Photo Credit: AP Photo
Sometimes you see a photo and just stop and think. Everything slows down for a moment. This photo just did that for me.
It is such a powerful image, and conveys so much. So many thoughts. So many meanings.
I am not quite sure how I feel. Is it the brave, resolute American facing the enemy head on while shielding the helpless Iraqi?
Or is the Iraqi simply seeking shelter from the storm?
Please click on title to enjoy a nice tune.
In a lush green field in Grant Park along Lake Michigan, a Memorial Day event was held as part of a traveling memorial to U.S. Service personnel killed in Iraq called “Eyes Wide Open,” comprised of over 3400 combat boots with the name, age and state of the Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, Marine or Coast Guardsman killed in the line of duty in Iraq.
The boots are lined up in perfect rows, sectioned off by state, in a similar fashion as many military cemeteries. Indeed the memorial is reminiscent of Arlington National Cemetery, with its neat rows of white marble head stones.
The memorial was a somber, less enthusiastic affair than the traditional parade that was held only a few blocks away, with its marching bands, marshal music and cheering crowds.
Several groups representing families of military personnel, both killed and currently serving organized the program. These groups consisted of Gold Star Families Speak Out, whose loved ones died as a result of the war in Iraq; Military Families Speak Out, whose loved ones are currently deployed, soon to deploy, or have returned from Iraq physically and/or psychologically damaged as well as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War who have served in Iraq.
Two Gold Star Mothers, mothers whose son or daughter has died in combat, told their stories of loss and pain, and one decorated Iraq War veteran suffering from PTSD spoke about going off to war only to be disillusioned and coming back home unable to re-enter society.
The goal of the organizers of “Eyes Wide Open” is to honor the dead American and Iraqis while ending the War in Iraq and bringing home safely the U.S. Service Personnel.
The refrain heard from all of the speakers was the need for a better understanding of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and improved care for returning veterans.
One mother described how her son returned from Iraq only to hang himself in the basement, from what she says was severe PTSD and the lack of recognition and care from the United States Military.
Darrell Anderson, who saw combat in Iraq, spoke about the conditions that contributed to his suffering from PTSD, that you lose yourself in war, that when one of your friends gets blown up in front of you “All you feel is hate.”
He spoke about the feeling of confusion when he first arrived in Iraq and the veteran soldiers told him they were not fighting for democracy and freedom “and all that stuff,” which made it difficult to reconcile within himself his actions in combat.
Furthermore, Mr. Anderson is concerned for people like himself who went AWOL and received less than an honorable discharge from the military, thus being denied medical or therapeutic care from the Veterans Administration. Or the ones who commit suicide from PTSD, whose boots Mr. Anderson says, will not be added to this memorial because they will not have died from combat related injuries.
As the service ended and a light rain fell, a poem from the great British World War One poet Siegfried Sassoon was read below a statue of the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln.
You know things are not going well for the President when he has to retreat to oft used and frankly tired explanations of his current policies concerning the not going so well War in Iraq. (Dana Milbank-Washington Post Michael Abramowitz-Washington Post Mark Silva-Chicago Tribune) I am talking of course about the attempted reintroduction of fear into the national discourse by President Bush regarding the War in Iraq.
Whenever things are going poorly, whenever he feels the need to explain to the American people his motivation for the continued policies of the War in Iraq, Mr. Bush always falls back on the familiar, and previously successful tactic, of invoking the attacks of September 11th 2001 and al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. He then takes a subtle, and in my opinion sleazy, step in a grey area by tying those attacks to the War in Iraq.
He does this by saying things like this “We are fighting the same kind of people that killed 3000 of our citizens,” but doesn’t actually say we are fighting the SAME exact people who attacked in New York and Washington.
This is very comfortable ground for the President to walk over. It makes him look tough and resolute and bold, to use on of Mr. Bush’s favorite adjectives. He can pretend like it is the days after the attacks on our country and everyone likes him and takes he sounds credible. He looked like a man who had found his himself, finally found his place.
Has anyone else ever noticed that when he talks about terrorism or al-Qaeda he gets all juiced up, he doesn’t need to look at his notes but simply restates these tired, worn out phrases written for him so they sound bold and resolute. He actually told two reporters that bin Laden was personally gunning for their children.
This tactic is frankly insulting. To fall back on the rhetoric of 9-11, simply invoking the date as if it has a tangible quality, like it can talk and help the President out of a mismanaged, losing war.
He talks about 9-11 as if it were a tonic, a sweet elixir you can almost see drip down his chin when he invokes the terrorist attacks, that will change the way everyone looks at his failed policies. He also says we have to fight them over there so we don’t fight them here, then the next breath he says we were attacked before we went in Iraq so that means we didn’t create the terror problem in Iraq.
So what is it Mr. President?
Another aspect of this al-Qaeda/9-11 drumbeat is that it is so simplistic, as if the American electorate are children and can only understand complex issues with the most basic of terms. He thinks that people will grasp your point easier if you put it in the most simple, childlike manner. No need to confuse anyone with the facts.
The idea of nuance has long since passed the President. What was once looked on as a positive, that he has “plain talk” does not suit him well when he is asked to explain why the most powerful, richest country cant keep the electricity on in Baghdad. So, instead he says things like “these people are killers because they want to kill,” or some such nonsense.
This tactic allows Mr. Bush to avoid having to explain the inner workings of the Iraqi parliament, or the myriad of Shiite dominated political parties and their accompanied death squads. Just say al-Qaeda and all that goes away. No Sadr, no Hakim, no Maliki, its bin Laden all the time for Bush. I dont recall him even mentioning the sectarian wars going on except to say the increase in mutilated corpses, the hallmark of the sectarian murder, only represents a "snapshot," thus diminishing its impact. It was all al-Qaeda all the time.
This is an attempt to set up the rhetoric of "victory" or "success" in Iraq as having sectarian killings at a "manageable" level while saying we are staying in Iraq to fight the same people that attacked us on 9-11.
I just cannot believe we are back to this type of rhetoric and disconnected language in the national discourse on the War in Iraq. I thought after the election, the escalation in troops, that some sobriety had settled upon Mr. Bush, but as he is all to aware, the wagon is a hard thing to stay on, and that tonic tastes oh so sweet.
In the last 2 days I asked the same question of 2 prominent voices on the War in Iraq. The first is by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," a book that tells the story of the early days of the occupation in Iraq.
The second is by L Paul Bremer , the very man leading the early days of the occupation, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA.
These questions were asked on the discussion page at the Washington Post website.
Any thoughts?
Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the process? Is that just a tactic to confuse everyone?
Rajiv Chandrasekaran: Both entities are a threat to stability, and what makes finding compromise difficult is that both sides -- al Qaeda, in particular -- are so extremist that it's hard to envision a peaceful compromise. There is another common factor: Both sides are fractured and diverse. There's no single al Qaeda commander in Iraq to which every militant is loyal. Same goes for the militias, although there is far more command-and-control with the Badr organization. If there is to be peace in Iraq, extremists on both sides have to be offered a chance to put down their weapons and receive some sort of emolument -- a job, a payout, etc. Those who opt not to compromise will have to be targeted by the Iraqi government's security forces.
Chicago: Who is a greater threat to the stability of the Iraqi government, al-Qaeda or the Shiite militias -- backed by the two of the most powerful parties in the Iraq Government, mainly SCIRI's and Sadr's blocs? Could al-Qaeda actually take over the country? Because you and most supporters of the War make it seem like the militias are a minor problem, when the generals on the ground repeatedly say the exact opposite. Isn't the stated goal of the "surge" to give the sides breathing space to make policital decisions? Where does al-Qaeda fit in the political process?
L. Paul Bremer: It is a good question and requires a complicated answer. The threat in Iraq has three dimensions: the Al Qaeda terrorists, as you note; the killers from Saddam's former intelligence and security services; and the mllitia(essentially here the one that matters is Muqtada al Sadr's). The Shia militia became a problem after I left largely because Al Qaeda was able to carry out its threat to kill innocent Shia men women and children. When we could not protect them, the Shia turned to their militia. Now we must deal with all three threats. There are some signs that the surge is having a good effect on reducing some of the sectarian murders, by and of Shia. There will be no place for al Qaeda in the poltitical process--in Iraq or anywhere else--because they explicitly condemn democracy as "unislamic".
The Simpsons Analysis of the War in Iraq. I found it to be powerful. God Bless the Simpsons.
But watch out, FOX launches counter strike of its own!
Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Adviser was just interviewed on the “Newshour” and when asked about the status of the all important Oil Sharing Law, or PetroCarbon Sharing Law that will equitably divide Iraq’s oil revenues between the myriad of sects, Mr. al-Rubaie said it only requires the “dotting of the I’s and crossing of the T’s.”
If this is the case, why has it not been passed from the Iraqi Council of Representatives and signed into law by the Prime Minister? I was under the impression the draft had been approved and that is all that need be done.
The way he is talking it would seem like it is a done deal and could be completed within days, but I think we all know that is not the case. This is the one piece of power that the Shi’ites, in my opinion, will be unwilling to give an equal share of to the Sunnis.
I believe this is the one piece of the puzzle that just might guarantee a successful outcome to all the blood and suffering endured these 4 years in Iraq. This would say to the Sunnis that they have a stake in the future of Iraq, that they are considered equals among the leading Shi’ites.
Alas I am not optimistic given the past on this issue. Mr. al-Rubaie said last year they would have that piece of legislation in place January of 2007. Now we are in May 2007 and that same Council of Representatives had voted to take a two-month vacation this summer before that law is passed.
Mr. al-Rubaie said that they plan on changing the vacation to either five weeks or one week, however he wasn’t too clear on that poin. But just that fact that they had planned on vacationing while the American military bleeds so that they could have time to pass legislation of such importance does not leave me with much confidence the Shi’ites are willing to share this power.
One point Mr. al-Rubaie completely avoided when asked was concerning the RE-Ba’athification, as I call it. This is another piece of legislation that seeks to reintegrate a large part of the Sunni populace that was discarded by the CPA following the invasion.
The original decision by the CPA said that just about anyone that was a member of the Ba’ath, or ruling party, of Saddam Hussein was not welcome in the new Iraq. Unfortunately the CPA did not do their homework since almost anyone who wanted to move up the ladder in the Hussein Iraq had to belong to the party, including low-level Army officers, police and even teachers. Yes they fired thousands of teachers.
One should read "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks to get a full understanding of the ramifications of this decision by Pro-Consul Bremer.
Mr. Ricks quotes the CIA station chief in Baghdad as saying to Pro Consul Bremer upon learning of this impending action that “By nightfall, you’ll have driven 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground. And in six months, you’ll really regret this.”
He obviously was exactly correct and we have paid the price in American and Iraqi blood and treasure ever since.
I don’t have any confidence these important pieces of legislation will be passed given the lack of a sense of urgency by the Iraqi Governing Council and the simple fact that they do not even want to be in session while the U.S. military is buying them the very time they have asked for to get their house in order.
So, the President dispatched his scheduler in Chief, Vice President Cheney to Iraq in hopes of convincing the Iraqi's that time is of the essence.
What time is it Mr. Vice President?
Its "Its game time in Iraq", saith Mr. Cheney.
This is a really good column by Great Baghdad.
For anyone who enjoys a cold one at the end of a long day check this out.
I tend to get caught up in the macro of the whole situation over there, that I can miss the micro. People just trying to live.
For those who fancy a cold can of BEER in the middle of the heat of Baghdad, the following is a guide to where you can find BEER now in the free, democratic and liberated Baghdad.
For those who live in the northern part of the city, there is always the liquor stores compound which is right behind the concrete Blast Barriers around the Italian Embassy in Wazziryia. For the thirsty people of Central Baghdad you can either get it across the street from the Famous Baghdad Hotel. Right across the street from the other concrete Barriers protecting the residents of Baghdad hotel with its high guard towers that provides protection to those liquor stores ( later you will know from what).
Please click on title for rest of story.
I would like to take a moment to honor a young man who died in Iraq.
I did not know him, but he came from my home state of Illinois.
Please click on title.
I am watching Anthony Zinni on t.v. and he says that the Bush Administration scrapped his plan, several years in the making, for the invasion of Iraq.
"I think they tried to do it on the cheap," the former head of CENTCOM, or the Central Command that is responsible for the MIddle East said in response to what the major problem was in the planning for the invasion of Iraq.
Just threw it right out the window.
Remember that "genius" Paul Wolfowitz saying when asked about an estimate by then Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, was "wildly off the mark."
I guess Wolfy knew more than a decorated West Point graduate and head of the U.S. Army?
Wolfowitz was also condescending to those who contradicted his rosy estimate of how much it will cost. This is an oldy, but a goody...
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Zinnis plan called for 380,000 American troops to ensure the occupation provided safety and security for the Iraqis. It was based on many years of research and planning by people that had been operating in the region since the first Gulf War.
But then that would be the kind of plan Bush Sr. would advocate, so we know GW would not have any of that, seeing he gets guidance from a "higher father," someone elses father who apparently was President and invaded Iraq.
SWIFT BOATS AT THE READY!
This is an article from The New Yorker by George Packer, author of "Assassins Gate" a really good book about the War in Iraq.
The article, from March 28 edition of the New Yorker, tells the stories of some brave Iraqis who risked their lives to help the U.S. in Iraq, and the treatment they received from the occupation forces. Its a good read, though sad at times.
PLEASE CLICK ON TITLE for article
“I have this nature—I don’t expect a lot from people,” Firas said. “Not betrayed, no, not disappointed. I can never blame the Americans alone. It’s the Iraqis who destroyed their country, with the help of the Americans, under the American eye.” I was about to say that he deserved better, but Firas was lost in thought. “To this moment,” he said, “I dream about America.”
I have to admit, the War in Iraq has at times made me feel uncomfortable with the actions of America, my country. I love my country, and this video reminded me that we have done some amazing things in our history.
Please click on the title.
"We welcome the decision, even though we know this is against the basic rights of individuals," Health Ministry spokesman Qasim Yahya said. "But it is in the interest of the Iraqi people."
I just read an article in the Washington Post detailing reinstalling a Saddam Hussein law forbidding medical schools from issuing diplomas to its graduates.
This in order to keep them from practing medicine anywhere other than Iraq.
This is Democracy? This is why all those people are dying?
I am stunned.
“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”
Here is another good one from last year
"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. . . . If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."
I just had to post this. I have no comment, other than the President is demostrating some fine strategery.
Click on the title to read Eugene Robinsons article in the Washington Post concerning this issue
President Bush repeated his new metric for victory in Iraq today, stating success means "sectarian violence down."
So now we have gone from invading Iraq keep it from attacking the U.S., to a government that can "sustain, defend" and is an ally on the war on terror, to "Success is not 'no violence."
Our nation has given over 3000 of its brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen and spent well over 500 billion dollars.
He said today "But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives."
Thats it people, the metrics for success in Iraq have boiled down to that. I have no idea where else he can go with that logic.
Will he next say success means garbage is picked up on a semi weekly basis?
Does anyone listen to this guy?
People are dying, and this is the crap he feeds the American public. Had he been honest and forthright with the American people, he would not be in this mess, in my opinion.
The U.S. is going to declare the surge has worked and victory has been attained in Iraq by September, because some members of the population of Iraq can collect their mail without their bodies being filled with ballbearings.
