Iraq Redux

[SeattleDan]

This montage is from a year ago, but still worth viewing. Perhaps I've posted it before. But it's worth remembering:

www.peacetakescourage.com/whatwillyoudo.html

[gailkate]

Thank you, Dan. The pictures are shocking, but we need to see them. And the statistics - the flesh and blood we don't see because our media rarely show them - are much, much worse after a grisly year. This is what Iraqis - and our own young soldiers - have to look at, so we need to look, too.

[doctork]

dan, one of the authors of the Lancet study which documented the loss of over 600,000 Iraqi lives since March 2003 is "speaking" at UW next Friday night, April 20 at 7:30. He was denied a US visa so he will speak at UBC in Vancouver, and it will be videocast at UW. I really wanted to see him, but I'm out of town that night, so I gave the flyer to my daughter so she can go and report back. Maybe your schedule might allow you to hear the talk?

Thanks for posting this again.

[SeattleDan]

Thanks for letting me know, doc. With regrets, I'm probably going to have to pass on the event. I have one of those weekends coming up where I have umpteen things I need to do, and will be happy if I get a half of them done. Glad to hear the laptop has been restored so you can get on the internets tubes.

[joew]

How does one persuade them to get beyond the "eye for an eye" mentality?

[ptcaffey]

Pretty simple. Put all their eyes out. I think that's our current policy. And on this, as McCain suggests, "We're clearly making progress."

[joew]

Sunday's Boston Globe op-ed had a column by their "token conservative," Jeff Jacoby. The column criticizes the Democratic Party for being "wedded to defeat in Iraq."

www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/29/what_drives_the_democrats/

Among other things he says that "in the end there is no escaping that for many Democrats, this is all about politics. … ¶'We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,' Reid said candidly at an April 12 press conference. 'Senator Schumer has shown me numbers which are compelling and astounding.' To which Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, added:'The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle.… They are looking extinction in the eye.' He spoke those words, Congressional Quarterly observed, 'making no attempt to hide his glee.' ¶ That glee is very telling. It would be one thing for lawmakers to conclude regretfully that America's campaign in Iraq has failed and that bringing the troops home is the least bad option left. Were that the case, voting to pull the plug would be a sad and painful duty, one no member of Congress would carry out with 'glee.'"

On a related topic, I hope there won't be people trying to suggest that the President was wrong four years ago when he said that major combat operations were over. He did not say all combat was over — everybody knew that it was not — but that major combat operations were over; and they were, and the combat has not risen to a level that could possibly be considered major for our troops since then.

[gailkate]

Oh Joe, do not embarrass yourself. How exactly do you define "major"? From 3/21/03 to 5/01/03, 140 Americans died in Iraq.
That was at least 2,204 deaths ago. Those are DOD figures which you can examine at icasualties.org/oif/
In fact there are 7 additional deaths as yet unconfirmed by the DOD, so the total may be 2,211 more deaths since the end of "major combat."

but that major combat operations were over; and they were, and the combat has not risen to a level that could possibly be considered major for our troops since then.
The site I've linked gives fatalities by the month. The periods in which those deaths occrred and the significant milestones (handover to Iraq, elections) are instructive. In fact, 265 troops have died just since the surge began Feb.1. That's 125 more than had died when Bush said that major combat was over.

I don't like people crowing about political gains either. But I will be very glad to see a new government in power and pray that it has more sense and honor than the present.

[edsfam]

Oh gailkate, do not embarrass yourself. How exactly do you use "fatalities" or death counts as a measure to define "major" combat operations.

The stats you noted, while not irrelevant to the persons affected, are irrelevant in the conversation about whether "major" combat operations were successful and are they over.
A better stat to use for comparison purposes would be tons of ammunitions used, number of bombs dropped on enemy positions or some other measure that indicates actual "combat".

... and "mission accomplished" meant defeat of Saddam and his regime not the end of the mission in Iraq. Do not let the media fool you into mis-characterizing that event into meaning that military operations were completely over.
The "media" is ignorant and often uses flawed comparisons and attempts to links unrelated events, don't be like that.

_E_

[rmn]

gailkate said:

Oh Joe, do not embarrass yourself. How exactly do you define "major"? From 3/21/03 to 5/01/03, 140 Americans died in Iraq.
That was at least 2,204 deaths ago. Those are DOD figures which you can examine at icasualties.org/oif/
In fact there are 7 additional deaths as yet unconfirmed by the DOD, so the total may be 2,211 more deaths since the end of "major combat."

but that major combat operations were over; and they were, and the combat has not risen to a level that could possibly be considered major for our troops since then.
The site I've linked gives fatalities by the month. The periods in which those deaths occrred and the significant milestones (handover to Iraq, elections) are instructive. In fact, 265 troops have died just since the surge began Feb.1. That's 125 more than had died when Bush said that major combat was over.

I don't like people crowing about political gains either. But I will be very glad to see a new government in power and pray that it has more sense and honor than the present.

GK, I think we need to divorce ourselves from the fettered post-Saddam planning by this administration. Surely, you realize that a pullout at this juncture would leave the region in chaos. This includes Afghanistan where the Taliban have reignited to a frightening degree.

Let's forget for the moment that the women of the region will, once again, be relegated to subhuman status. I think a far greater concern rests in the fact that the region will become a nest for anti-Western terrorists in the void created by our departure.

There are terrorists there now. And, an argument can be made that the American occupation is bolstering this. That's our fault. We went about this in a terribly misguided fashion. I've written about the bumbling of Paul Bremer. He should be forgiven neither in this life nor the next. But, this is a done deal. We won't solve anything through the actions of a newly-elected Dem Congress or, shamefully, a newly-elected Dem commander-in-chief.

Joe, GK and Ed have some very fine thoughts on the matter.

More later from this waif.

R

[gailkate]

I was so upset last night I didn't notice I had dropped a thousand from the total. It's now 3347 confirmed, 4 still unconfirmd. But what's a thousand or four when we're talking about non-combat?

I responded to what was basically a challenge thrown down by Joe. If any of you wishes to call the parents and spouses of these soldiers to comfort them with the news that, since there's no standing army of Iraqi enemy to fight, their soldiers didn't actually die in combat, go to it. IEDs are mines - like the ones littering land and sea in all modern wars.

April now stands as the 6th deadliest month in the war. The 10 deadliest have occured since late 2004.

R, my friend, no one is proposing an immediate withdrawal. No one in Congress. No one in this forum has ever suggested it. Saying October for a beginning of redeployment is simply suggesting a plan. Since you aren't a knee-jerk defender of Bush, you know that he's never had a plan. We're into the 5th year of a draining wound - longer than WWII - and the wound won't close.

[rmn]

gailkate said:

...If any of you wishes to call the parents and spouses of these soldiers to comfort them with the news that, since there's no standing army of Iraqi enemy to fight, their soldiers didn't actually die in combat, go to it. IEDs are mines - like the ones littering land and sea in all modern wars.

April now stands as the 6th deadliest month in the war. The 10 deadliest have occured since late 2004.

R, my friend, no one is proposing an immediate withdrawal. No one in Congress. No one in this forum has ever suggested it. Saying October for a beginning of redeployment is simply suggesting a plan. Since you aren't a knee-jerk defender of Bush, you know that he's never had a plan. We're into the 5th year of a draining wound - longer than WWII - and the wound won't close.

GK, forget for a moment what Bush's spokespersons are telling us and let's consider those who wish American (and allied) forces ill. I recall a report from a field commander a few months ago suggesting that things are improving, because there are only 5000 or so confirmed insurgents/terrorists on Iraqi soil. I thought the announcement ludicrous, given recent historical events.

For instance, at the peak of IRA insurgency in N. Ireland, the UK determined that there were around 300 known/confirmed IRA terrorists on the books. If this is true, and I don't have any reason to dispute British field commanders/Intelligence personnel, then we know that 300 or so IRA terrorists kept half the British army in N. Ireland for over 25 years.

Logistically speaking, this was a walk in the park compared to our Vietnam and now, Iraqi war.

Call it a standing army or no standing army or large group of insurgents or whatever. The fact remains that we have created a monster in the wake of Saddam. A far greater monster, as concerns American interests, than Saddam ever was.

All that said, and given past blunders on a profound and inexcusable scale, we have work to do. We cannot redeploy (What does that mean, by the way? Murtha's never been able to satisfactorily articulate what he means by redeploying the troops) on some detractor's time line and hope to mend the faltered fabric of Iraq (and Afghanistan).

I don't know what the proper course of action is anymore, GK. I did two, three, four years ago. Those options, belabored over these wires by this oaf, are no longer viable. What to do? Much easier to answer what not to do.

Be well, GK.

R

[edsfam]

gailkate said:

I was so upset last night I didn't notice I had dropped a thousand from the total. It's now 3347 confirmed, 4 still unconfirmd. But what's a thousand or four when we're talking about non-combat?

There is a difference between non-combat, major combat and security operations. Lumping them all together is a dis-service.

I responded to what was basically a challenge thrown down by Joe. If any of you wishes to call the parents and spouses of these soldiers to comfort them with the news that, since there's no standing army of Iraqi enemy to fight, their soldiers didn't actually die in combat, go to it. IEDs are mines - like the ones littering land and sea in all modern wars.

April now stands as the 6th deadliest month in the war. The 10 deadliest have occured since late 2004.

R, my friend, no one is proposing an immediate withdrawal. No one in Congress. No one in this forum has ever suggested it. Saying October for a beginning of redeployment is simply suggesting a plan. Since you aren't a knee-jerk defender of Bush, you know that he's never had a plan. We're into the 5th year of a draining wound - longer than WWII - and the wound won't close.

How many years were troops stationed in Germany outside the Berlin Wall?
How many years were troops stationed in what was called "Occupied Japan"?
The draining wound called WWII lasted far longer than you seem to be remembering from your studies. The end of the war was not the end of the war. Many years past and many lives were affected before the end of the end of WWII.

_E_

[rmn]

Bush just vetoed an Iraqi war spending bill that held provisions for a departure (excuse: Redeployment) time line and a methodology for combating the war. Ostensibly, the bill stated that many theatre-oriented decision-making powers would rest with assorted civilians in Washington. No surprise to anyone that Bush vetoed the bill in swift fashion.

It wouldn't hurt to look at Dan's contribution at the beginning of this thread. Lots of Iraqi civilian despair and carnage. I would bet my bottom dollar that most of the tears resulted from IEDs planted by their own. Not a single photo of a Marine or soldier losing a leg, an arm, a face.

But we're the bad guys, so that's all right.

I'm disgusted in many ways. Primarily, the newly-elected congressional folk may well deprive our fighting men and women of needed beans and bullets. Does anyone here, save a few, recognize this? Beans and bullets for American troops is primary, notwithstanding the glee many Dems in in Congress share over their newly begotten status.

R

Modified a few moments later: Dan, I meant no offense to you with the comment above. I realize your intent was genuine and from your heart.

R

[rmn]

I cannot believe that Nancy Pelosi was not present before General Petraeus speaking before congress. She said she called him on the phone. On the phone? She had pressing matters? Absolutely incredible.

[gailkate]

Since it seems none of us has read the bill, we can only judge what it says by the various media reports, and I quite agree that those are not always reliable. Ostensibly, the bill stated that many theatre-oriented decision-making powers would rest with assorted civilians in Washington. I've read nothing that sounds like this at all.

I understood that there is, in fact, no funding problem for beans and bullets until August. Obviously, everyone is to some extent playing a kind of 'chicken,' daring each other to back down.
But Bush has made no effort to negotiate, simply said we're going on indefinitely, just keep giving us money and live bodies even if they've been sent back 2 or 3 times, their tours extended now to 15 months, families strained to their limits.

The proposed phased withdrawal isn't only a Deomcratic idea. Everyone knows it's going to happen. Requiring the Iraqis to pass an Oil Bill that determines how they're going to share the wealth, requiring them to reign in all these militias (I read that practically everyone has his own militia except Maliki) - these aren't unreasonable benchmarks.

Redeployment as I've understood it means putting some men in friendly countries so they can respond to a crisis. But the bulk of our military strength cannot remain indefinitely in Iraq. We all read the report about the increase in terrorism around the world - our defenses cannot be pinned down in Iraq.

The war has cost over $400 billion. This bill authorized everything that was requested plus more, including for Walter Reed and the VA hospitals around the country. What most Democrats, a growing number of Republicans, and 2/3 of the country are asking in return is a plan to get us out of there.

And lord,R, I don't know the way to do that either. All Bush does is accuse Democrats of betraying the troops. I honestly believe he is the one betraying them. But that really isn't the question, is it? The question is, what are we going to do? Petraeus made it pretty clear that we're not going to "win." We can lose even more of our men in exchange for reducing Iraqi casualties a bit, and we can force diplomatic/political changes. The only way to force them that makes sense to me is to say, "Get moving, because we're not going to stick around forever."

The horrible irony is that every pundit I hear says they won't manage a democracy, just another strongman like Saddam - hopefully a kinder gentler version.

[rmn]

gailkate said:

Since it seems none of us has read the bill, we can only judge what it says by the various media reports, and I quite agree that those are not always reliable. Ostensibly, the bill stated that many theatre-oriented decision-making powers would rest with assorted civilians in Washington. I've read nothing that sounds like this at all.

Perhaps you have not read this, GK. Nonetheless, this stems from open-source info.

We have a mission in the Middle East. Part of the mission is supporting the state of Israel. We also need to sustain American interests as regards energy resources. Need I say this, GK?

[doctork]

This is a serious question, as I really don't understand. Why is it our mission in the Middle East to support Israel?

I understand the necessity to secure our oil supply, though I think another very important step is to reduce our reliance upon foreign oil. When US utilization drops even 1 or 2%, prices at the gas pump drop dramatically.

I do not have a grasp of the distinction between "combat" and "major combat." I suspect in battling insurgency and terrorism, pounds of bombs dropped or rounds fired may not be the best measure of the extent of "combat."

When I read the casualty reports and obituaries, most of the Army fatalities involve IEDs, while most of the Marines die in "combat operations" in Anbar province. Sailors seem to be killed supporting the Marines in "combat operations." Reports of Airmens' deaths are less common, and Coasties rarer still. Though these reports make no distinction between "combat" and "major combat," it seems clear that combat is still going on. Does the adjective "major" have meaning other than as a political hot potato? I don't understand.

Regarding controlling of the militias: The head of a nominally elected democratic government, Hamid Karzai cannot control Afghan Militia Forces (though he tries to co-opt them) or the resurgent Taliban, and Pervez Musharref cannot control the semi-autonomous tribal forces (Khyber Rifles, etc) even though he is a very powerful and experienced politician and general. I think it is highly unlikely that the weak and unpopular (US puppet) al Maliki and his shaky fledgeling government will control the Iraqi militia forces. I hope General Petraeus has a lot of effective tricks up his sleeve, but I can't imagine what they are. If he can secure the joint, maybe the Civil Affairs folks can have an impact - you know, provide clean water, electricity, schools for girls and boys, healthcare for mothers and babies.

[edsfam]

gailkate said:

Since it seems none of us has read the bill, we can only judge what it says by the various media reports, and I quite agree that those are not always reliable. Ostensibly, the bill stated that many theatre-oriented decision-making powers would rest with assorted civilians in Washington. I've read nothing that sounds like this at all.

but if we did read the bill we would find ... from CNSnews

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran's Health, and Iraq Accountability Act would allocate $103 billion in additional funding for military operations, and to care for wounded troops. But it also contains $21 billion in so-called "pork spending."

Several appropriations are under fire, including:

-- $50 million for "asbestos abatement and other improvements" in the U.S. Capitol.
-- $74 million for "storage, handling, and other associated costs for the 2007 crop of peanuts."
-- $120 million to fund the shrimp industry's recovery from Hurricane Katrina
-- $284 million for payments to dairy farmers
-- $4.3 billion in increased Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief for areas affected by hurricanes

The bill allocates smaller amounts, such as $5.27 million for bird flu research and $165,200 for the widow of a late congressman.

Peanuts? Birdflu? Hurricanes? Dairy Farmers?

Funny things to find in a "troop funding bill".
Not funny "hah hah" but funny "what the hell?"

_E_

[ptcaffey]

As Senator Webb points out, the American military won the "war" four years ago. What's at issue now is the occupation. The occupation will end when a new president takes over in 2009, Democrat or Republican. The majority of Americans will simply no longer tolerate the incompetence, corruption, lying and misuse of lives and resources. That's my prediction. Given this near certainty, what value is there in sending more Americans into the meat grinder in 2007 and 2008? There is no functioning Iraqi government to support. It controls nothing. It's an illusion, a joke. American soldiers should not be asked to die for a joke.

So why are they being asked to die? So that Bush can punt this disaster to the next president and then blame him or her for "losing Iraq."

[gailkate]

Here's the bill:
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c110PryRSt::

It's huge. Most bills end up with unrelated items attached. It could be that these are greasy pork, but not necessarily.

I'm going to scan some sections looking for the civilian oversight of generals' decisions, but the Secretary of Defense is a civilian, so I'm not sure how that can be avoided entirely. Rumsfeld started all of this and was responsible for failing to provide enough troops. No one could do worse than he did.

Anderson Cooper on CNN had good interviews with journalist Michael Ware, who's been in Iraq almost from the beginning, and David Gergen, who was an advisor to Reagan but seems quite sensible to me. This discussion will probably be on the website with a transcript to follow. Ware is very dubious of Maliki living up to any so-called benchmarks. Gergen said secret talks and negotiations with Iran will lead to some sort of rationale for withdrawal.

But as PT says, while all this lumbers forward, our troops and innocent Iraqis will be ground into sausage.

[gailkate]

OK, I think this is the meat of it:
SEC. ___. (a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007:

(1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan; and eradicating safe havens;

(2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects;

(3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces are making substantial progress in reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and

(4) whether the Government of Iraq is ensuring the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected.
Iraqi Parliament are protected.

(b) If the President fails to make any of the determinations specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.

(c) If the President fails to make any of the determinations specified in subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.

(d) If the President makes the determinations specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).

(f) After the conclusion of the redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces;

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions;

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; and

(4) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw, 50 percent of the funds appropriated by title I of this Act for assistance to Iraq under each of the headings ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ and ‘‘International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement’’ shall be withheld from obligation
until the President has made a certification to Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted
a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;
adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in Article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10,000,000,000 in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

(g) The requirement to withhold funds from obligation pursuant to subsection (f) shall not
apply with respect to funds made available under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’
for continued support for the Community Action Program and Community Stabilization Program
in Iraq administered by the United States Agency for International Development or for programs and activities to promote democracy in Iraq.

(h) Beginning on September 1, 2007, and every 60 days thereafter, the Commander, Multi-National Forces—Iraq and the United States Ambassador to Iraq shall jointly submit to Congress a report describing and assessing in detail the current progress being made by the Government of Iraq regarding the criteria set forth in subsection (a).
Other provisions in the bill seek to enforce long-standing Defense Department policies that only "mission capable" Reserve and National guard forces be deployed to Iraq and that none "be deployed for combat beyond 365 days" (or 210 days for Marine Corps units).

The President and Sec. of Defense may not like reporting to Congress, but Congress has the right to declare war and the right to appropriate funds for war. Apparently the next possibility is to fund for two months while they negotiate more specific goals.

[rmn]

doctork said:

This is a serious question, as I really don't understand. Why is it our mission in the Middle East to support Israel?

I should not have been so curt, Doc K. This is something I consider a moral imperative. It's personal. But perhaps more. I've got a plate full. Shall respond to several posts later.

R

[doctork]

rmn said:

doctork said:

This is a serious question, as I really don't understand. Why is it our mission in the Middle East to support Israel?

I should not have been so curt, Doc K. This is something I consider a moral imperative. It's personal. But perhaps more. I've got a plate full. Shall respond to several posts later.

R

I didn't think you were curt. Furthermore, based on the actions of our government, and the funding we direct to Israel, it appears that your statement is correct.

I am a poor student of history, so I just wonder where this imperative to support Israel originates. Israelis come from many countries, and numerous nations were involved in founding the nation. Why does the US bear such a large responsibility for Israel's financial maintenance and security?

[gailkate]

The question of Israel and our commitments there could probably be a separate thread. What do you think?

In the meantime, Slate's column, "the Explainer," has a summary of the financial implications of failure to pass this bill:

www.slate.com/id/2165280/?nav=fix It refers to figures from the Budget Office, so I don't think it's slanted.

I'll add a slant myself: if Bush were really concerned about underfunding the troops he wouldn't keep playing this emergency appropriations game. He'd put the whole of the request in the annual budget. That, of course, would make the total cost of the war far too prominent. BTW, I was wrong when I cited $400b yesterday; it's nearing $500 billion. Still not enough to take proper care of maimed veterans.

[doctork]

gailkate said:

The question of Israel and our commitments there could probably be a separate thread. What do you think?

I was wondering if there is a straightforward short answer, like is it a treaty or a UN commitment that creates a US obligation to Israel. I have read that one (of many) possible justifications for the war in Iraq is that Iraq had developed weapons (giant rockets) it planned to use to destroy Israel. A philosophical or moral discussion of whether such a commitment to Israel is a good idea, would certainly deserve a thread of its own.

As far as the bill funding the troops having other items added, that is fairly standard practice in Washington, DC, which is why there is often the word "Omnibus" in the bill title. That may be the case here - needed funding attached to the bill that was likely to pass - regardless of whether some individual items may have been added for partisan political funding. That alone does not make the expenditure wasteful.

The Gulf Coast ports and refineries damaged by Katrina (and Rita) handle 25% of our nation's oil and gas supply, so funds to continue rebuilding are a geopolitical necessity, especially if you are someone who already feels $3.00+ a gallon is expensive.

Asbestos abatement is required by federal and state laws, and this is one area where Congress cannot exclude themselves by leaving asbestos in the Capitol. It has to be funded somehow.

$5 million for bird flu is a drop in the ocean compared to the need, although I hope there is additional funding elsewhere in the budget. Avian flu has already demonstrated transmission from birds to humans in Asian (the key step in launching a pandemic), and so far, the fatality rate approaches 50%. Should one of the infectious individuals step on a plane to Europe or North America in the asymtomatic early phase of the illness, we could face a repeat of the SARS epidemic writ much larger. The attack rate will likely range from 10 - 30% (ie 30 - 90 million sick people in the US), and if the mortality is 10 - 50%, well you do the math. I do not regard this as a frivolous expenditure, and if it must be added to a defense bill to get it passed, so be it.

I know very little about shrimp and dairy, so I can't speak to the necessity of those bills. Small dairy farming is a major industry in my county, and I do not believe anyone is getting rich off of government largess. My impression is that they barely scrape by.

I do not know how the money for improved peanut storage will be used, but I can tell you that improperly stored peanuts tend to foster the growth of a fungus that produces a potentially lethal toxin called aflatoxin. Its effects are quite nasty, and include liver failure, which is often treated by liver transplant (more than $200,000 for the surgery alone). If storage improvements lessen aflatoxin-related illness, $74 million could be a worthwhile investment.

Though lambasted as "pork," some of these expenditures appear necessary to me.

[edsfam]

gailkate said:

Though lambasted as "pork," some of these expenditures appear necessary to me.

I think the expenditures appear necessary also .... much the way all "bribes" are "necessary".

If this Bill is going to be portrayed as showing the will of the House and Senate and the firm conviction of the Representatives and Senators against the current military policy, the Bill should stand alone, on it's own merit.
Otherwise it should be portrayed for what it is, a standard "piece of crap" legislation, full of pork and special interest spending ... (and only incidently tied to troop withdrawl) ... in order to be passed by the Representatives and Senators.

_E_

[gailkate]

Objective and informed as usual, Dr.K.

[gailkate]

I don't know the bias of this British think tank, but this study is troubling, as is the analysis from the BBC:


Iraq 'facing grim future'
By James Robbins
BBC Diplomatic Correspondent



The leading foreign policy think-tank, Chatham House, is warning that Iraq faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation.
A new report from the London-based Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, argues that the Iraqi government is now largely powerless and irrelevant in large parts of the country, as a range of local civil wars and insurgencies are fought.

The report urges a radical change in American and British strategy to try to rescue the situation.

It is not the first time Chatham House - a highly respected foreign policy institution in London - has been highly critical of American and British strategies in Iraq.

This latest paper, written by Dr Gareth Stansfield, a Middle East expert, is unremittingly bleak.

Dr Stansfield, of Exeter University and Chatham House, argues that the break-up of Iraq is becoming increasingly likely. In large parts of the country, the Iraqi government is powerless, he says, as rival factions struggle for local supremacy.

The briefing paper, entitled Accepting Realities in Iraq, argues that "There is not 'a' civil war in Iraq, but many civil wars and insurgencies involving a number of communities and organizations struggling for power."

Dr Stansfield says that, although al-Qaeda is challenged in some areas by local Iraqi leaders who do not welcome such intervention, there is a clear momentum behind its activity.

Iraq's neighbours too have a greater capacity to affect the situation on the ground than either the UK or the US.

The report accuses each of Iraq's major neighbouring states - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments".

The briefing paper says "these current harsh realities need to be accepted if new strategies are to have any chance of preventing the failure and collapse of Iraq".

Need for change

Dr Stansfield contends that the American security surge is moving violence to different areas, but is not overcoming it. Certainly there is a growing sense in London and Washington that the American Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, is likely to ask for more time to continue the surge later this summer in order to deliver results.

That will confront the Bush Administration with a real dilemma.

The president has vetoed a bill that would have set a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The bill was approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Congressional opponents of the war believe the veto signals that now it is the president alone who must take responsibility for continuing America's involvement, and the casualties.

The report urges the governments in London and Washington to change tack.

It says the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, leader of the Mehdi army (one of the major Shia militias), should be included as a political partner - no longer treating him as an enemy.

And it also calls for increasing the involvement of other countries in the region.

There's been talk before about dividing Iraq - Joe Biden has urged that course - but objections have always prevailed. I'm wondering now if there's little choice. Whom are we really defending? The people, certainly, but the Maliki government seems too shaky to prop up. (Rather like our interventions in Vietnam and S. America, where we ended up supporting weak or corrupt governments.)

[joew]

The problem is that we aren't entitled to overthrow the government of Iraq just because we think somebody else could handle the current situation better. OTOH if we could help the duly constituted gov't co-opt Moqtada Sadr, it might help matters.