Petraeus Takes the Hill
Washington Dispatch: The Iraq general's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee was predictable: progress is real, we must stay the course. But committee Democrats missed an opportunity to undercut the White House story.
April 8, 2008
|
|
As General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday and pitched a story of success in Iraq, a news update flashed on the television screen: Sadr threatens to end cease-fire. Meaning that civil war between the Shiite-dominated government of Baghdad and the Shiite movement led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr could erupt. But Senator John McCain, the senior Republican member at the hearing, seemed unaware of this development. He asked Petraeus, "What do you make of Sadr's declaration of a cease-fire?"
This brief moment underscored a point that war supporters and war critics on the committee kept making throughout the hearing: The ground reality in Iraq is starkly different from how the war is depicted in the United States. Senator Joe Lieberman scoffed at war skeptics for embracing what he called a see-no-progress, hear-no-progress, speak-no-progress view of the war. On the other side, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) remarked that the testimony from Petraeus and Crocker—who each claimed there has been significant though fragile progress in Iraq—"describes one Iraq while we see another."
The main news of the morning—news that had already leaked—was that Petraeus has recommended that once the level of the U.S. troops in Iraq is brought down to presurge levels, which is scheduled for July, there be "a 45-day period of consolidation and evaluation" and then "a process of assessment" before any further troop reductions are considered. In other words, 19 months after the so-called surge—and after all the supposed success of the surge—U.S. military involvement in Iraq is expected to be what it was at the start of the surge. Under questioning from Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, Petraeus noted that this process of assessment could take months and that additional reductions would only occur as conditions permit, indicating that the pause in the drawdown could be open-ended.
This was hardly a shocker. Petraeus, in keeping with Bush administration policy, refused to say anything concrete about reducing troops (at any time) to presurge levels. Instead, he and Crocker did what they could to keep alive the White House's favorite meme, that the surge is swell. They cited various indicators of what they consider success. "Weekly security incidents" are down to 2005 levels—at least until last week. Civilian deaths, according to U.S. military figures, have fallen to early 2006 levels. Bombings are down to mid-2006 levels. The number of Iraqi battalions taking the lead in operations is up 20 percent since January 2007. The Sunni opposition to Al Qaeda in Iraq within Anbar province remains strong. Several pieces of legislation important to national political reconciliation have moved forward in the Iraqi parliament. A budget was passed with record amounts of capital expenditures. And, as Crocker noted, Iraq's Council of Representatives approved a redesign of the Iraqi flag. Their message: We must stay the course.
The Democrats on the committee took shots at the the-surge-is-working narrative, but with their 10-minute-long bursts of disjointed questions they were not able to redefine the debate. In his opening remarks, Levin noted that the main purpose of the surge—to provide Iraqi leaders breathing room to hammer out a political settlement—"has not been achieved," and he argued that "our current open-ended commitment is an invitation to continuing [Iraqi] dependency." He blasted the "incompetence and excessively sectarian leadership" of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and noted Iraq was not spending the billions of dollars in surplus it has obtained thanks to rising oil prices, leaving the American taxpayers (who are forced to pay up to $4.00 a gallon for gas) paying for tens of billions of reconstruction within Iraq. He cited a State Department report that noted that "the intransigence of Iraq's Shiite-dominated government [is] the key threat facing the U.S. effort in Iraq, rather than al-Qaida terrorists, Sunni insurgents or Iranian-backed militias." And he said that he was recently informed that of 110 joint U.S.-Iraqi operations of company size or greater in Iraq in the first three months of 2008, Iraqi forces assumed the lead in only 10 of those missions. Kennedy wondered when Iraqi forces—the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. assistance—are "ready to fight on their own." Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) noted that the "awakening" in Anbar started before the escalation of U.S. troops in Iraq, and he shared his concern that the war was producing serious "strain" for the military.
When most of the Republicans questioned (so to speak) Petraeus and Crocker, they praised the pair and hailed recent developments in Iraq. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he would award Petraeus, a four-star general, a fifth star if that were possible. McCain maintained, "It is possible to talk with real hope and optimism" about Iraq, adding, "success is within reach." The only thing to worry about, McCain suggested, was a lack of spine at home: "Congress must not choose to lose in Iraq." (While questioning Petraeus, McCain once again demonstrated he does not understand that Al Qaeda is a Sunni outfit.)
Republican Senator John Warner (R-Va.) did try to reprise a question he posed to Petraeus when the general testified before the committee last September. At that hearing, Warner asked Petraeus if the Iraq War had made "America safer." And Petraeus had replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind." This time around, Petraeus was obviously prepared for the question. But he did not have much better of a reply. "Is all this sacrifice [in Iraq] bringing about a more secured America?" Warner asked. Petraeus noted he had "thought a bit about it since September." He pointed out that Iraq is now free of a ruthless dictator and that the "seeds of a nascent democracy has been planted." He paused once or twice while answering the query. "The overall weighing of the scales is difficult." He added that only history will be able to judge. Pressed further by Warner—"it's a fairly simple question," the senator said—Petraeus remarked, "I do believe [the war] is worth it." Later on, Petraeus, quoting Tom Brokaw, praised the soldiers serving in Iraq as the "new greatest generation."
Free of fireworks—except for a few outbursts from protesters in the audience—the hearing was no game changer. Senator Hillary Clinton criticized the Bush administration's "same failed policies" in Iraq. But she did not forcefully challenge Petraeus and Crocker. In a low-key manner, she nudged Petraeus to state under what conditions he would "recommend to the president that the current strategy is not working." The general sidestepped the question. Clinton did not pound him for that.
The committee Democrats missed an opportunity to confront vigorously the front men for Bush's war in Iraq. It was not as if they hoisted a white flag. They did cite facts and figures that undermine the overall thrust of Petraeus' and Crocker's presentations. They raised pointed criticisms. They griped about the costs of the war. But it did not add up to much of an assault on Bush's policies. Given that congressional opposition to the war has lost much steam in the past year, perhaps this was to be expected. After all, Democrats in Congress appear to have given up on passing any legislation that would alter U.S. policies in Iraq. They know the public agrees with them on the war. (Warner noted that up to 80 percent of Americans don't believe the war was worth it.) But the Democrats have been stymied by a president who refuses to pull back in Iraq.
With Petraeus and Crocker spending two high-profile days on Capitol Hill to appear before four committees, the Democrats have a chance to undercut the White House story—which has gained traction within the media (if not within the public)—that the surge has been a success. In the opening round, they did not do much to inconvenience Petraeus and Crocker. It was not an entirely triumphant appearance for the pair, but it was good enough for anyone who favors a continuation of the current course in Iraq, and that includes their boss in the White House.
Photo of U.S. Army soldier in Iraq in March from flickr user soldiersmediacenter used under a Creative Commons license.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C., bureau chief.
these two bellicose lands resonate with reasons for their respective belligerences but not a sinlge causative factor for most of them. but when one is backed media, one can say anything one wants. he is secure knowing that he'll receive even accolades. as editors tell me, That's democracy.
I cordially suggest the Donks take Jack Murtha's advice and immediately redeploy to Okinawa...where they can do further harm to this country or Iraq. Hey, if there's enough room on the choppers, maybe they can take David Corn with them as well.
What are you talking about?
I realize you all want a defeat regardless of the millions who will die. But at least, let everybody know where you actually stand: tell the truth!!
"not a sinlge (sic) causative factor" eh? So neither the US nor Israel should ever respond to the terrorist schmucks sending rockets into true civilian areas, or piloting planes into buildings? I suppose that would be the point of view of an equivocating jellyfish drawing a "big gubmint chek" (bravo, billy bob!) and living safely in the boundaries of the US.
How 'bout this, Baghy Bobbi - how 'bout we refuse to 'rationalize' war, and simplify it. How 'bout we decide that the world could easily do without a breed of seventh-century, cave-dwelling, women-dominating, gay-killing, mouth-breathing retards? That would be al Qaeda, since you haven't been paying attention; that's just the breed the coalition's been killing off in Iraq. al Qaeda lite (aka : Mookie's brigade) had experienced a week of the same, and couldn't wait to drop their guns and run. The Iraq gubmint is seeing the writing on the wall - why can't you?
Right now, we've got what we've got. From this point forward, there are only the following alternatives.
1. We stay until things get better and believe the sacrifice is worth it.
2. We assume things will NOT get better, and therefore leave.
3. We assume things WILL get better if we stay, but the sacrifice is not worth it, so we should leave.
4. We assume things will get better IF we leave.
#4 of course is what the Donks thought originally. It's an absurd position on the face of it. #3 is intellectually honest, but no Democrat has the integrity to take that position. #2 is the current Donkey position; it is politically untenable because it assumes failure. McCain will tar the Donk noninee who assumes that position with the "defeatist" label ...and it will stick.
Finally, #1 is the Republican position, and it has traction now. And it may ultimately be the correct one.
One of the great ironies of the secular non-religious Democrat party is that it believes in a peculiar kind of original sin -- in that the war was illegitimate to begin with and therefore everything subsequently associated with it is also illegitimate. David, I don't have to tell a smart guy like you how incredible illogical such a position is. But that's what a vast swath of the Donkey constituency believe. They are, in the end, political fundamentalists.
This isn't the "homeland". It's the US. The "surge" was an escalation. The "pause" is a policy change on troop numbers. What exactly is a "WMD" other than a handy excuse to attack someone without real provocation? "Extraordinary rendition" is torture, which is not limited to organ failure.
They must think we're a pack of sheep led by a flock of parrots.
-Wexler
Will "eventually" come soon enough keep McCain out of the Oval Office? I'm pretty sure it will. The cracks in this "levee" won't hold thru the Summer.
The problem is, what IS that "reality?" For the Republicans/war supporters, it's that things are getting better, but will get worse, much worse, if we leave too precipitously. For the Dems...well, I am not sure WHAT they think. . .except they somehow need to satisfy their activist leftist constituency.
Look the prosecution of this conflict up until this point was a clusterfu$k of pretty epic proportions. But Petraeus is right in his calm competence -- we have to have a "way forward."
When commentators talk about "reality" they are really talking about the future. And the future, this "way forward," is unknowable, unpredictable, and, frankly, quite imperfect. You assess the risks and you try to manage them as best you can.
And it's about TODAY. Not about WMD, or the Bush administration's actual or perceived mendaciousness when this war began. That's why when Obama and other Dems talk about the "failed" policies of the Bush adminstation, such talk, frankly, is not helpful. It's past-based. It doesn't advance the discussion. It appeals to the original sin component in the Dem psyche, that the "there were no WMD, no Saddam connections to al Qaeda, therefore the whole enterprise is illegitimate" -- even thought we maybe, just maybe, might turn this thing around at this particular moment -- this PRESENT moment -- in history.
Again, I refer to my 4 possible positions you could take given what is happening TODAY. Some are intellectually honest; others are pure pandering. It's pretty clear to see which is which.
WE ARE IN OUR LAST DAYS GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY AND I WILL SECURE U A PLANET
PEACE PROPOSAL
1. Would you endorse House candidate Darcy Burner's 'Responsible Plan to End the War in
Iraq?' Why or why not?
2. What is your most likely scenario if we promptly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq?
3. What is your most likely scenario if we maintain a massive U.S. occupation in Iraq indefinitely?
OBJECTIVES
1. How would you summarize our overarching foreign policy objectives of the war in Iraq? How
do you explain what we're fighting for?
2. Do you personally believe that terrorists will strike us here at home if we leave Iraq without a
decisive victory? If so, exactly what would we have to achieve militarily in Iraq to decisively
prevent terrorists from striking again on U.S. shores?
3. Why should we be so much more obsessively concerned about preempting terrorists based in
Iraq, versus preempting terrorists based anywhere else?
4. How does the U.S. occupation of Iraq prevent potential terrorists from purchasing airline
tickets, box cutters, and flight lessons?
5. How many troops does the U.S. presently have in Iraq? What is the estimated troop strength
of the foreign Islamist fighters that we're fighting in Iraq? What was their estimated troop strength
a year ago?
6. What is the U.S. monthly expenditure to support the occupation of Iraq? What is the estimated
monthly expenditure by our enemy in Iraq?
7. In your opinion, is stabilizing Iraq our most urgent strategic mission for the U.S. military? Why
or why not? Can you offer an example of what you might consider a higher priority mission
anywhere else in the world?
8. What benefits can the U.S. taxpayer expect to realize from the billions that we will spend this
month in Iraq? Will it lower U.S. gas prices? Will it prevent a terrorist attack in the U.S.? Will it
enhance U.S. energy independence? Will it win hearts and minds in Iraq and the surrounding
area? Will it improve the situation for Iraqi refugees? Will it create more employment for Iraqis?
9. How would you make a rational and well-informed cost/benefit analysis of continuing the
occupation of Iraq, versus pulling the plug?
10. How would you describe, recognize, and measure victory in Iraq? What sort of metric should
we be using here at home to figure out if we're winning or losing the war in Iraq? Should it be
based solely on the President's say-so? Is it possible to find a more objective yardstick for
victory?
11. Does U.S. access to Iraqi oil factor into our definition of victory? If so, how?
12. Does the status of Iraqi refugees factor into our definition of victory? If so, how?
RATIONALE
1. The Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq was based on the premise that Iraq posed a
"continuing threat" to our national security. Is that still a valid premise for our use of military force
in Iraq? If the AUMF is grossly outdated and inaccurate, what is our legal basis for occupying
Iraq?
2. Is the war in Iraq still a preemptive strike to neutralize Iraqi WMD's? If there are no WMD's,
what is our legal basis for occupying Iraq?
3. Given that the AUMF was based on false information and hysteria about alleged Iraqi WMD's,
should it be updated to reflect a more factual, current, and legitimate rationale for keeping U.S.
forces in Iraq? What would be a more factual and legitimate rationale?
4. A loophole in the AUMF gives the President carte blanche to prolong the war indefinitely as
long as he perceives a terrorist threat. Is the threat of terrorists in Iraq so severe that the
President really needs to have such sweeping powers to maintain the occupation? Would our
national security be grossly jeopardized if authorization for the occupation had to be renewed by
Congress on a semi-annual basis?
5. Given that our objective is to build a democracy in Iraq, what assurances can we offer the Iraqi
people that their national sovereignty will be fully restored to pre-invasion levels?
6. If our objective is to build a democracy in Iraq, wouldn't it be much more democratic to give the
Iraqi government full authority to approve or deny the presence of U.S. troops and bases in Iraq?
7. In the summer of 2007, President Bush and Secretary Rice both stated that U.S. troops are in
Iraq 'by invitation of the Iraqi people.' Have you ever seen documented evidence of any such
invitation? What was the date and circumstance of the alleged invitation? Which Iraqi people
made the alleged invitation?
LEGALITY
1. Under what conditions would it be acceptable for a foreign power to initiate a preemptive strike
against the U.S.? How would you differentiate a preemptive strike from a war of aggression?
2. Does the UN Charter differentiate between a preemptive strike and a war of aggression? Is a
preemptive strike any less unlawful than a war of aggression?
3. Given that the U.S. attacked Iraq without provocation, was the invasion of Iraq a violation of
the UN Charter? What steps have since been taken to ensure that the occupation is in
compliance with the UN Charter? What further steps, if any, should be taken to ensure
compliance?
4. If the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter, and given that the UN Charter is part
of U.S. law, does the invasion of Iraq constitute an impeachable offense by the President and
Vice President?
5. Given that U.S. troops violated the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib, what steps have since
been taken to ensure U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Was Abu Ghraib an
impeachable offense by the President and Vice President?
6. Was rejection of the Geneva Conventions in the early years of the Iraq war an impeachable
offense by the President and Vice President?
7. Has the U.S. used cluster bombs or other mining techniques in Iraq and, if so, what steps have
been taken to ensure compliance with treaties that prohibit leaving a battlefield permanently
uninhabitable or unusable?
8. In your opinion, has the Bush Administration committed acts that should be investigated as
possible war crimes in its conduct of the war in Iraq? If so, what are the most serious ones?
9. Have you personally witnessed orders, statements, or actions by President Bush or Vice
President Cheney that would qualify as high crimes or misdemeanors that Congress would be
compelled to investigate? If so, can you elaborate?
OIL
1. Do Russia, China, and France hold Iraqi oil production contracts and, if so, are these contracts
currently in force with the Maliki government?
2. Do any U.S. interests have Iraqi oil contracts of a magnitude comparable to those of our major
oil rivals?
3. Will our oil rivals, Russia, China, and France, benefit from our sacrifice to stabilize Iraq, despite
their absence from that struggle? Why should we finance their security as well as our own?
4. Is it in our best strategic interest to foot the bill to stabilize Iraq for benefit of our major oil
rivals? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by depleting our military resources and donating so
much blood and treasure for benefit of our oil rivals?
5. Is it in our best strategic interest to spend much more on enabling and defending long-term
U.S. dependence and access to Iraqi oil than we spend on developing more sustainable
alternative energy sources and practices here at home?
WHEN ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE TWO TRAITORS, GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY?
If these two insults to all decency manage to serve out their ignominious terms of office, it will be impossible for this country to recover from their malfeasance and stupidity!
BUSH AND CHENEY AND RICE AND RUMSFELD AND COLIN POWELL AND GEORGE TENET TO THE HAGUE COURT FOR THEIR WAR CRIMES!
There's been much in the media of this administration touting how the 'surge' has worked--that violence has decreased since sending addiional troops to Iraq (a year ago in the spring of 2007.) They use this as a bargaining chip to say, "See, we're winning. We need to stay the course."
Muqtada al-Sadr is the Shi'a ([deleted]e) cleric leader of the main opposition faction against Bush's [deleted]e government--Maliki is Prime Minister. Maliki is our puppet and is seen as such by the majority of Iraqis. The civil war that has been raging in Iraq over the past few years is between the [deleted]es and Sunnis. There are supposed to be elections in Iraq sometime later this year. Because Muktada Al-Sadr has such a large following with over 60% of the Iraqi population Shias, the word on the ground is yes--of course. If an actual free and fair election were to be held in Iraq, Al-Sadr would win. And the U.S. will not allow that. We always control elections in our new 'democracies.'
Last August, Sadr ordered a 'cease-fire' among his followers. So in truth, rather than the U.S. surge being the cause of less violence in Iraq, it was Madr's cease-fire.
About a week ago Maliki's (supposed Iraqi government army forces) attacked Basra (this is a city in the south that controls the oil port to the sea and has been under Sadr/Shia control. The British used to occupy Basra, but they've pulled their troops out, meaning it was a good time to attack the Shi'a. This was not provoked (remember, they'd declared a cease-fire-- rather was pre-emptive to take out the Shi'a forces.) Even though Maliki's forces had U.S. air-cover helping them, they did not win. The U.S. keeps saying they were not part of this decision to attack the Shi'a in Basra, but were applauding it as a show of the Iraq Government finally taking control over their country, etc. The truth--Maliki would never wage an attack without U.S. consultation and approval.
Understanding these facts is important in order to understand the propaganda that will be spewed out over the coming days by Bush's boy-toy soldier, Petraeus and corporate-owned mainstream media. Admiral Fallon was also to have reported to Congress, but he has been eliminated from the docket and is not going to be allowed to speak. He was one of those many military leaders who 'disagreed' with this administration and has been replaced.
By the way, the recent violence in Baghdad against the green zone and in
other cities, were/are in retaliation to the attack on Sadr's army in Bazra.
Your #4 is not even on the face of it absurd: that's what was said about Vietnam. (You forgot to include a version of the domino effect.) The fact is, the war is destabilizing the region, just as was true in Vietnam.
Take a look at General Odom's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He explained why #4 is the correct alternative. (He also explains why your #1 is the one that is absurd, not only on the face of it, but in actuality.)
Stop listening to the guy that Admiral Fallon called an 'ass-licking little chicken[deleted].'
Remember how many high-ranking military members turned down Patraeus' job? Are you going to ridicule all of them? Yeah, praise the military - except the majority that disagree with you. [All praise Bush's General Stooge!]
The right (or, rather, wrong) like to pay lip service to the military, but: they had to be shown in the press to be hypocrits before they would grudgingly give them a raise; they continue to underfund the VA hospital system and rehabilitation programs; they continue to employ imcompetent doctors; they refuse to take into account the majority of the military that have come to the conclusion that we ought to withdraw; they ignore every high-ranking member of the armed forces that says anything they don't like - and have driven very good people into retirement, (Shinseki being a good example - who's since been proven right); and the biggest screamers never served (or used family connections to get safe posts - and then went AWOL).
This non-Democrat knows that the war was illegitimate. Further, because it was planned and (mis)managed by incompetents, and because it continues to be mismanaged by incompetents, it cannot achieve a positive result.
By the way, I've lost track: just what constitutes 'success' this week?
Funny that you should repeatedly invoke the Democratic party's symbol as a puerile attempt to ridicule - and then turn around and defend the party whose members make a habit of braying like jackasses.
(With thanks to Dave Lindorff for the part on Odom.)
Right now. But can you? Are you certain? Are you absolutely sure? 100%?
Harry Reid was 100% sure the surge wouldn't work...that the war was "lost." How did that prognostication go down politically? Any word on that?
Again, I say it again, saying the war was "illegitimate" and that our current situation is "a failure" are, believe it or not, TWO ENTIRELY different things.
Really, think back. Supppose, hypothetically, we had discovered caches of WMDs. Would that have made the current problems we face MORE acceptable? Would it have made Rumsfeld and Feith and Bremer MORE competent? No, the prosecution of the post-invasion was incompetent IRRESPECTIVE of the motives and justifications for getting into the mess in the first place.
This fundamental distinction is very very hard for most Dems to grasp.
And, yes, things WILL get worse if we leave. Just a things REALLY got bad in Vietnam when we pulled the plug.
Again, if a Democrat says, "You know, we should leave Iraq because, well, while things might get better if we stay, it's simply not worth it TO stay," I would respect that position. That position is intellectually honest. But no Democrat is going to take that position because, in the end, it's politically untenable. It's what I would call the "give up and get out" position. Instead, what we get is the rhetorical dance, the dance of pandering. Corn's complaint about the Dems failure to nail Petraeus and Crocker is, ironically, a result of this ceaseless irrelevant pandering by the Dems to the constituency of folks like you. They want to criticize -- and yes, there is much to criticise -- but when it comes to putting a stake in the ground, they simply are intellectually and morally incapable. What they say doesn't even rise to the level of post shots. It's simply hot, empty air.
Our Vice-President (who never served in the military) seems bent on fighting his war to every last drop of your blood. Our president (who's military record includes an early out because of Daddy's say so) stepped right into the trilion-dollar pile of steaming dog[deleted] and hasn't even wiped his shoes!
Let's direct the good general to establish a timetable for an exit strategy so the Iraquis know they have a deadline for getting their government in gear. Who knows? Maybe we could even get them to spend some of that 40 billion they're sitting on?
Mechanized and conditioned,
Dutiful soldiers of tin,
Marching into the future
Resplendent in colors of pride,
Noble leaders in front,
Waving banners high,
Attacking all in the way,
Confident of victory;
The dead a living repast,
Gleaming in firelight
Through heated lenses of madness,
Screaming in desolate fright;
March on! March on! O brave ones,
Yours is the world to be had,
Calls the arid land of illusion
And the beckoning bones of your feast,
To glories unimagined by real men,
Reserved only for soldiers of tin.
When a speaker opened their remarks by thanking the witnesses for their courageous service, I called "Republican!" before the ID line went up. I was never wrong.
Republicans obviously think that the most important aspect of war is that some Americans (but not their own sons and daughters, by and large) are brave enough to go fight it.
Democrats on the panel, however, attempted to turn polished diversion on the divertors, pressing for a sense of time-paths and benchmarks.
The reason this did not resonate more, is that the Administration realized, almost as soon as the words "benchmark" was coined in relation to this conflict, that the term actually implies accountability, and therefore would eventually come back to bite them.
They've been working ever since, to marginallize the term, and therefore the whole idea of goals, because goals have to be expressed SOMEHOW, don't they?
Now the media expect, and get, wishy-washy nothingness, when the question of progress comes up.
if a gov't of any land does crime, only it does time. and the world court should look into such matters and deal with it with help from the world
i can hear now both the US and israeli gov'ts scream at me, saying, You're antiamerican and antisemitic; hoping i'd stop saying this and tremble in fear. but dear folks, bozhidarevsky has a devil of his own; he protects him more than any god could/would. actually. yahweh, god, and allah hate me and want me dead but being impotent, i'm stiil here.
it is US and israel that do more crime than 95% of world lands. precisely, why the most important issues are shunned.
since US and israel are punishing multitudes for crimes of one, few, or many criminals, this is also eschewed.
so, the most basic desires or principles, or wahtever label one wants to use, is to most amers a benovelent.
and the world, or much of it, trembles in fear of the two SCHREKENHEITEN, israel and US. thank you
Is it any surprise that the Government in Iraq and Afganistan are corrupt and impossible to change even if they are elected..Trying to change this system by invasion and military means does not work and telling the Canadian public that it can work is a fraud..
Some other nations in NATO can see this and refuse to fight..In Basra even the Afgan government forces refuse to fight..
The best way to support our troops is to admit our mistake and bring our troops home..Why ask them to die for a mistake..
in any case, study of human traits should be left to sociologists. when/if they publish their studies, i will gladly participate in the discussion why we are whatever we are.
please let's not blame selectively or to suit our ideology. thanx