If it weren't for the election, they'd be drafting troops now

In 2000, the Republican Party promised "help is on the way" for the U.S. military. I wonder if the Republican-leaning officer corps still leans that way? Telegraph | News | US commander will not take blame for unrest:

America's top commander in Iraq has warned Washington that he will not be "the fall guy" if violence in the country worsens, it emerged yesterday, as word leaked out that US generals are "outraged" by their lack of soldiers.

America's generals consider current troop strengths of 130,000 in Iraq inadequate, reported the columnist Robert Novak, a doyen of the old-school Right in Washington.

[snip]

But officers who will not speak out in public let it be known that major reinforcements might be impossible to find. US forces are so overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan that "there are simply no large units available and suitable for assignment", Novak wrote in his column in The Washington Post.

The leaks have revived memories of the bitter debate that raged in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war, as uniformed chiefs clashed with Mr Rumsfeld and his aides, who predicted that US forces would be welcomed as "liberators", allowing troop numbers to be reduced rapidly.

Relations between the uniformed military and the Pentagon's civilian chiefs are currently worse than at any time in living memory, Novak wrote, citing a former high-ranking national security official who served in previous Republican administrations.

Many still in uniform bitterly recall the public dressing-down earned by the then army chief of staff, Gen Eric Shinseki, when he told Congress a month before the invasion, in February 2003, that "several hundred thousand troops" might be needed to occupy Iraq.

That estimate was slapped down as "wildly off the mark" by the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Thomas White, the army secretary and a former general himself, publicly backed Gen Shinseki. Mr White was sacked shortly afterwards by Mr Rumsfeld.

A new account of the war, In the Company of Soldiers, reveals that in May 2003 Pentagon planners "predicted that US troop levels would be down to 30,000 by late summer [of 2003]".

The Republican Platform for 2004 should read: "The Bush Administration: where wishful thinking prevails."

Some links from the Whiskey Bar

Note to self--read these papers from war colleges on the Iraq situation:

Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-conflict Scenario (pdf) (before the invasion)

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism (after the invasion)

The Sunni Insurgency In Iraq (after the invasion)

Father, let me dedicate All this year to you
In whatever earthly state You will have me be
Not from sorrow, pain, or care Freedom dare I claim;
This alone shall be my prayer: Glorify Your name.
--from New Year's Hymn by Lawrence Tuttiett, 1864 (alt.)

Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off?

Let us hope these fears are exaggerated: Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November - Maureen Farrell at BuzzFlash.com
Here's a little snippet:

But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations; before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush," he wrote.

Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would [terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their methods."

Here's a link to David J. Rothkopf's article in the Washington Post from November 23, 2003.

Quagmire Redux

For those that believe comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam are 'premature' or just plain wrong, check out Whiskey Bar: Quagmire Redux. We appear to have reached the stage in the war where more and more troops will be need just to maintain the semblance of order. If Bush wins re-election, my prediction is that about a year from now soldiers will have to be drafted, because they're not going to be able to find enough volunteers for this mess.

Marchers break through US roadblocks (April 9, 2004)

It is gratifying to see 'coalition' forces work so hard creating Iraqi unity: NEWS.com.au | Marchers break through US roadblocks (April 9, 2004):

THOUSANDS of Sunni and Shiite Muslims forced their way through US military checkpoints Thursday to ferry food and medical supplies to the besieged Sunni bastion of Fallujah where US marines are trying to crush insurgents.

Troops in armoured vehicles tried to stop the convoy of cars and pedestrians from reaching the town located 50 kilometers west of Baghdad.

But US forces were overwhelmed as residents of villages west of the capital came to the convoy's assistance, hurling insults and stones at the beleaguered troops.

[snip]

Sitting on top of supply trucks, young men also hurled empty bottles of water and waved their shoes in sign of disdain at the US troops.

The cross-community demonstration of support for Fallujah had been organized by Baghdad clerics both Sunni and Shiite amid reports that the death toll in the town had reached 105 since late Tuesday.

So it appears that the partition of Iraq will not be necessary.

Secretary of State Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake

From BBC News: Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories for making biological weapons.

On Friday he conceded that information "appears not to be... that solid".

How many mobile weapons laboratories have been found in Iraq? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? Nuclear weapons?

None. Zip. Nada.

Former FBI translator says Rice is lying

From a story by Andrew Buncombe of the Independent 'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes':

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.

She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used ­ but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities ­ with skyscrapers."

The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.

But we all know that Richard Clarke is a disgruntled former employee with a book to sell . . .

Plame investigation broadening

Today's New York Times story: Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name by David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson (excerpts):

The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, lawyers with clients in the case said. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

[snip]

Mr. Fitzgerald is said by lawyers involved in the case and government officials to be examining possible discrepancies between documents he has gathered and statements made by current or former White House officials during a three-month preliminary investigation last fall by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department. Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents with their lawyers present; others met informally with agents in their offices and even at bars near the White House.

The White House took the unusual step last year of specifically denying any involvement in the leak on the part of several top administration officials, including Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, has repeatedly said no one wants to get to the bottom of the case more than Mr. Bush.

But Mr. Bush himself has said he does not know if investigators will ever be able to determine who disclosed the identity of the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, to Robert Novak, who wrote in his syndicated column last July that Ms. Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was a C.I.A. employee.

Mr. Wilson was a critic of the administration's Iraq policies. Democrats have accused the White House of leaking his wife's name in retaliation because Mr. Wilson, in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed commentary in The New York Times, disputed Mr. Bush's statement in his State of the Union address that January that Iraq was trying to develop a nuclear bomb and had sought to buy uranium in Africa.

Father, let me dedicate All this year to you
In whatever earthly state You will have me be
Not from sorrow, pain, or care Freedom dare I claim;
This alone shall be my prayer: Glorify Your name.
--from New Year's Hymn by Lawrence Tuttiett, 1864 (alt.)

Ralph Nader is a Phony

and Randi Rhodes is mad at him: click here for the transcript from Nader's appearance on the first day of Air America (by cker at Daily Kos). Here's a link to the mp3 of Nader's appearance. From the comments section of Daily Kos:

The reason i think that this exchange was not only entertaining, but NECESSARY is because Nader and his far left constituencies need to learn that progressive thinking without pragmatism is about as effective as useful as a one-legged-dog with rabies.
--beedee

Father, let me dedicate All this year to you
In whatever earthly state You will have me be
Not from sorrow, pain, or care Freedom dare I claim;
This alone shall be my prayer: Glorify Your name.
--from New Year's Hymn by Lawrence Tuttiett, 1864 (alt.)

Alistair Cooke, 1908-2004

Although he was best known to Americans as host of Masterpiece Theater, Alistair Cooke was best known around the world for his long-running program Letter from America on the BBC. Here is BBC's obituary. I listened to Letter from America off and on for at least 20 years. I was saddened a bit by Mr. Cooke's retirement in February. Here is a link to his last letter.

White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says

Reminder to self: White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says (New York Times story by Eric Lichtblau, Septermber 3, 2003.) This refers to the evacuation of Saudi nationals right after September 11, 2001. They were allowed to fly out when other planes were still grounded after the terrorist attacks. The evacuated Saudis included relatives of Osama bin Laden. Amazing.

Father, let me dedicate All this year to you
In whatever earthly state You will have me be
Not from sorrow, pain, or care Freedom dare I claim;
This alone shall be my prayer: Glorify Your name.
--from New Year's Hymn by Lawrence Tuttiett, 1864 (alt.)

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism (washingtonpost.com)

According to Robin Wright's story, Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism (washingtonpost.com), National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to give a speech on September 11, 2001:

On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.

The Washington Post has excerpts from the speech, which was not delivered.

The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.

The speech did mention terrorism: rogue states, like Iraq, might use missiles to deliver WMD.

The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.

Read the lies:

"The president's commitment to fighting terrorism isn't measured by the number of speeches, but by the concrete actions taken to fight the threat," said James R. Wilkinson, deputy national security adviser for communications, when asked about the speech. "The first major foreign policy directive of this administration was the new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda that the White House ordered soon after taking office. It was eliminating al Qaeda, not missile defense, not Iraq, and not the [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty," he said.

They will never stop lying.