Public Supports Withdrawal Of Troops From Afghanistan

The chart above reflects the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 10th and 13th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,292 registered voters). The margin of error for both adults and registered voters is 3 points.

It shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans support President Biden's decision to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan. 

The chart below, from the same survey, shows that a plurality of Americans also think it was a mistake to send troops to fight in Afghanistan. 

Nobody expected the war to last 20 years with no resolution.

Voters Say Biden Cares More For Troops/Veterans Than Trump

 Donald Trump likes to claim that he's been the greatest president for our troops and veterans ever. But it doesn't look like the voting public believes him -- especially after learning of his calling troops "losers" and "suckers".

About 59% of voters say Joe Biden cares about the needs and problems of our troops and veterans. Only 45% say the same about Trump. That's a significant 14 point difference.

The charts reflect the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between September 6th and 8th of a national sample of 1,183 registered voters, with a 3.7 point margin of error.

The Real Questions To Ask About Trump And NIger

(Cartoon image is by Clay Jones at claytoonz.com.)

Four American soldiers were recently killed in an ambush in Niger. Much has been made in social media and on the news about Trump's failure to recognize the deaths, and his late calling of the victim's families.

Now we are beginning to hear questions about whether the deaths could have been prevented. Was their a huge intelligence failure? Hopefully, an investigation will answer that question. But there are a couple of basic questions that should be answered.

The first is why did we have combat troops in Niger (and don't try to tell me that Special Forces soldiers aren't combat troops)? Did anyone outside the Pentagon and CIA even know we had those troops in Niger?

But perhaps even more important -- did Donald Trump know we had troops in Niger (and know why they were there)? We know that those who brief him on intelligence matters have had to cut their daily briefings down to less than one page, because Trump can't (or won't) sit through a thorough briefing as other presidents have received.

Trump is only interested in his own public relations. Both domestic and foreign affairs bore him, probably because he doesn't understand the intricacies of either (and has no desire to spend the time to learn). He's only interested in his own desires.

That has me thinking that Trump was probably as surprised as the rest of America that we had troops in harm's way in Niger. And it's probably why a couple of weeks passed before he would even acknowledge the fact. That's a scary thought, but I think it's true. How can everything be included in a brief one-page intelligence report? What other important things are happening that Trump doesn't have a clue about?

NOTE -- One more question. Do you think Trump could find Niger on a world map without assistance? I doubt it.

"This Guy Has The Empathy Of A Cockroach"

(This caricature of "patriot" Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Donald Trump has made a joke of demonstrating for equality recently, posing as a great patriot by denigrating those who kneel during the anthem. It has nothing to do with patriotism though -- just an effort to change the subject and make himself look good. He doesn't realize that standing for the anthem doesn't show patriotism -- supporting and defending the Constitution does.

But Trump doesn't really care about supporting our troops or their families. He demonstrated that when he attacked the Khans (a Gold Star family) during the 2016 campaign.

And like a leopard, he doesn't seem to be able to change his "spots". Four American soldiers were ambushed and killed in Niger. Two weeks later, Trump had not tweeted a word about that, and even worse, had not contacted the families of those soldiers.

When asked about that by the press, Trump immediately tried to pass the blame for his inaction by saying that previous presidents had not called the families of fallen soldiers. That was exposed as an outrageous lie by members of both the Bush II and Obama administrations. Both of those presidents contacted the Gold Star families and showed respect and caring for the soldiers and their families.

Trump also said he had contacted all of the families of fallen soldiers. That was also exposed as a lie, as members of several families said Trump had not contacted them in any form.

It turns out that actually may have been for the best. When Trump contacted the wife of Army Sgt. La David Johnson, he commented that the soldier "knew what he signed up for". He was supposed to be consoling the family on behalf of the nation -- not chiding them. His unfeeling comment was reported by Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida), who was with the widow when Trump called.

Trump could have apologized for his uncaring behavior, but his rampant narcissism won't let him do that (or ever admit he's made a mistake). Instead, he resorted to his favorite tactic -- LYING. he claimed he never said that. But the mother  of Sgt. Johnson backed up Rep. Wilson, and said, Trump "did disrespect my son and my daughter and also me and my husband".

Trump's behavior shames himself and our nation -- and certainly is not proper behavior for a president. Phil Mudd, former director of the CIA's CounterTerrorist Center, puts it best when he said:

This guy has the empathy of a cockroach. From the day after his inauguration when he showed up at my former agency, the CIA, in front of the wall of fallen heroes, and spoke about the size of his inauguration. Fast-forwarding now nine months, and he can’t figure out his responsibility not only as the Commander-in-Chief, but as the consoler-in-chief.

"Mission Creep" Is Alive And Well - More U.S. Troops For Iraq

(This image of ISIS troops is from ndtv.com.)

Poll after poll is asking these days whether the United States should send ground troops to Iraq/Syria. They are asking the wrong question. What they should be asking is how many troops the public is willing to send to that conflict -- because we already have about 3,000 "boots on the ground" in that war, and we will soon have more.

The government just announced that more "special operations" troops are being sent to Iraq. They didn't say how many, but most media sources put it as between 200 and 450 more soldiers. And the military officials said they wouldn't hesitate to ask for more troops "if needed" (and you can bet they'll think they are needed).

I probably sound like a broken record to regular readers, but I am beginning to be reminded of the Vietnam War -- where we started with a few Special Forces soldiers, and thanks to mission creep, wound up with hundreds of thousands of troops in that country. Are we committing that tragic mistake again?

I don't think we should have any American troops at all in Iraq/Syria. This is a religious civil war, and if it must be fought at all, it should be fought by those countries in that region -- the countries most affected by the threat of ISIS. The MOST we should be doing is giving air support and arms to those willing to fight ISIS.

I know our politicians are trying to frame this growing war effort in Iraq/Syria as a war on terrorism. I don't buy it. Even if ISIS is defeated in a land war, that will not stop their terrorist efforts. It will probably increase it. Terrorists can always find a place to hide, train, and plan their terrorist operations -- and thinking a land war in Iraq/Syria will stop ISIS terrorism is just wishful thinking.

But I seem to be in a minority. We are already fighting in that war, and now the question we should probably be asking is how we are going to do that. Robert Reich (on his own blog) has listed five prerequisites for waging this new war. It's a fairly reasonable assessment. He says:

We appear to be moving ever closer toward a world war against the Islamic State. 

No sane person welcomes war. Yet if we do go to war against ISIS we must keep a watchful eye on 5 things:

1. The burden of fighting the war must be widely shared among Americans. 

America’s current “all-volunteer” army is comprised largely of lower-income men and women for whom army pay is the best option. 

“We’re staring at the painful story of young people with fewer options bearing the greatest burden,“ Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project, told the Washington Post. NPP’s study found low- and middle-income families supply far more Army recruits than families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year.

That’s not fair. Moreover, when the vast majority of Americans depend on a small number of people to fight wars for us, the public stops feeling the toll such wars take.

From World War II until the final days of the Vietnam War, in January 1973, nearly every young man in America faced the prospect of being drafted into the Army. 

Sure, many children of the rich found means to stay out of harm’s way. But the draft at least spread responsibility and heightened the public’s sensitivity to the human costs of war. 

If we go into a ground war against ISIS, we should seriously consider reinstating the draft. 

2. We must not sacrifice our civil liberties.  

U.S. spy agencies no longer have authority they had in the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act to collect Americans’ phone and other records. The NSA must now gain court approval for such access. 

But in light of the Paris attacks, the FBI director and other leading U.S. law enforcement officials now say they need access to encrypted information on smartphones, personal and business records of suspected terrorists, and “roving wiretaps” of suspects using multiple disposable cell phones. 

War can also lead to internment of suspects and suspensions of constitutional rights, as we’ve painfully witnessed. 

Donald Trump says he’d require American Muslims to register in a federal data base, and he refuses to rule out requiring all Muslims to carry special religious identification.

"We’re going to have to do things that we never did before….we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago,” he adds.

We must be vigilant that we maintain the freedoms we are fighting for.

3. We must minimize the deaths of innocent civilians abroad. 

The bombing raids have already claimed a terrible civilian toll, contributing to a mass exodus of refugees. 

Last month the independent monitoring group Airwars said at least 459 civilians have died from coalition airstrikes in Syria over the past year. Other monitoring groups, including the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, also claim significant civilian deaths.

Some civilian casualties are unavoidable. But we must ensure they are minimized – and not just out of humanitarian concern. Every civilian death creates more enemies. 

And we must do our part to take in a fair portion of Syrian refugees. 

4. We must not tolerate anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States. 

Already, leading Republican candidates are fanning the flames. 

Ben Carson says no Muslim should be president. 

Trump says “thousands” of Arab-Americans cheered when the Twin Towers went down on 9/11 – a boldface lie. 

Ted Cruz wants to accept Christians refugees from Syrian but not Muslims.

Jeb Bush says American assistance for refugees should focus on Christians.

Marco Rubio wants to close down “any place where radicals are being inspired,” including American mosques.

It’s outrageous that leading Republican candidates for president of the United States are fueling such hate. 

Such bigotry is not only morally odious. It also plays into the hands of ISIS.

5. The war must be paid for with higher taxes on the rich. 

A week before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Senate passed a $607 billion defense spending bill, with 91 senators in favor and 3 opposed (including Bernie Sanders). The House has already passed it, 370 to 58. Obama has said he’ll sign it. 

That defense appropriation is larded with pork for military contractors – including Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive weapons system in history.

Now Republicans are pushing for even more military spending. 

We cannot let them use the war as a pretext to cut Social Security and Medicare, or programs for the poor. 

The war should be paid for the way we used to pay for wars – with higher taxes, especially on the wealthy. 

As we move toward war against ISIS, we must be vigilant – to fairly allocate the burdens of who’s called on to fight the war, to protect civil liberties, to protect innocent civilians abroad, to avoid hate and bigotry, and to fairly distribute the cost of paying for war. 

These aren’t just worthy aims. They are also the foundations of our nation’s strength. 

The U.S. Is Marching Steadily Toward Another War

This chart is from the Gallup Poll. The latest poll was done on November 22nd and 23rd of a random national sample of 1,017 adults, and has a margin of error of 4 points.

The chart shows a troubling trend. This nation is moving toward another full-out ground war in the Middle East. I'm sure the Paris tragedy (and the Republican claims that terrorism can only be prevented by another ground war). Currently, nearly half (47%) of the public is ready to accept that new ground war.

They are mistaken if they really think defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria will prevent terrorism. It won't. Terrorists have never needed to control a country to commit terroristic acts, and they won't in the future. If anything, defeating ISIS in the Middle East will only increase their desire to commit terrorist acts.

Republicans, and too many Democrats, like to pose the conflict in Iraq and Syria as a fight against terrorism. It is not. It is really a religious war -- fought by different sects of islam. It is a battle to see which religious beliefs are going to be dominant in that area -- and that is a battle the United States (or Russia and the Western nations) should not be engaged in. This is a war that shouldn't be fought at all -- and if it must be fought, should be fought by the islamic nations of that area.

Americans have a basic misunderstanding. They view this as a fight against terrorism and for freedom. They seem to think we are there to protect the liberty of Middle East nations. But there is very little liberty or freedom to protect there. And most muslims in that area see our involvement very differently. Many, if not most, of them see this as another christian invasion of the muslim world -- a modern version of the crusades.

We have no business fighting this war -- and neither does Russia, or the Western European nations. We do need to fight terrorism, but you can't do that will military troops. That can most effectively be done through good intelligence gathering, law enforcement action, and a cooperative diplomatic effort.

Obama Wants To Increase U.S. Participation In Iraq/Syria

I don't know about you, but I find this very troubling. President Obama asked Congress on Wednesday to formally authorize the use of American military power in the war against ISIS (which is holding territory in both Iraq and Syria). He did try to allay fears by saying:

"I am convinced that the U.S. should not get back into another ground war in the Middle East -- it's not in our national security interest and not necessary for us to defeat ISIL."

But as much as I like and admire President Obama, that sounds like doublespeak to me. The authorization would include the right to send in special forces troops of the United States to take action against ISIS leaders, and to use "ground combat operations in limited circumstances". This brings up questions.

What are limited circumstances? Aren't special forces troops combat troops on the ground? How long could those special forces or other combat troops stay? What would happen if they met fierce resistance, or some of them are killed? Would more troops be sent?

Frankly, this sounds to me to be an opening gambit designed to increase the participation of this country in the religious war going on in Iraq and Syria -- a move that is destined to have this country fully involved in another war in the Mideast. And that would be a serious mistake.

That war has nothing to do with the national defense of this country. We are engaged in this conflict to help protect other countries in that area -- and many of them are not even our friends (including both Iraq and Syria). This is a conflict that must be fought by the nations in that region. I can understand providing them with the necessary weapons, and maybe even giving them air support -- but we are already do both of those things.

This new authorization requested by the president is unnecessary, and nothing good can come from it. Congress will probably approve it, but they shouldn't. It will just lead us further down the road to a new ground war.

Americans Still Say NO To Ground Troops In Iraq/Syria

The charts above reflect the numbers contained in a new Rasmussen Poll -- done on December 7th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a margin of error of 3 points.

President Obama has authorized bombing in Iraq and Syria to stymie the efforts of ISIS to take over those countries, and turn them into theocratic dictatorships -- and about 65% of all Americans support that action by the president. But that is not all the president has done. After saying he would not put American troops "boots on the ground" in those countries, he has broken his own promise by sending more than 3,000 soldiers to Iraq. And that is a move Americans are loathe to support.

As these charts show, only 22% of the American public thinks the president should put ground troops in Iraq or Syria with congressional approval -- and only 36% would be in favor of Congress declaring war on ISIS (as suggested by Senator Rand Paul). Declaring war would authorize the president to send as many troops as he wants, but that is not what the people want. They want our involvement to be a limited one -- limited only to the bombing campaign, and involving no American ground troops.

Obama Will Raise Troop Level In Iraq To 3,000

(This image of U.S. soldiers patrolling near the Baghdad airport is from LJWorld.com.)

"Mission creep" continues to grow in Iraq. When things got hot again in Iraq (with the Sunni vs. Shiite religious civil war growing), President Obama promised Americans that he would not put American "boots on the ground" in that country. He almost immediately violated his promise by sending 300 soldiers to Iraq (saying they were just to advise the Iraqi troops). Then he upped the total, saying that troops were needed to guard the embassy and the Baghdad airport. Now there are around 1400 to 1500 American soldiers in Iraq.

Now the president seems to be completely abandoning his promise. He has authorized the sending of another 1500 troops to Iraq, which will double the number of U.S. soldiers in that country (and be 10 times the number he originally sent). It is now just a sick joke to say there won't be "troops on the ground" -- and the only question left is how many more troops will be sent there (5,000?, 10,000?, 50,000?, more?).

The truth is that we shouldn't have any American soldiers in Iraq. Both parties in Congress, and the president, are trying to paint the Sunni insurgents as posing a threat to the United States. That is a fallacy. They pose no military threat to this country -- and if there is a terrorist threat, this is the wrong way to handle it. Terrorism is a law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic problem -- not a military problem.

The situation in Iraq is a religious civil war -- fought by Sunnis and Shiites, both of whom want to control that country, and neither of which is an ally of the United States. Sending American troops to take sides in that religious war may seem smart to U.S. politicians, but it just looks like another christian "crusade" against muslims to those who live in the Middle East -- and it just creates more enemies for this country (and embroils our soldiers in a conflict they cannot win).

Re-engaging in Iraq is an insane policy. We should be bringing the troops there back home -- not doubling their number.

Public Believes U.S. Ground Troops Will Be Sent To Iraq

The chart above was made from information in a new NBC News / Wall Street Journal / Annenberg Poll that was done between September 19th and 25th of a random national sample of 1,283 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.15 points.

President Obama has promised Americans that the United States will not have "boots on the ground" in Iraq or Syria to fight ISIS. That is not true, of course -- since we already have around 1,000 troops (and maybe a little more) that are already stationed in Iraq. The president avoids admitting these troops have their "boots on the ground" by labeling them as advisors, trainers, or protectors (of our embassy and the Baghdad airport) instead of combat troops. But they are there, they are armed, and they are in harm's way.

And as the chart shows, nearly three out of four Americans (72%) believe the United States will eventually send ground combat troops to fight ISIS in that region (even though only 45% would support that, even if the military said it was necessary). I think they are right. We are already witnessing "mission creep" in that area.

The president started by sending 300 American troops to Iraq, and that has now grown to around 1,000 or more. Then he started using American forces to bomb ISIS in Iraq, and has now expanded that to include targets in Syria. And finally, he has the approval of Congress to arm and train "moderate" Syrian rebels (in spite of the fact that we don't know who these moderate rebels might be). The logical next would be for the pentagon to request ground combat troops, and for the president (along with Congress) to grant that request.

Our government, including too many members of both political parties, seems to believe that the military arm of ISIS poses a danger to the United States, and that we must protect our "ally" (the Iraqi government). Neither of those things is true. ISIS troops pose no danger to this country. While ISIS could pose a terrorist danger, defeating their troops in Iraq and Syria would not lessen that danger -- it would only increase it. And although our government wants to think Iraq is an American ally, that is just wishful thinking. Iraq's closest ally is Iran (a sworn enemy of the United States).

We are steadily marching toward a new, unnecessary, endless, and undeclared war in the Middle East -- a war we cannot win and cannot afford. We must stop this insanity now.

Public No Longer Believes Afghan War Can Be Successful

We are now in the thirteenth year of war in Afghanistan, and the end is still not in sight. While President Obama had originally promised we would have our troops out of Afghanistan by now, after taking office he delayed that until the end of this year. Now he, and the Pentagon generals, want to keep troops in Afghanistan much longer -- perhaps as long as another ten years (until 2024).

We should not have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. The type of government they have is the business of the Afghan people -- not the U.S. government. The original excuse for the war was to get Osama bin Laden, but that has been accomplished and we are still there (and anyway, the Afghan government offered to hand him over for trial at The Hague -- which we refused, since that would not satisfy the bloodlust of our government).

The truth is that after the invasion and occupation, the U.S. changed its goal. Instead of just getting Osama and his buddies, we decided to do a regime change in that country -- having learned nothing from the failures to do that in both Vietnam and Iraq. And while our army is the best at fighting a conventional war, they are not suited for regime change (at least not one that can be sustained). We seem not to have learned that governments cannot be sustained without the support of the people, and that cannot be done with military power.

In short, we have failed to achieve our goals in Afghanistan -- and it is very unlikely that staying longer will change that. And the American people know that, even if our government doesn't. Two new polls are out, and they show what other polls have shown -- that the American people believe we are not winning the Afghan War, and won't win it by staying longer. It is time to withdraw ALL of our troops, and let the Afghan people decide their own fate.

The Pew Research Center survey was done between January 15th and 19th of a random sample of 1,504 nationwide adults, and has a margin of error of 2.9 points.

The Rasmussen Poll was done on February 14th and 15th of a random nationwide sample of 1,000 likely voters, and has a margin of error of 3 points.

Supporting The Troops

Too many Americans today think supporting our troops means nothing more than putting a magnetic yellow ribbon (usually made in China) on their vehicle. Frankly, I think that is one of the most meaningless things that a person could do. The people who really support our troops are those who want to bring them back home -- those who know that allowing more of our troops to die in an effort to militarily impose a government on another country is a hopeless and impossible task. Those who really support our troops also oppose sending them to die in ridiculous future conflicts in countries like Syria or Iran. And those who truly support our troops don't vote for GOP neo-conservatives, who think we can impose our will on other countries through military power.

A Full Withdrawal From Afghanistan ?

(Photo is from the Department of Defense Flickr site.)

For quite a while now President Obama has been telling Americans that he will withdraw the American troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014. But that is just a partial truth. The administration and the Pentagon have always intended to leave around 34,000 troops in that country far into the future -- supposedly to train Afghan troops and to be there to fight "terrorists".

However, that idea may be changing. White House aides have told CBS News that the president is now considering a withdrawal of all troops. They say that while this has always been an option, it was not considered to be a serious option until recently. Why the change? A couple of reasons.

First, the president is growing frustrated with the Afghan government. President Karzai has been very critical of American troops recently, and at the last minute, withdrew from talks arranged with the Taliban. Second, the Afghan government still has not agreed to give the troops that would remain an immunity from Afghan law. That second reason is the same reason that troops were not left in Iraq.

Is the president finally starting to realize that the Karzai government cannot be trusted? I hope so. It has been obvious to many of us for a while now that his government is not much better than the one he replaced, and much more corrupt. The truth is that it was always a foolish idea for the U.S. to try and impose a U.S.-style government in that country -- just as foolish as it was for the USSR to try and impose a soviet-style government there.

The country is still ruled by ruthless warlords, who will impose the government they want when we leave -- and that will happen no matter how long we stay. We are accomplishing nothing except to delay the inevitable, and to continue getting our troops killed there (not to mention innocent civilians).

We should withdraw all of our troops from that troubled country. And personally, I don't think we should wait another year and a half to do it. We should do it immediately.

Supporting The Troops

This is a very good question. Far too often, the Republican teabaggers think supporting the troops is accomplished by putting a magnetic sticker on the back of a car/pickup. That's not supporting anything. It's just bragging about what a "good" American you are. The people who are really supporting the troops are the ones who are fighting for their right to vote when they return, and are fighting for veterans' benefits, jobs, equal rights, decent wages, access to decent housing, medical care, etc.

The Republicans like to brag about supporting our troops, but have done little beyond putting that sticker on their automobile. They have blocked efforts (or tried to block) to give all Americans equal rights, to make sure women get equal pay for equal work, to create new jobs, to extend veterans' benefits, to stop domestic violence, to insure all Americans can vote, to extend unemployment benefits, to help the poor and needy, and to improve our educational system (at all levels). They have done this for the most selfish of reasons -- to defeat a sitting president (and provide for their return to power) and to give more to the rich (including themselves).

Vote to support our troops in November. Vote to kick Republicans out of office.

Perry Wants To Invade Mexico ?

Rick Perry is not known as a very smart person, and he's come up with a lot of really stupid ideas (seceding Texas from the Union, declaring Social Security & Medicare unconstitutional, turning down federal education funds when Texas was facing a massive deficit, placing a radioactive waste dump over the Ogallala Aquifer in West Texas, praying for rain to cure a drought, etc.). But he may well have come up with his stupidest idea of all recently. He says he would consider sending United States soldiers into Mexico.

Perry seems to have decided that Mexico can't handle it's own internal problems -- especially the drug cartels that have caused a lot of problems and killed both government officials and innocent civilians. He thinks that thorny problem can be handled by just sending in American troops to help the Mexican Army. He has completely overlooked the fact that the biggest problems of the cartel problem are the American "drug war" (that created the problem) and the shipment of American guns to Mexico (which exacerbates the problem). Solving those two problems would help a lot more than sending American troops to Mexico.

Now some of you, especially those on the right, are probably saying that's not an invasion -- that's just helping out the Mexican government. But those who would say that have to be ignorant of American history. The U.S. has sent troops into Mexico before for even more spurious excuses -- and wound up stealing most of the Southwest (including California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and most of New Mexico). Does anyone really think the Mexican government or people would trust American troops being sent to their country to "help"? Not a chance!

And it's not just the history of the U.S. invading Mexico and stealing a significant portion of their country that would have the Mexican people worried. They have watched as American troops invaded many other countries around the world for either political or business reasons (such as, but not limited to, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Philippines, Russia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan). The U.S. usually tries to cloak it as defending this country, but none of the countries I've listed above posed any threat to America when they were invaded. Mexico doesn't pose a threat to the U.S. either, but the Mexican people know that has never stopped the United States in the past.

You can bet that any American troops crossing the border into Mexico would be considered an invasion -- by both the Mexican government and the Mexican people. There is no way they would ever agree to American troops being stationed in their country to fight citizens of their country (even citizens viewed as criminals). And I'll bet a huge majority of Americans would be opposed to sending American troops to Mexico also -- for any reason. America already has too many troops in too many foreign countries. The U.S. needs to be bringing troops back home, not sending more out of this country.

Rick Perry, like many of his friends on the right, thinks this country has a right to send American troops to any country we want for any reason we want. But that is the thinking of a bully, not a peace-loving and law-abiding nation. It is time for America to stop being the world's biggest bully and start taking care of its own problems -- and let other nations do the same.

Rick Perry's latest idea is not just dumb, it is incredibly stupid. And regardless of what he says, it shows that as president he would be another George Bush -- maybe even worse.  

Another "Mission Accomplished" Hoax

If you read the newspapers yesterday and saw the TV news accounts you might think the war in Iraq is over, and that we finally accomplished our mission there (whatever that mission was). The headlines told us that the last American "combat brigade" had left Iraq, and there were even pictures of them crossing the border into Kuwait (see picture above). So our involvement in Iraq is over -- right? Wrong!

I hate to say it but the government is just playing word games with the American public. Telling us the last "combat brigade" has left Iraq makes it sound like we don't have any American soldiers left there, or at least there are only a few left. Neither is true. There are at least 56,000 American soldiers still in Iraq. About 6,000 are scheduled to leave in December, but the other 50,000 soldiers will be staying for more than a year -- at least until the end of 2011.

Whether you call them combat troops or not, 50,000 is a lot of soldiers to be leaving in Iraq. And it'll be a miracle if they are actually withdrawn at the end of 2011. Listen to the words of Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009. He says, "We need strategic patience here. Our timetables are getting out ahead of Iraqi reality. We do have an Iraqi partner in this. We certainly are not the ones making unilateral decisions anymore. But if they come to us later on this year requesting that we jointly relook at the post-2011 period, it is going to be in our strategic interest to be responsive."

In plain English, don't bet the farm on that withdrawal date of the end of 2011. If the puppet government we have installed in Iraq cannot survive that withdrawal date, then we will stay longer -- much longer. The Iraqi Army Chief of Staff, Lt. General Babakar Zebari, says they probably won't be ready to handle things by themselves until 2020.

The government would like for us to think the war in Iraq is nearly over (especially with an election coming up soon). I wish that was true, but it's not. The truth is that we're still going to be engaged in the Iraq War for a long time to come (and Afghanistan too).

We're not accomplishing anything in Iraq or Afghanistan except for the killing of more soldiers and innocent civilians (which creates even more enemies). But the politicians of both parties who got us into these wars refuse to admit they made a gigantic mistake. Instead of learning from Vietnam, they created two new Vietnams and now don't want to admit how stupid they were. They are willing to engage in endless war to protect their own political careers.

It's a bad situation which should just be ended immediately, but it won't be. Prepare for many more years of war. This will happen because both political parties are completely devoid of political courage.

Obama Should Hasten Iraq Withdrawal

One of the reasons I was drawn to President Obama during the election campaign was his opposition to the war in Iraq from the very beginning. He was one of the very few who always believed it was a mistake to invade and occupy Iraq. I was hoping that once he was elected, the U.S. could quickly begin withdrawing its troops. It looks like he is starting to do that.

During the campaign, Obama said he would withdraw U.S. troops within 16 months after becoming president. I thought that was a little slow, but no one offered anything better. Now it looks like the withdrawal will be much slower than that.

The first 12,000 troops will be home by Fall of 2009. That is just a drop in the bucket. We currently have about 142,000 troops in Iraq. The bulk of those forces will not be withdrawn until August of 2010, and even then, up to 50,000 troops will remain. All of our troops will not be withdrawn until the end of 2011.

That means American soldiers will be dying in Iraq for another 33 months (two years and 9 months). That's twice as long as Obama promised during the campaign. The President has abandoned his own plan and accepted the Bush timetable. That is unacceptable!

I realize that our huge amount of troops and equipment probably cannot be withdrawn in a single month, but it certainly should be a lot closer to one month than 33 months. The fact is that the longer we stay, the more American soldiers and innocent civilians will be killed while little or nothing will be accomplished.

Only the Iraqis can settle the Iraqi problems, and they cannot do that as long as we remain in the way, propping up the puppet government we have installed. That government will not survive once the U.S. leaves, but the Iraqis cannot replace it as long as we are there defending it.

The best thing for both countries would be an immediate and complete withdrawal of United States troops. Barring that, the president should at least keep his campaign promise, and complete the withdrawal in 16 months.

Bloodiest Year For US Troops In Afghanistan

Saturday we got another reminder of just how incompetent the Bush administration really is. Last week, 2007 became the bloodiest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. Yesterday, the same thing became true in Afghanistan.

On Saturday, 6 more U.S. troops were killed in an ambush. That brought the total number of U.S. deaths in Afghanistan this year to 108. That is the highest total since the war began in 2001, and there are still several more weeks in this year.

It seems that the Taliban has been able to establish themselves and rebuild their forces in Pakistani safe areas just across the border. Now they are starting to step up their attacks in Afghanistan -- on both civilian and military targets. While the dictator in Pakistan was supposed to be helping us to control the Taliban and their allies, what he has really done is allow the Taliban to use the protection of his country to rebuild.

So what has Bush accomplished? Nothing it seems, except to cost a lot of lives. Osama still has not been captured. The Taliban is growing stronger. There are a record number of U.S. deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and neither of those governments can protect themselves. There seems to be no end in sight for either war.

Add this to the fact that Bush has spied on American citizens, authorized the torture of prisoners, played politics with the Justice Department, vetoed healthcare for children, screwed up Hurricane Katrina disaster relief, and created the largest budget deficits of any president. That should give you some idea of just how incompetent Bush truly is.

Is there any doubt that he's the worst president America's ever had?

64 Americans Die Needlessly In Iraq In September

Last month in Iraq, 64 more Americans died. This brings the total of American troops killed in the Iraq war to 3,807 as of Monday. Of course, the Bush administration is trying to frame it as a good thing. They want you to believe that the surge is working since this is the lowest number of Americans killed in four months.

Frederick Kagan, one of the architects of the "troop surge", says that U.S. troops have now secured most of the troubled areas in Baghdad, and that is why American deaths are lower. That's pure crap.

First of all, American deaths are not that much lower than the last two months. The website icasualties.org puts the number killed at 66 instead of 64. There were 84 killed in August and 78 killed in July.

That doesn't sound like that much of a drop to me, and 64-66 deaths is still far too many Americans to die when nothing is being accomplished. Nothing, that is, except to help our enemies to win the civil war in that country.

The tiny drop in American deaths had nothing to do with the surge. The real reason is because Shiite leader Muqtada al Sadr (pictured above) has ordered his troops to stop fighting. Sadr, who is an ally of Iran, has decided to sit on the sidelines and let us fight the Sunnis for him. He knows that when we leave he can overthrow the puppet government and establish a Shiite state allied with Iran, because Shiites are the majority population and are well-armed.

So while we fight the Sunnis and Americans die, Sadr just waits in the wings to establish his Shiite theocracy. Does it make any sense that Americans are dying to give Iran a powerful new ally in the region? Thanks to Bush, that's exactly what we're doing and there's little we can do to prevent it.

If the Shiites are going to take over (and it looks like they will), they should have to do it on their own. We should not do it for them. Neither the Shiites nor the Sunnis are our friends, and neither is worth more American deaths.

It is time to withdraw our troops -- the sooner the better. It is time our government realized that the puppet government will not survive no matter which side wins the civil war, and neither side will let us have the oil that Bush covets so much.

None of the possible outcomes is worth the life of a single American soldier.

Wounded Soldiers Not Getting All Their Mail

Once again we find the Bush administration failing our soldiers. Bush continues to ask our troops to do the impossible -- to referee a bloody civil war where all sides hate us as much as they hate each other. But he doesn't seem to be willing to give them the tools they need (they're getting poorly-armored vehicles and second-rate body armor) or take care of them after they're seriously wounded.

Everyone has already heard about the horrid living conditions at Walter Reed Hospital that went unreported and ignored for far too long. Now we learn that wasn't the only problem at Walter Reed that was being ignored.

The Army has discovered over 4,500 packages and other pieces of mail that was undelivered in the hospital mail room. Some of this mail dates back to May of 2006 -- over a year ago! The Army has fired the mail contractor and ordered a team of soldiers and civilians to get this mail delivered.

The soldiers in Walter Reed have given us their best -- to the point of being seriously wounded. Many of them are maimed for life. It is the job of our government to see that they get the best care possible when they return.

If the government can't even do as simple a task as delivering their mail, I have to wonder what else they are failing to do for these brave soldiers. Once again the Bush administration shows its utter incompetence.

And don't even bother trying to tell me this wasn't Bush's fault. If he didn't know about it, he should have. He should have people designated to see that these soldiers get our government's best effort without excuses.

The legacy of the Bush administration is to enrich corporations like Halliburton, while 3,520 of our soldiers have died and thousands of the wounded get substandard care. Hell, they can't even deliver the mail!

It is time to act in defense of our soldiers. It is time to demand that Bush bring them home. Immediately!