Published on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Getting Out of Iraq: A Letter to the US Peace Movement
by Mike Kress

America is now enmeshed, much like Israel, in a spiraling cycle of violence. For the sake of Iraq’s people and our nation’s future – and for the benefit of all humanity – we must end the occupation of Iraq. The question is, how?

Gene Sharp, a leading nonviolence educator and author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action, teaches that change is possible when a movement adopts a strategy that undermines a regime’s “pillars of support.” The Bush regime’s pillar of support in Iraq is the military. The peace movement’s adoption of a strategy that reduces first time military enlistments and the number of current service members willing to serve in Iraq could make the occupation unsustainable.

Nearly two years after the invasion of Iraq the military is increasingly unable to maintain ideal personnel levels. Longer deployments away from home, activation of guard and reserve units for unconscionable lengths of time, and poor after-service treatment has angered Iraq veterans and diminished military morale. The illegality of the war in Iraq, its foundation upon a web of lies, the immoral occupation, and the unceasing casualty toll has also convinced fewer men and women to pass through a recruiter’s door.

Only by involuntarily extending service contracts, activating guard or reserve personnel (many of whom haven’t served for years), and lowering the standards for new recruits can the military maintain its present capability. In reality these stopgap measures are limited in their efficacy and the signs of a strained military are starting to show.

Approximately 5,500 service members have been classified as deserters since the invasion of Iraq. Some have fled to Canada and three of them are engaged in high profile immigration hearings as they plead for asylum. Conscientious objector applications are up, some branches aren’t meeting recruiting quotas, and re-enlistments aren’t meeting ideal levels. The Pentagon is tapping the Individual Ready Reserves for critical skills, such as those in the medical field.

In December reports surfaced about service members refusing to deploy to Iraq, a soldier publicly challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about vehicle armor, and lawsuits were filed by reservists against the military for involuntary extensions of their active duty. Military family members are steadily organizing to get their loved ones home. We’ve read stories of veterans being maltreated by the military and VA after getting wounded or separating from the service, and homeless advocates are now sounding the alarm about Iraq veterans showing up in homeless shelters.

All the above is gradually encroaching on the consciousness of the American public. Students and peace groups across the country are discussing and planning what to do in the event of a draft, and even the lax corporate news media have taken some notice of the deterioration of our military and the situation in Iraq.

If the peace movement organizes and pursues a specific strategy to reduce the recruitment and retention of men and women available for military service, the sustainability of the occupation will reach a tipping point. Of course this will take time, and anger patriotic-minded people. There will be charges of treason and endangering the troops. However, this illegal war and occupation itself is treason, and our troops are already endangered.

To be effective this strategy must reach two populations: the military and youth under 24.

Peace and justice groups should mobilize to assist military members in applying for conscientious objector status, and arrange legal assistance for military members who are prosecuted for refusing to serve or deploy. We should dedicate ourselves to helping military personnel and their families leave the country to avoid deployment or continued military service.

We must also encourage military members to examine the occupation and question why we’re there, and help them understand that our presence in Iraq involves war crimes (e.g. the invasion, destruction of Falluja, Abu Ghraib). We can help soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen become aware of their obligation to refuse orders that violate international law – including orders that deploy them to support the occupation.

By appealing to youth susceptible to recruitment we can help them refuse to enlist in a military that’s being used illegally and immorally. In the process they can become active citizens who realize that we’re all responsible for the bloodshed in Iraq. By appealing to the compassion of our youth we can penetrate apathy and denial, persuade them that supporting our troops means getting them back home, and convince them that opposing the occupation is a moral act.

As we employ tactics such as letters to the editor, leafleting, op-ed writing, pickets near recruiting offices, and organizing in every high school and college, we will seek to generate sympathy for those who refuse to enlist and those who refuse to serve in Iraq. As more men and women find the courage to refuse the peace movement can “frame the debate” in favor of immediate U.S. withdrawal. Should there be a draft the incidences of refusal will escalate dramatically. Soon every American will confront the consequences of our foray into Iraq and ask if it’s worth the price.

The end of the occupation can then begin.

Mike Kress is an Air Force veteran (87-94) who served in the Persian Gulf (Operation Southern Watch) and left the military as a conscientious objector. He is the vice chair of the Spokane Human Rights Commission and sits on the steering committee of the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane (www.pjals.org).

###

http://www.veteransforpeace.org

The average Iraqi does not want the US to pull out.

A large majority of US soldiers in Iraq dont want to pull out.

Please reference these Alice in Wonderland polls.
It seems to me the loudest applause at a neo-con
chickenhawk visit to troops heading to Iraq came
from other troops complaining about going in without
proper equipment.
Tell you what...lets get Zogby to run a poll of soldiers
in Iraq and if a "large majority" (what's that 60%?)
want to stay...you and I can volunteer to go to.

Hey Zearatul9ra2,

yeah where you get yer infomation from? (beastie boys)

Another Mislead Sheople of the SHRUB! Give it a rest with this I am an American Patriot BS. Can always tell the ones that never seen Combat for nothing. You think these Troops would of rather came home or stayed in the SHRUB WAR! The average Iraqi does not want anything to do with the people that invaded his land and this crapola will go on forever if the "SHRUB" has his way! War Prez --LOL CHICKENHAWK - FORTUNATE SON is more like it! The Troop is just Cannon Fodder to the likes of the SHRUB and his Chickenhawk regime!

If you make statements like this it would be nice to have something to substantiate it like a link!!!!

If you say it, be prepared to prove it.

LOL---Give it a rest with the orders "Chesty" - your in the real world now! LOL Time to face reality and pickup on the truth that you so proudly served your country for. Just this Vet's honest oppinion, which is shared by many.

I was looking for where I heard it on google and came up with this.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331..._100404,00.html

Do you really think the military would vote 4:1 Bush if they didnt want to stay in Iraq if they didnt suport Bush's war??? I know the military does not want to fight but they like to get the job done look at what happened in somalia. Do you think the military liked it when clinton just cut and ran?

If you served you would know that the military is overwhelmingly republican.

I was watching some interviews on CNN of soldiers talking about the peacekeeping effor in Iraq they were building schools and improving the Iraqi way of life and how the majority of main stream Iraqi's werent shooting Ak's at US troops.

Ill try and dig that up till then this is all i have for now.

Zearatul9ra2,

YOU NEED TO REPORT ABOARD

target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...p?showtopic=147

AND SPEND "ALL" YOUR TIME THERE WHERE SOME FOLKS MIGHT - JUST MIGHT BUY THAT VIEW.

Now I'll be a bit gentler than those above and just say.



IMAGE COURTESY OF THE DENVER POST

QUOTE

Zearatul9ra2,

ARMYDAD would be the first to admit that the Kerry campaign failed miserably to woo THE MILITARY VOTE.

In fact, Mary Beth Cahill who led the campaign admitted so publically.

BUT BY ALL MEANS DON'T GET BLIND SUPPORT FOR GEORGE BUSH'S MISTAKE IN IRAQ WITH THE KERRY CAMPAIGN'S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE GOP VETERAN'S SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

National polls on Support of the War in Iraq showed pretty much a nation divided REGARDLESS WHO THEY VOTED FOR = IF THEY VOTED AT ALL.

Neither you, Military Times nor anyone has a documented way of reflecting HOW Military members voted because such exit data isn't recorded.

Now that aside YOU are bringing up the notorious Clinton boogyman when that has nothing to do with what is going on in Iraq right now. Otherthan distracting the issues.

I concede that the overwhelming majority of older, higher ranking and more career-oriented military, especially officers, as a whole are Republicans.

They also are not on active duty. THEY ARE MOST LIKELY MILITARY RETIREES URGING THE TROOPS ON, BECAUSE THEY DESIRE THE TROOPS TO WIN THE VICTORY THEY WERE DENIED IN A WAR THAT WAS ALSO A MISTAKE.

Lastly, without the UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF "ALL" THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR BUSH'S WAR IT MAKES NOT DIFFERENCE WHAT POLITICAL PERSUASION "THE TROOPS" ARE FROM.

IN FACT, WHAT POLITICAL VIEWS "THE TROOPS" ON ACTIVE DUTY HAVE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE EQUASION OF STAYING IN IRAQ OR NOT.

THEY DO NOT MAKE THAT DECISION.

HERE COMES THE PART THAT GOP VETERANS ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE, BECAUSE THIS IS WHY THEY CRUCIFIED JOHN KERRY (THAT'S FITTIN FOR CHRISTMAS), JUST LIKE VIETNAM = THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECIDE WHEN ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND THROUGH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES = AGAIN REGARDLESS OF PARTY CAN PULL THE PLUG BY PULLING FUNDING FOR THE WAR.

HOW DO YOU THINK VIETNAM REALLY ENDED Zearatul9ra2? NOT VIA THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENTS PROTESTS IN THE STREETS. THEY WERE A NUSANCE BUT LARGELY IGNORED OR PERSECUTED.

IT, LIKE THIS MISTAKE, WAS ENDED WHEN CONGRESS HAGGLED AND STARTED TO "QUESTION" FUNDING, MISSION AND PURPOSE OR THE ADMINISTRATION AND PENTAGON.

WELL WHAT IS CONGRESS (BOTH PARTIES) STARTING TO DO NOW?

YOU GOT IT! :D

56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake

Poll Also Finds Slight Majority Favoring Rumsfeld’s Exit
By John F. Harris and Christopher Muste
Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq war, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the longterm security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an “unacceptable” cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was “not worth fighting”-an eightpoint increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.

SEE Zearatul9ra2 GEORGE BUSH'S RE-ELECTION MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN FOLKS OPINION ABOUT HIS MISTAKES IN IRAQ. IN FACT, HIS SITUATION ONLY GOT WORSE. IN SOME WAYS MAYBE KERRY WANTED BUSH TO WIN! ARMYDAD

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld at a morning news conference yesterday, but the Pentagon chief who soared to international celebrity and widespread admiration after the terrorist attacks three years ago can be glad he answers to an audience of one. Among the public, 35 percent of respondents approved of his job performance, and 52 percent said Bush should give Rumsfeld his walking papers.

Seven weeks since his reelection victory over Democrat John F. Kerry and four weeks before his second inauguration, the poll suggests Bush is in a paradoxical situation-a triumphant president who remains acutely vulnerable in public opinion on a national security issue that is dominating headlines and could shadow his second term.

A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE THAT YOU SAY IS HIS STRONGEST POINT Zearatul9ra2 JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE MOST OF "THE TROOPS" ARE REPUBLICANS. NO I STRONGLY BELIEVE MOST OF "THE TROOPS" ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THAT AND IF ANYTHING DID NOT VOTE FOR EITHER CANDIDATE BECAUSE THEIR SITUATION WOULDN'T CHANGE REGARDLESS WHO WAS GOING TO BE PRESIDENT. NEITHER KERRY NOR BUSH HAD A SHORT TERM EXIT PLAN SO WHY VOTE FOR EITHER ONE AND MOST TROOPS WANTED A SHORT TERM EXIT PLAN. LAST THING ON THEIR MINDS IS OR WAS SOMALIA OR BILL CLINTON = GET REAL.

While the results are bad for Bush as people look at past decisions whether the Iraq war should have been waged in the first place-the president has more support for his policies over the choices he faces going forward.

A strong majority of Americans, 58 percent, support keeping military forces in Iraq until “civil order is restored,” even in the face of continued U.S. causalities. By a slight margin, 48 percent to 44 percent, more voters agreed with Bush’s position that the United States is making “significant progress” toward its goal of establishing democracy in Iraq. Yet, by a similar margin, the public believes the United States is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order.

This was just one area where there was considerable ambivalence and even pessimism about the challenges confronting U.S. policy in the coming months.

On the question of whether Iraq is prepared for elections next month-a topic widely debated among national security experts-58 percent of respondents believed the violence-plagued country is not ready. Nonetheless, 60 percent want elections to go forward as scheduled-even though 54 percent do not expect honest results with a “fair and accurate vote count.” Fiftyfour percent are not confident elections will produce a stable government that can rule effectively.

Bush waged his reelection campaign heavily on national security, but the polling data reaffirm what similar surveys showed during the campaign: He is winning only half the case.

GET THE POINT Zearatul9ra2?

A full 57 percent disapprove of his handling of Iraq, a number that is seven percentage points higher than a poll taken in September. But the president’s core political asset, public confidence in his leadership on terrorism, remains intact, albeit down significantly from even a year ago. Fifty-three percent approve of his record on terrorism, while 43 percent do not. Those numbers were 70 percent and 28 percent a year ago this week.

The public splits down the middle on Bush’s overall job performance, with 48 percent approving while 49 percent disapprove, percentages that closely approximate results taken just before the election. By contrast, President Bill Clinton had an approval of 60 percent in a poll taken just before he began his second term.

The Post-ABC results are consistent with other newly released surveys. Time magazine, which this week named Bush its “Person of the Year,” found that 49 percent approve of his job performance, little changed from before the election. A Pew Research Center survey, meanwhile, showed that the angry divisions about Bush that marked the 2004 campaign were hardly bridged by the election’s end-nor were the sharply divergent appraisals of reality. By emphatic majorities, Bush voters were upbeat on whether things are going well in Iraq and with the economy, while Kerry voters were negative.

The Post poll also showed such partisan divides on many foreign policy and national security questions. In a potential trouble sign for the White House, Republicans’ support for Bush on these questions is lower than the Democratic opposition. And majorities of independents side with the Democrats in their skepticism toward the administration’s course.

NOW THIS DOE NOT BODE WELL FOR REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL WHO TOUT THE BUSH NAME OR HIS NEO-CON POLICIES. ARMYDAD.

There are sharp partisan divisions over Rumsfeld, with about two-thirds of Democrats and slight majorities of independents disapproving of his job performance and believing he should be replaced. Smaller majorities of Republicans, about six in 10, approve of Rumsfeld and want him to stay in the job.

There are similar splits on Iraq. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents agree the elections should be held. But more than two-thirds of Democrats and about six in 10 independents believe that Iraq is not ready for elections and that the vote will not be fair and will not produce a stable Iraqi government, in contrast to a majority of Republicans. Opinion is even more sharply divided over the outcome of elections. Seven in 10 Democrats and five in nine independents believe elections will not produce a stable government in Iraq, while more than two-thirds of Republicans believe they will.

A total of 1,004 randomly selected Americans were interviewed Dec. 16 to 19. The margin of sampling error for the results is plus or minus three percentage points.



IMAGE OF MESS TENT BOMBED IN IRAQ COURTESY OF BBC AND AP[/B]

Zearatul9ra2
Give me a break, LOL - another Military.Com on board! LOL Follow ARMYDADS Post and go join the regulars at the URL he provided. They like to sit at the VFW or Legion Bar and talk war strategy and fishing and get yourself your own "SHRUB" monogramed bar stool with the good ol' boys that sit on their duffs and put the yellow ribbons on their rigs. That is what patriots do --- ask them! LOL

What's the deal Bammo, you think this guy posting unsubstaniated stuff should get a break? The threads which don't ask for documentation are located here,
target='_blank'>


http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...hp?showforum=16

If he's got a reference to prove what he says let him show it, if not why should anybody believe him? Let him post stuff at the above forum where no one asks.

I don't believe we've met. Hello Bammo, I'm cardinal. Ideally we would have met under different circumstances, however, since I'm here now I guess we might as well talk. So, right off the top, let me thank you for your service. And I'll say that to anyone who's put themselves in harm's way or served their country.

Now being the sensitive type that I am, I guess I have to take exception to being categorized as someone who hangs out at the VFW or Legion or talking war strategy which I frankly don't know too much about. I will plead guilty to talking about fishing on occassion. I don't have a rig with a yellow ribbon, just a worn out 98 chevy in need of a new intake manifold gasket and leaking anti-freeeze all over my garage floor. I sure don't have a SCRUB monogramed bar stool and if I were a drinking person, wouldn't think of sitting down for a beer with the SCRUB. I don't have any time for him or his ilk, never did, never will.

The other thing I'll take exception to is what I consider an attack on some people I think are pretty good guys. While you may not agree, I really don't think its helpful to lump a bunch of people together in one category and say they are this and that. You want to debate the issues fine, but no more personal attacks please.

You know, I have finally reached the point where I just don't care much anymore about the war in Iraq. The American people have signed off on it (via the election). It's a war that was started by Republicans, is supported by Republicans and is, for the most part, being fought by Republicans. It's their baby, and I have no horse in this race.

You had a mistake when you typed in the link Tom, try this one http://www.usmcboot.com/
A very commendable person set up this web site.

My apologies to you bammo and willie-pete or anyone else I've offended. Wasn't my intention to start any trouble here - guess it ended up being quite the opposite. I have read the previous previous posts and the websites and have seen some really good stuff posted.
Now I'll get out of here and ask that you understand that most anything that Bush does drives me right up the wall. I just didn't want anyone thiking he and I might be in the same car. Just chalk it up to an emotional momemt on my part.

cardinal
Now we met cardinal! and you do not have to thank me for serving nothing, because that is what I did, fought for nadda cardinal - ZIPPO! So keep your praise to one of those War Heroes at the local VFW or A. Legion, sitting there drinkin' beer and telling wanna bee war story's. Now that is my take on a lot that goes on in those rather have a dinner than help a Vet org.'s. Been there when I was not even wanted to join-- Vietnam was a no- no back in the early 70's for the people that fought in the BIG-ONE Cardinal. So excuse me if I seem a tad bitter to you, It Don't Mean Nothin' -- Trust me. As far as your 98 Che'vy (LOL) - sounds like you need some good tools, I am not going to even comment on that scene cardinal. Now you called me out cardinal and here I am! I speak it like I see it and tell it like it needs to be told. If you do not like it, tough - don't read it, what welse can I say! And if you take exception for me - as you put it - attacking some pretty good guys! Cardinal, they don't need you to back them up, they know the shoe fits their azz and wear it pretty da_n well. Cardinal - I got to ask does that shoe fit you? Seems to have hit a nerve. Relax cardinal before you get ill! LOL And I am not on any debate- yuppy club either cardinal. Hang Tough and be well there cardinal, and try to relax - seems your a bit tense - for sure!

cardinal
No problem at all cardinal. Hang tough and be well --have an awesome XMAS and a dynamite "2005" !!

Marine
Have no problem with that site Marine, agree with what you said above 100% ! Hang Tough and you and yours have one he_l of a good XMAS and a super "2005" --Marine!

Marine
You got me lost on the above Marine! Sorry for my not so good comprehension. A person can post something without a link Marine. This is a forum. He_l the "Commander and Thief" posts more without truth and beaucoup of people buy that crapola! If the spit shined boot fits , you have to wear it Marine. Think the size is about right! Marine, relax - go down to the VFW or Legion and have yourself a cold one - Tell a few tales with your Bro's --make sure you have a link though. Would not want to see one of those VFW'ers or Legioneers get the wrong impression about you Marine. And of course it is the Holiday Season, and the VA is closed for XMAS! So relax Marine - relax! You and yours be well Marine - have a great holiday season -- for sure.

War resistors go North
Protests over the conduct of the Iraq war are mounting from what seems an unlikely place: the ranks of the military. In early December, eight soldiers sued in federal court to overturn the stop-loss policy that has extended their tour of duty indefinitely. At Camp Buehring in the Kuwaiti desert, Army National Guard Specialist Thomas Wilson, cheered on by his fellow soldiers, demanded that Donald Rumsfeld explain why the troops had to rummage through garbage heaps for scraps to armor their vehicles. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has admitted that some 5,500 enlisted soldiers have deserted since the "liberation" of Iraq began. While these disgruntled grunts don't explicitly challenge the validity of the war itself, their decision to complain formally, or even to quit, strongly suggests a dwindling of faith in the mission.

Pfc. Jeremy Hinzman, of the 82nd Airborne, has made his second thoughts public. As he told me this past March, "The war is bogus. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The war was not pursued in self-defense, and as such it is illegal. I decided I could not participate in such a criminal enterprise."

On December 6-8, while his comrades were filing suit and confronting Rumsfeld, Hinzman was making this argument before Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) in a bid for asylum as a principled deserter from the US Army. In doing so, he was putting the war itself on trial, articulating clearly the doubts that are beginning to tug at the conscience of some US troops.

Hinzman enlisted in the Army in 2001, making what he calls a typical "Faustian bargain" – trading service for college – and looking for a way to be part of something "bigger than myself," where he might "live for ideals rather than just to consume." But in basic training, as drills focused on "breaking down the human inhibition to killing," he began to realize he had made the wrong choice. Aghast at finding himself joining in training chants like, "What makes the grass grow? Blood, blood, bright red blood," he filed for conscientious objector status, serving in noncombat duty in Afghanistan while his application was in process. Back at Fort Bragg in late 2003, his CO application denied, Hinzman received word that his unit would be shipping out to Iraq in a few days. He and his wife got into their Chevy with their toddler and drove to Toronto, arriving there January 3 of last year. He is the first of three deserters to ask for refugee protection. A ruling is expected in February.

As is typical in a case making a novel claim or with a high public profile, the Canadian government intervened, asserting that Hinzman does not fit the definition of a refugee: someone who is fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution. Canada also argued – and in an interim ruling issued about two weeks before the hearing, the IRB judge agreed – that the question of the war's legality is irrelevant to the case.

The government is not revealing its reasoning, but one can imagine a number of competing concerns pulsing beneath it: on the one hand, a reluctance to embarrass its bullying trading partner; on the other, an intense domestic opposition to the Iraq War. At the same time, Canada may be anxious about the possibility of an American draft, despite the Bush Administration's repeated denials that one is coming. Some thirty-five years ago, an estimated 60,000 men and women resisting the Vietnam War surged north. (In those days, they could simply present themselves at the border and apply for landed immigrant status; since then, Canada has instituted a refugee determination procedure.)

One of them was Jeffry House, Hinzman's attorney. He regrets losing "our cleanest argument": While refugee law states that prosecution is not persecution, House intended to show that it is indeed persecution to punish someone for refusing to take part in a war that is illegal under international law, which sanctions war only when it is undertaken in self-defense or with authorization of the United Nations Security Council.

Still, House explains, even if the illegality of the decision to go to war is off the table, the question of how the war is being waged remains relevant to Hinzman's claim. "What's happening on the ground in Iraq is violating Geneva Conventions and international human rights law," House says. "No one should be forced to participate." From the cells of Abu Ghraib to the living rooms of Falluja, any number of examples can make the case.

Marine Sgt. Jimmy Massey, who served in Iraq during the invasion in March 2003, testified on Hinzman's behalf, explaining, he told me, that "it's the system, not the individual soldier, that is the problem. Even atrocities are standard operating procedure." At the hearing, he recounted in graphic and shocking detail how his unit killed more than thirty innocent Iraqi civilians at checkpoints, "lighting them up" with machine gun fire. He also described how Marines shot dead unarmed Iraqi demonstrators who posed no threat. "I was never clear on who was the enemy and who was not," he said. "When you don't know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?" A Marine Corps spokesman has said that none of the acts Massey described violated rules of engagement.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20826/

Bring 'Em Home


Why not replace Americans who are increasingly despised as occupying forces with peacekeepers provided by NATO or the UN? Story Tools

Anthony Zinni, Marine General, Middle-East expert and hero to some of us who opposed the Iraq War, recently explained why, despite the fact that even though he still feels it was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," our troops must now stay and fight, probably for the next five to ten years. Though the situation may appear untenable to some, he offered, if the January elections are perceived as legitimate and successfully designate a credible group of Iraqis who can then draft a workable Constitution, the possibility exists that in at least the 13 provinces that are relatively stable one might expect the creation of jobs, the involvement of Iraqi businesses in growing the economy and the establishment of a climate that inspires hope in the people.

Noble goals, clearly, though the "ifs," "mights" and "possibilities" are huge and troubling. But my question was, why not bring our troops home? Why not replace Americans who are increasingly despised as occupying forces with peacekeepers provided by NATO or the UN? Why not arrange for an international force made up at least in part of troops from Arab nations to provide the security necessary for this hopeful scenario to play out?

That would solve a number of problems, it seems to me. It would give the lie to the widely held belief that we intend to control Iraq forever, ensuring our access to their oil. (We don't, do we?) It would also calm the fears of those prone to believe that we are in the first stages of a war on Islam. (We're not, are we?) Further, and quite selfishly, it would save the lives of our troops who daily suffer for the arrogance of their nation's leaders. And it just might save a lot of Iraqis as well.

"Who would come?" was Zinni's response, asked in a manner that suggested the answer was obvious. And it apparently is, at least to him. But does that satisfy? Is it an answer we have to settle for as more die every week, with our troops required to destroy another village in order to save it?

Even as Mr. Bush presents Medals of Freedom to three of his chief apologists and implementers of failed strategy, young Americans lose lives, limbs and minds in a criminally transparent attempt to salvage a hideous miscalculation by their Commander in Chief. The Iraqi "insurgency" can no longer be blamed on foreign fighters, criminals and former supporters of Saddam, as those who created this war with threats of "mushroom clouds" now assure us is the case.

If the people of Iraq want democracy they can create it with the help of a security force provided by nations absent the taint of the "Great Satan," a label casually applied to us by our enemies but firmly affixed by the torturers and rapists of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and their irresponsible superiors who hide smugly behind "quaint" advice.

"Who would come?" Certainly there are still some who believe that while democracy cannot be imposed at the point of a gun it deserves a chance to grow. Others could be offered a role in the lucrative national rebuilding campaign necessitated by the unnecessary war – if, that is, the Halliburtons can be persuaded to ease their monopolistic grip. Still more who, unlike the Bush Administration, believe in international law and its institutions might come to demonstrate their very viability.

Who knows who would come? So far, the arrogance – or ignorance – of the Bush position has opened no opportunity, shown no willingness to make a serious effort to find a replacement force. And, arguably, who wants to pull his fat out of the fire? But despite the unwillingness to recognize the disaster created out of a smug assertion of global dominance, a "see no error, hear no error, speak no error" belief system and a reckless willingness to spend our grandchildren's future on a fool's war, ours is still a democracy.

The 'fat in the fire' is not Bush's; it's ours. It's our kids who are killing and dying on this fool's errand. It's our nation's once-good name that is being sundered along with Iraqi homes and hopes. And it's our duty to turn this rudderless beast around – to do everything in our power to slap our country back to its senses, step back to our proper place in the world, ask for help from our former friends and get our kids the hell out of there.

Bring 'em home. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20845/

A Soldier Speaks This Marine was a true believer in the reasons for the Iraq war. He talks to AlterNet about his loss of moral certainty, the gift of wisdom and "regime change" at home. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20358/

A Soldier Speaks: Robert Sarra
Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. October 29, 2004.
A death in Iraq transforms a nine-year Marine veteran from a soldier into an anti-war activist. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20337/

A Soldier Speaks: David Grimm
Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. October 28, 2004.
A Florida National Guardsman learns how to survive and protect his men in a war zone – without body armor. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20322/

A Soldier Speaks: Denver Jones
Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. October 27, 2004.
The 35-year-old Army reservist suffered a spine-shattering injury that left him permanently disabled. But he reserves his compassion for those who need it most: Iraqi children. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20314/

A Soldier Speaks: Robert J. Acosta
Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. October 26, 2004.
One bad day in Iraq and a 19-year-old boy faces a lifetime without his right hand. This veteran speaks about his hopes and fears – and the long, hard road ahead. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20293/

Speaking the Ground Truth
Paul Rieckhoff, AlterNet. October 22, 2004.
In the furious debate over the war in Iraq, there is one voice conspicuously missing – that of the American soldier. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20253/

The Unknown Soldiers
Lakshmi Chaudhry, AlterNet. October 21, 2004.
The reality of the suffering in Iraq has been rendered invisible by media hype and partisan battle. One doctor, who has treated some of the thousands, speaks about the war wounded. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20254/

Soldiers Once ... And Young
Tai Moses, AlterNet. October 12, 2004.
Iraq combat veterans offer raw, compelling testimony to the horrors of war and the anguish of returning home. http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20140/

The Grief of Baghdad
Evan Derkacz, AlterNet. October 5, 2004.
The painful stories and pictures of some of the 16,000 American soldiers – like Cpl. Tyson Johnson – wounded in Iraq might move Americans to action. Maybe that's why we don't see them in the mainstream media.
http://www.alternet.org/asoldierspeaks/20080/

A Just Deserter
Now appealing for asylum in Toronto, war resister and former soldier Jeremy Hinzman puts alleged U.S. war crimes on trial.
After three days of listening to graphic testimony at the refugee hearing of South Dakota war resister Jeremy Hinzman, one observer sitting near me shakily remarks, "If you're not a pacifist after sitting through this then nothing will make you into one." In this harshly lit hearing room on Victoria, a refugee board adjudicator is going to have to rule on a most shocking proposition: whether this former soldier of the U.S. 82nd Airborne ought to be granted asylum because he fears participating in war crimes in Iraq.

Those packing the room - mostly Quakers and other peace types - are busy trying to send subliminal messages to presiding member Brian Goodman through their anti-war buttons and peace quilts.

Round one has already been lost. A technical legal ruling forbids Hinzman's counsel, Jeffry House, from arguing the illegality of the war in Iraq and a soldier's duty not to participate in such a war. House considers the ruling a huge ground for appeal should Hinzman be denied refugee status.

But House has another card up his sleeve - an Ontario Court of Appeal precedent in the case of Fereidoon Zolfagharkhani, who deserted from the Iranian military upon learning that Iran intended to gas Kurds. Zolfagharkani was a paramedic, and it would have been his job to treat Kurdish people who didn't die from the attacks so they could withstand interrogation. He won the right to asylum in Canada, and House hopes a similar logic will work in Hinzman's case.

The point at issue is whether Hinzman, as a member of the 82nd, would have been forced to kill civilians or participate in violations of the Geneva Convention during his tour of duty. So House has entered exhibits of media reports from the Washington Post, Democracy NOW and Human Rights Watch with such titles as U.S. Military Attacks On Population Centers, U.S. Military Attacks On Health Clinics and U.S. Military Attacks On Civilians.

Info relating specifically to the exploits of the 82nd Airborne are easy enough to Google. I did the search myself and found a Human Rights Watch report documenting actions of the 82nd Airborne that resulted in the deaths of seven unarmed civilians.

As that report details, "soldiers from the 82nd Airborne's 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment raided the apartment of Fadhil Hamza Hussain al-Janabi in al-Mahmudiyya on the outskirts of Baghdad after receiving a tip from a local pool hall about 'bad guys' in the neighborhood... Al-Janabi's 19-year-old daughter Farah was killed, as was a neighbor."

Outside reports of the 82nd, Hinzman's case turns on how well he can articulate the growing worries he harbours about becoming a killing machine. During his wife's pregnancy back in South Dakota, Hinzman began to disdain his training, which included chanting, "Trained to kill! Kill we will!" Fatherhood, he says, cemented his belief that, unlike the other soldiers, he couldn't make the grass grow with bright red blood.

Two months after his baby's birth and several months before shipping out to Afghanistan, he filed a very complicated conscientious objector (CO) application. "I didn't feel I could kill. I could have done other jobs in the Army," Hinzman says.

What happened then isn't entirely clear. Somehow, the papers were lost and Hinzman resubmitted his CO application. At this point he was in Afghanistan doing kitchen duty. Then one day while scrubbing pots, he says, superiors pulled him from his duties, brought him in front of a tribunal and quickly denied him CO status.

Upon returning to the U.S., he came to realize his only option was to flee to Canada. He led a hard double life, he says - by day training to deploy to Iraq and by night planning an escape route north.

"We were going to Iraq to jack up terrorists. We were told this was a new kind of war, that these people weren't human and that they were not to be treated in a humane way. We were told by commanders in pep talks that these people are evil."

Needing more specifics on who the army considered evil, presiding member Goodman asks, "Who were they referring to as terrorists?"

Hinzman chillingly replies, "They associate everyone in the area as a terrorist."

"The entire population of Iraq was considered a terrorist?" Goodman asks.

"We referred to Iraqis, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Yemenis, Iranians as terrorist, as they came from the Middle East," comes Hinzman's reply.

Somewhat disbelieving, Goodman asks again, "All Arabs from that region were terrorists?"

"Correct, sir."

Though the war in Iraq isn't on trial, House manages to highlight U.S. soldiers' propensity to kill Iraqi civilians. When he introduces his star witness, Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy J. Massey, immigration rep Janet Chisholm weakly objects. "He doesn't have a similar position in the Army," she says of Massey, and suggests he couldn't possibly be an expert on the Geneva Convention.

The soft-spoken, bespectacled Massey, who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from his tour in Iraq, was not only trained in the Geneva Convention since boot camp but was also assigned to ensure firefights were clean - i.e., carried out according to the army's Standing Operating Procedures and the Geneva Convention.

Within Massey's first 48 hours in Iraq, his platoon of 45 had slaughtered 30 unarmed men, women and children at checkpoints. Marines are trained to set up checkpoints according to a set procedure, but Massey testifies that military fearmongering "was giving us the mindset that every Iraqi was a terrorist."

Now the former Marine even questions whether their procedure for trying to stop a vehicle entering a checkpoint could have been sending the wrong message to approaching Iraqis. As cars moved towards them, a Marine would flash what they believed was the international "Halt" hand symbol, a closed fist in the air. Of course, it is easily mistaken for the internationally recognized brotherhood or solidarity gesture, which is exactly the same.

All this happened in a matter of seconds as the fear of suicide bombers created itchy trigger fingers. "We fired at a cyclic rate. We pulled the trigger and didn't stop," Massey says.

"I witnessed Marines putting rounds into enemy combatants who were expiring. It is not uncommon for a Marine to put rounds in the head of someone playing possum," he says.

Besides trying to establish the realities of soldiering in Iraq, the hearing also puts Hinzman's religious beliefs under the microscope. The war resister and his family attend twice-weekly Quaker gatherings. They are tenders, not members, but Hinzman says that after years of quiet contemplation, he would apply to become a member.

The other question before the refugee board is whether Hinzman is a refugee by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution. To establish this, he would have to show that the U.S. government and its military would persecute him for reasons of political opinion, religion or membership in a social group - namely conscientious objectors to military service in the U.S. Army in Iraq.

All this Goodman will have to weigh to determine if the horrors that he repeatedly heard in gross, exacting detail meet the requirements set out by the Court of Appeal. With written submissions from House and Chisholm not due until the end of January, a ruling probably won't drop until March. Then the world will learn whether Canada considers the actions of the U.S. Army in Iraq to be so dire that conscientious objectors are in need of our protection.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/20801/

The same to you Bammo, a very Merry X-Mas and best wishes in the coming New Year.

Only honorable goal in Iraq conflict: peace
In a season when many celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace, there is no end in sight for the war in Iraq.

Yet what else, but peace, should we be praying for?

Not an exit strategy, though that would be useful. Not the subjugation of the rebel forces, though that would be helpful. Not victory, though some have already claimed it for us, for that would be impossible.

No, peace must be our call -- in prayer, in word, in action. Nothing else will do.

We are firmly there in Iraq, committing lives, spending money, hatching business schemes. We have much invested, including our good name. Of course, we worry about the day-to-day progress of the war. The more firmly entrenched we become, the more likely we are to think that unarmored Humvees are the biggest problem we are facing in Iraq.

Alas, the war itself is our biggest problem.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained recently that the reason our troops aren't properly equipped is "You go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

He was conveniently forgetting that we had no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did.

Many Americans said so at the time. Now we're told our troops are not adequately equipped because we had to go to war in a hurry.

What we still don't know, nearly two years after we invaded Iraq, is what we were in a hurry about.

"Great is the guilt of the unnecessary war," John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife, Abigail.

President Adams was pressured to go to war with France in the late 1790s, but instead promoted the idea of preparedness. He was lambasted by the "High Federalists" of his own party, but he didn't budge. At the time, France was, in a sense, attacking the United States by impressing American seamen.

The situation was resolved in a timely manner, diplomatically, when Napoleon took control of France.

Here was a situation in which war might have been called for; was not pursued, despite political pressure; and was ultimately proved unnecessary. We, in contrast, are embroiled in a conflict that was called for by the president for unknown reasons, pursued despite ample criticism from the public, and has yet to be proven necessary.

No one in the Bush administration wants to admit that the war was a mistake, but I am seeing signs of hope that the fabrications about this war are unraveling. The National Guard can't fill its recruiting quotas. Families of soldiers whose tours of duty are being extended are starting to complain more loudly. The soldiers who dared to question Rumsfeld (prompting his puzzling answer) demonstrated strong disaffection among the ranks.

Congress, after a long nap, is waking up and talking back. Sens. John McCain, Trent Lott and our own Susan Collins criticized Rumsfeld last week. Sen. Lincoln Chaffee, R-R.I., has said, "We really need cold hard facts and honesty (about Iraq). The situation is rough over there." After returning from a visit to Iraq earlier this month, Chaffee told CNN, "People are not as friendly as they were a year ago towards Americans."

Is it any wonder? Chaffee's comments don't bode well for the Iraqi elections planned for next month. The only possible endgame scenario that has even been floated is this one: The Iraqis will democratically elect a government, and we will quietly slink out. But if the country is in turmoil, the elections will be, too. Even if they can be held successfully, the outcome might lead to more violence and unrest.

It's a mess. There is no easy way out. Yet I ask myself daily, "Do two, or 12 or hundreds of rightful actions we have taken in Iraq make up for, the wrongness of our invasion?" If democracy does take hold there, for example, that would be a positive step.

My answer is always no. We should not be there. But it's the only answer I have. All I can do is pray for peace, call for peace, insist on peace -- in this season of peace and beyond. http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news...l/1236853.shtml

Please, people, let's leave the screaming blue and huge bold black typefaces out and talk to each other like sensible people.

I pulled up this thread with the idea of making a meaningful contribution to it, but I just can't take the assault on my eyes.

Antonin
Suggestion Antonin , put a pair of shades on and make your contribution. It Don't Mean Nothin' --There it is! Kind of like the color and different type of print, etc. - kind of shows all do not follow the Shepard! So Antonin, by all means add some flare and style, plus your contribution. Lets see what you got there Antonin. Be Well and - go for the brass!