upset you, but as you know, our tradition is rich with discussion and debate over issues of the greatest importance and I hope you will receive and even respond if you desire in that spirit—sacred to both the American and Jewish traditions of expressing our viewpoints while respecting and considering the opinions of others that differ.
I am certain that we all agree that America's enemies and Israel's enemies are the same. I think we can also agree that those who threaten Israel's safety also threaten America's safety. That has become especially apparent after September 11, 2001, as well as since the engagement with Iraq has led to the spread of both Al-Qaeda as well as the influence of unsavory leaders such as in Iran. I think we can therefore all agree that whoever can best protect America will best protect Israel. The problem is that many in the Jewish community have been fooled by the tough talk of the Republicans before, most notably in 2004, when John Kerry's totally correct position that going into Iraq was a big mistake that allowed Osama bin Ladin to get away and strengthened Al-Qaeda was perceived as weakness. But if anyone knows the difference between tough talk and effective talk, it's Israel's leaders, who have never been able to afford to make the kinds of mistakes the Bush administration has made over and over again, including its gross negligence in being ready, as the Clinton administration had been many times before it, to prevent the kind of attack that occurred on September 11, because, unlike Bush, Clinton thwarted these terrorists when they bombed embassies abroad and took seriously the warnings of intelligence briefings, and Israel, likewise, has dealt effectively with this kind of threat, minimizing loss of life. The gross negligence of the Bush administration that both allowed 9-11 to occur as well as detracted from ensuring safety and security is the same kind of negligence that is clearly evident in John McCain's policies and positions on American foreign policy. As Barack has indicated over and over, McCain's and Bush's policies are essentially the same. With the one notable exception of the use of torture on military prisoners—an exception for which John McCain should be greatly praised and commended, nowhere is Barack's description of the McCain doctrine as identical to the Bush doctrine (a term I use loosely knowing the latter has undergone many alterations) as accurate with respect to foreign policy.
The situation in the Middle East, like the global economy—and the two are very interconnected, as I'm sure is a surprise to no one—has become more destabilized during the 8 years of the Bush administration and is now both very precarious and dangerous. It should be as obvious to everyone as it is with respect to foreign policy that repeating the same reckless course for the next 4 or 8 more years has unthinkable consequences if we pursue such a course. It is beyond obvious that the only way to bring peace and stability to the region where Israel's 7,337 citizens live is to drastically change U.S. policy to one which calms tensions and brings hope for rapprochement. It is clear that Barack's policy of tough engagement yet engagement nonetheless holds the only olive branch hope of true peace and security for Israel, not John McCain's reckless, hair-trigger attitude of trying to increase tensions between enemies. Iran is a much bigger entity than Iraq and escalation into a conflict there would have consequences unimaginable both for Americans and Israelis. We all have a nothing short of desperate interest in seeing Barack, reason and sanity prevail in this election over madness.
But the bigger picture is not even begun to be expressed simply in military or political terms. The bigger picture can be summed up in a 3-letter word, which every Israeli is keenly aware of, “O-I-L”. Yes, my Jewish friend, that 3-letter word has been the source of a great deal of Israel's troubles, even if not the predominant one. Hezbollah, which is tied to oil-driven Iran, is probably the most significant terrorist tie. But there is a bigger picture here. And if you want to be sure you understand what's at stake for not only Israel, but for you, me and all of us, before you enter the voting booth and not after, you will take the time you need to read on and to think about this issue for yourself until you come to a reasonable conclusion on why oil imperils all of us, including and especially Israel.
Now I know many of you are saying, “Wait a minute! America's ties to oil-producing states protected Israel for that's when they abandoned their attempt to annihilate Israel as they had been doing up till then.” Actually, you're right. In the mid 1970s, when America, for reasons totally unrelated to Israel's security, joined with the Saudis and others to ensure the removal of the choke hold on America's access to oil, all of a sudden, nations that had been hostile and violent toward Israel signed treaties. It is therefore natural to assume that America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil spelled security for Israel and that ending it would once again put Israel at tremendous risk of being attacked by her neighbors.
And that may have actually been true for a good part of the history of Israeli-Arab relations. But I think all of us in the Jewish community are aware that America's dependence on oil, while it did help Israel become free of its neighbors ganging up on her, did nothing to keep Israel from the constant threat of violence from terrorist groups, both from inside and outside. It also did nothing to help Israel and the Palestinians work out the kind of solution that would have greatly reduced if not altogether eliminated the kind of violence she has suffered over the years, from then until now. To be sure, Israel has dealt effectively with the attacks of terrorists, but Israel should not have to live under this constant threat.
At the same time, almost completely parallel with America's tryst with the Saudis and other oil-producing nations in the Middle East, a new brand of terrorists started to emerge from the region along a new type of hostile enemy nation. While you may be able to say that Israel benefited partially from the oil tryst, you cannot deny that America has suffered for it and the price today is nothing short of completely frightening. We already know who America's enemies are in the region and the enormous toll it has exacted of us so I need not repeat it here. But what is significant is that this threat to Americans did not start on September 11. It had already been present for a very long time. It started as soon as America became heavily involved in the region as a power broker for oil. Ironically, America prepared the terrorists to be able to attack America on September 11 when they armed the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their war with the Soviets. Once they had thrown off the Soviets, these beneficiaries of our huge material and military support repaid us, their benefactors by plotting our destruction as enemies of Islam. Many times during the 1990s, they tried to pull of the kind of attack they succeeded in pulling off on September 11, but President Clinton was too wise and too prepared to let them succeed. He knew how to govern effectively and he knew how to keep his activities from the public eye, with top secret intelligence briefings on Al Qaeda's movements that allowed all attempts at attack on our soil to be thwarted before they occurred. The attacks that did succeed, such as at the embassies in Africa, were signs of their unceasing effort to destroy American life. As soon as President Bush came into office, he proceeded to undermine and weaken the combined efforts of a strong executive branch, a strong intelligence body and a strong military and thereby allowed the attacks that occurred on September 11 to occur.
I mention all this solely to illustrate the clear link between our dependence on oil—particularly foreign oil—and the two big threats we and Israel face as a result—the Sunni threat from the Al Qaeda fanatics and the Shia fanatics in Iran—which, I must point out, includes most notably their current President, but not all of the influential players in Iran's policies and power circles, which Barack alone among the two candidates recognizes. I hope you haven't forgotten also that Senator Lieberman had to point out—on camera—the difference between Sunni and Shia to John McCain. Oops.... Are you sure this man is the man you want protecting—or trying to protect—Israel?
But let's get back to oil and what we can do to make not only Israel's but our own situation billions of times safer. In fact, the answer lies within Israel itself. Israel, which, for obvious reasons, has been forced into energy independence, has achieved an amazing success with alternative energy. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you have no choice but to be energy independent. I think there's a tremendous way Israel can be our teacher and benefactor in helping us free ourselves from this dependence which puts America and Israel both at risk. Google “Israel's use of alternative energy” and you will be amazed at the results you come up with. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=WEP&q=end+to+1970s+energy+crisis&btnG=Search)
At http://www.unep.org/gc/gcss-ix/documents/israel-energy3.pdf, you will read a very interesting article that states the economically efficient nature of clean, alternative energy sources as opposed to crude oil and that regulations require that “all new buildings be equipped with solar collectors for water heating”. I can feel John McCain s squirming at the idea that there is regulation and mandate but it was Sarah Palin, I'd like to remind any of you that are even entertaining voting for this team, who said we shouldn't question Israel's actions. The article also contains the following statement: “Recent regulations will raise energy efficiency...” Included in the mix is an accord recently signed with Egypt whereby Israel buys natural gas, a type of gas that is efficient, environmentally more friendly than crude oil and higher up on Barack Obama's energy agenda than on John McCain's crude-heavy one.
A t http://www.metimes.com/Technology/2008/01/24/israels_electric_car_will_cut_oil_needs/7949/, the Middle East Times offers an even better example in “”Israel's electric car will cut oil needs” of how business partnering with government—the Obama model of government—along with alternative energy sources is making Israel seem like a utopian dream of the best of government, industry and social responsibility all combined into one. Wow! What we can learn from them! “In a joint venture, Project Better Place, owned by Israeli-American entrepreneur Shai Agassi, will provide lithium-ion batteries and the infrastructure to refresh or replace them, while Renault and Nissan will build the cars. “ “Project Better Place will provide infrastructure including parking meter-like plugs on city streets or service stations along highways at which batteries can be replaced.” “Israeli President Shimon Peres...who was first exposed to [Israeli-American entrepreneur Shai] Agassi's idea at a 2006 meeting of the Brookings Institution's Saban Forum, strongly promoted Israel's involvement... 'Oil is becoming the greatest problem of our time,' he said. Not only polluting, but 'it also supports terror and violence from Venezuela to Iran.'...Idan Ofer, chairman of Tel Aviv-based industrials conglomerate Israel Corp...said that if Agassi's plan works in Israel, ''it will work even better in China. Their pollution is killing them and the rest of us, too.'...
“Israel's efforts to contribute environmental technologies also recently culminated in the passage of the American-Israeli joint energy research bill, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in December 2007. ..Speaking when the bill first passed in the House of Representatives, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized that 'both our countries share a desire for energy security and prevention of global warming.'”
Lastly, the article states, “Israeli companies have been working to provide alternative energy in the United States for decades.”
Next, google the following: “hydro power fueling stations in Israel” and you will come up with http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=hydro+power+fueling+stations+in+Israel&btnG=Search
At http://interestingenergyfacts.blogspot.com/2008/07/alternative-fuels-fueling-stations.html, you can read “Israel and Electric Cars”, which states, “The Israeli government has announced a major initiative to push nation’s drivers away from fossil fuels and toward electric cars” that fuel on liquefied natural gas, a much cheaper form of fuel, with the obvious other benefits of saving the environment and being free of dependence on a dangerous commodity and terrorism.
Another initiative is that Israel's auto fueling stations are run by a form of alternative energy, I believe hydro. This I heard through word of mouth from a reliable source. They are the only nation in the world I believe whose infrastructure allows automobiles to be totally independent of oil.
In short, Israel is probably the world's leading nation in demonstrating the capacity of a sovereign state to exist almost completely energy independent. Of course, we all know Israel's tremendous capacity for development and ingenuity, something characteristic of this nation since decades before it even became a nation. What we should also not underestimate is Israel's capacity to understand why energy dependence, particularly oil dependence, is the most dangerous thing today and the leading cause of war. As a people on whose lips the word “peace” is heard more than a few times throughout the course of each and every day, they know the tragedy of war which most Americans have no concept of, unless they have lost someone personally. There isn't an Israeli who isn't called up to serve in the army to defend her against constant threats. They know the continued and increasing peril of oil consumption but unfortunately too many Americans don't share that knowledge and are unable to see that terrorism did not come of it's own but sprang up in exact proportion to America's consumption of Middle Eastern oil.
You've heard John McCain express his determined and strong desire to completely free America from foreign oil dependence by drilling here in America. Now no one can disagree that that would be a great first step and that the consequences of that move would greatly eliminate the threat of terrorism against both America and Israel. Don't forget, these terrorists who threaten Israel exist because they are funded from oil-rich nations who are getting our money. But here's a couple of things John McCain is leaving out of the equation. First, while exploring and utilizing the sources of oil that we have, in addition the supply from Canada, will provide us with a great source of oil, the reality is that there is absolutely no conclusive data confirming that the amount of oil that exists underneath America and offshore will, in the long run, keep up with the growing demand for energy that not only Americans will be increasingly in need of in the coming years but that growing demand from foreign consumers of oil, particularly in India and China, will need. America simply won't be able to keep up with this demand and eventually, the need for this oil, as has been the case up till now, could easily plunge America back into wanting to get that oil from elsewhere. There is no mystery why Sarah Palin, in her first public interview, spoke very alarmingly and aggressively about Iran, George and Russia, 3 nations with access to an oil pipeline. McCain's tone, demonstrated in his first debate, is equally aggressive and militant. I think we all need to reflect on the fact that both he and his running mate have talked about not only completely domesticating our oil sources but also that they are people who stand up to big oil. Remember? From the convention. Funny, how they're not talking that way much now. That's because they are owned by Exxon and Mobil, two of the biggest oil giants who, in league with the Saudis, have placed Israel's security in tremendous jeopardy for decades through their decadent and disgusting greed for power and money. And that's what Republicans do. They fight for big business. They fight for big oil. They do not fight for you. And they certainly do not fight for Israel. Why just today I learned on NPR's Morning Edition that there is a huge network supplying Gaza through underground tunnels that is a big business itself. This is the result of 8 years of Republican policy, 6 of it totally Republican.
Barack Obama's energy program, you might say, is exactly the same as John McCain's. Which is true. He and McCain both say they'll get us energy independent by cutting off Middle Eastern sources. They have a smorgasboard or a potpourri of every energy source available, ranging from crude oil to solar, wind and hydro. But here's the difference. Their priorities. McCain has crude at the top and solar/wind/hydro at the bottom. Obama's plan is the reverse. And that means a big difference. You might also say that what can be done in Israel cannot be done in America because America's a lot bigger and tougher to manage. I refuse to give in to that. Especially now at a time when we can't afford to. Yes, it will be a lot harder in America to convert to the clean energy forms than it was in Israel. But not impossible. We also have that many more people who can be a part of that conversion, many of them hungry for the jobs that that green economy would create. And the best part is that by putting green energy at the top of the list and crude at the bottom in terms of priority, we are, in doing so, making it possible for every Israeli to breathe a lot easier and to sleep better at night. For not only are we creating a model that can work for us, we are also creating a model that can work for China, for India and for many large energy consumers, such that Iran won't have the revenue to develop nuclear technology. And maybe, by sharing the safe technology of solar, wind and hydro with Iran, we may also eliminate largely the reason for it to want to do so. Now I'm sure President Ahmadinejad may not be too cooperative. But the reality is that Iran is a much larger nation and he is not even very popular with his own people. It is possible to find Iranians who are more interested in coexisting peacefully with others. And wouldn't that make you sleep a lot better at night? Still not convinced? John McCain is fond of quoting Teddy Roosevelt about speaking softly. But he really doesn't speak softly at all. In fact, his saber-rattling, which he displayed in the first debate, proved quite succinctly that he is a destabilizer of relations with other countries, which is the last thing we need after President Bush has done so much damage to our foreign policy. Roosevelt was the sort of person who was tough but knew how to be tough wisely, and belief in and compassion for people lay at the heart of his actions and policies. That sounds a lot closer to Barack Obama's approach. Now, I agree with you that Obama has not been in government as long as McCain. But you can say that comparing Obama and Bush as well. And look where Bush has gotten us. And Israel. I think it's more than abundantly clear that the future safety of Israel in a region where tension is fast erupting depends on a truly “steady hand at the till” and not just one who talks, with an angry undertone, about having a steady hand. It also should be in the hands of someone who has the same kind of compassion that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had in laboring to bring peace between Israel and those who were once her enemies. And it succeeded in Carter's case, as you know, with a now 30-year long friendship with Egypt, and it partially succeeded in the case of Clinton. But the point is these Presidents knew how to handle the power of the presidency effectively and it was because they were not pawns of big power and money as Republicans are. They are men who are basically motivated by compassion and caring. And that is exactly the sort of man Barack Obama is.
Now I could say you should vote for Barack Obama because he is the only candidate who has the first same name (or almost the same first name if you go by exact English spelling) as the last name of a former Israeli prime minister. But I'm not going to use his advantages anymore than the right-wing pundits have been using the parts of his name that sound antagonistic to Israel as a reason to vote against him. We Jews are a lot smarter than that kind of silliness.
But I would ask you to consider the following:
John McCain, as has been pointed out publicly on camera, doesn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. Is this someone with the kind of foreign affairs expertise you can trust?
Both McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, are focused on making enemies out of countries who have large quantities of oil which we could seize in a war (as was the case with Iraq and now is the case with Iran and Russia, which sit on either side of the Georgian pipeline). Hence, they are not concerned with you or Israel but with big oil, the very thing they claimed they stood up to.
Although Senator Lieberman has endorsed McCain (and it is clear that he aided in demonstrating McCain's ignorance of matters vital to Israel's security), former New York City mayor Ed Koch, has endorsed Obama after listening to Sarah Palin's scary words for 2 minutes. And current NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg has not endorsed either candidate, but he has met twice with Senator Obama earlier this year, which demonstrates a respect for him.
And even though this does not directly concern Israel, since many of you who I'm hoping to reach live in Florida, remember that number one on McCain's list of energy sources are the waters right offshore from where live. How do you like them oily apples?
But most important, Barack Obama shares something in common with the Israelis. He's very intelligent, resourceful and has a lot of ingenuity on how things can be done differently. He believes in the same model that exists in Israel, of business and government partnering to create economic growth that most benefits people in a responsible way. Now it's amazing that Israel has achieved all it has in spite of the obstacles constantly confronting her. But, as some might say, it's precisely because of those obstacles that her people have been thrown into having no choice but to follow the wisest path. And Barack Obama is the kind of person who will bring that kind of wisdom to Washington. I see many new ventures forward for America and Israel, away from lack of safety and toward a strong alliance that frees both of us from the frightening threat that looms ever more before both our nations at the present moment.
I deeply apologize for taking so much of your time to argue this point. I wouldn't do so unless I felt personally that it were so important. I hope that if I've impressed upon you why it is so important to fight for Israel and for America by fighting for Barack, I sincerely hope you will take the time it takes to pass this message on to as many of your Jewish friends and family members and even associates who live in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania or another very contested battleground state.
Sincerely and with my best wishes for real שלום בישראל ובעולם
Marc Ginsburg
m_ginsburg@hotmail.com
65 Bergen Ave, 5K
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
201-783-2770
For more writings like this, go to: http://cid-25778f2b4fd49ba2.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/Public
and go to “Marc Ginsburg”.
When Refusing to Kill Has a Higher Sentence Than Murder
9-20-08
by Ann Wright
Ann Wright is a retired US Army Reserves colonel with 29 years of military service. She also was a US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. She is the co-author of "Dissent: Voices of Conscience," profiles of government insiders who have spoken and acted on their concerns of their governments' policies.
http://www.truthout.org/article/when-refusing-kill-has-a-higher-sentence-than-murder
Meanwhile:
Video: Al Gore's endorsement of Barack Obama (15:02) (short commercial at start)
Video: Rabbi Michael Lerner: How To End The War in Iraq: http://youtube.com/watch?v=sChZ3Qda5rc
Last month, Clinton voted to support a resolution declaring Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite part of the Iranian military, a foreign terrorist group. (The nonbinding amendment to the Defense Authorization Act passed by a 76-22 vote.)
Obama said he would have voted against the measure but he didn't because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. "This is a problem" related to running for president, he said.
Obama said Clinton also had shown "flawed" judgment during the vote to authorize the Iraq war five years ago.
"We know that there was embodied in this legislation, or this resolution sent to the Senate, language that would say our Iraqi troop structures should in part be determined by our desire to deal with Iran," Obama said. "Now if you know that in the past the president has taken a blank check and cashed it, we don't want to repeat that mistake."
While Clinton was campaigning Sunday in New Hampton, Iowa, an audience member at a town hall-style meeting pressed her on why she voted for the Iran measure and asked why she hadn't learned from past "mistakes." Calling "the premise of the question" wrong, the senator from New York argued the resolution calls for the terrorist label so that sanctions can be imposed.
The sanctions, Clinton said, will in turn "send a clear message to the leadership" and lead to stronger diplomatic efforts.
Earlier this month, Clinton also co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, that would prohibit military operations against Iran without congressional approval.
Obama's comments came on the fifth anniversary of the 77-23 Senate vote that authorized the president to use force against Iraq. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, spoke out against the resolution authorizing force at the time.
Clinton's 2002 vote shows a clear difference in judgment between the two of them, Obama said"I don't think it disqualified her, but I think it speaks to her judgment and it speaks to my judgment," Obama said. "It speaks to how we will make decisions going forward.
"I think her judgment was flawed on this issue."
Obama said he also will step up efforts to clarify his differences with Clinton, whom many political observers view as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.
"There's no doubt we are moving into a different phase of the campaign," Obama said. "The first part of a campaign is to offer some biography and give people a sense of where I've been and what I am about.
"In this next phase, we want to make sure that voters understand that on big issues, like the decision to go into the war in Iraq, I had real differences with the other candidates and that reflects on my judgment."
Another leading Democratic candidate, John Edwards, also voted in 2002 to authorize force in Iraq while he was then a senator from North Carolina. He later called his vote a mistake.
In a veiled swipe at Clinton, Obama also suggested he could better unite the country and offer "something new, as opposed to looking backward and simply duplicating some of the politics that we've become so accustomed to, that frankly the American people are sick of."
Obama would not say whether he would consider Clinton as his running mate should he become the Democratic Party's nominee.
It was Barack's answer to Stephen Sixta's question in the YouTube Debate that mainstreammedia and MSM's overseers used as their "turning point" with the public. Please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHY1rtmIovk (It is the first question at the start of the video)
Are we, Barack Obama's supporters, going to continue to allow this?
If we allow this, well .....
Former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan: "The Iraq war is largely about oil."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=20343
It is clear that Saddam Hussein was in no position to control the Straits of Hormuz. Rather, he had converted from petrodollars to euros and had signed oil-field leases with European and Russian companies to the exclusion of American companies.
"I thought the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the excuse was utterly beside the point."
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2170661,00.html
Learning through humor: You will need 46 minutes to view this. I present to you, Robert Newman:
The History of Oil - Robert Newman (45:42):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8957268309327954402
If you missed it, please read this Op-ed on the Iraq War in the NY Times by Active Duty Non-Commissioned Officers
(Page 1): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html
(Page 2): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
An excerpt: Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.
Here's the text of the op-ed just in case you can't get through to the NYTimes page:
August 19, 2007
Op-Ed Contributors
By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
Baghdad
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.
