The US and Iraq: selected editorial excerpts 02/09/2007;
Feb 9th 2007 | 1:17 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The US and Iraq: selected editorial excerpts 02/09/2007;
Excerpts published 02/09/2007
"..Words. We had weeks of debates in the Senate about Iraq. They
eventually went nowhere, being shut down (temporarily) by partisan
procedural disputes. But they were going nowhere anyway. The debates
were not about real fighting in a real place. They were about how the
various senators would position themselves in relation to that real
fighting in that real place. At issue? With what tone and nuance and
addenda to express disapproval of a troop surge that the president was
going to order anyway.
When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate
ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus
to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the
senators said they did not want done.
If you really oppose the surge, how could you not oppose the
appointment of the man whose very mission is to carry it out? Yet not
one senator did so. Instead, they spent days fine-tuning the wording
of a nonbinding, i.e. entirely toothless, expression of disapproval.
A serious legislative body would not be arguing over degrees of
disapproval anyway, but about the elements of three or four alternate
plans that might actually change our course in Iraq, something they
all say they desire. But instead of making a contribution to thinking
through how the war should be either prosecuted or liquidated, they
negotiate language that provides precisely the amount of distancing a
senator might need as political insulation should the surge either
succeed or fail...."
February 9, 2007 -- by Amir Taheri
" IN civilian clothes, Lt. General David Petraeus, the newly appointed
Commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, looks more like an academic
discussing an intellectual topic rather than a war leader preparing
for battle.....Petraeus arrives on the scene at a time when both the
insurgency and the Shiite militias are facing major problems.,,,,,,,,
Nevertheless, Petraeus still faces a number of major problems - the
most important one being uncertainty in Washington.
There is little doubt that many elements within America's political
elite want the United States to fail, for a variety of motives. At
least some of those elements would do all they can, short of being
charged with unpatriotic behavior, to ensure that the outcome of the
war in Iraq is seen as a defeat for the United States - even if it is
not so in reality.
Portraying Iraq as a failure isn't hard. To pronounce Petraeus'
mission a failure, all that defeat-mongers in Washington need is one
car bomb a day and one suicide attack a week.
Uncertainty in Washington will encourage the Iraqi protagonists to
hedge their bets, rather than throw all their weight behind Petraeus'
mission. In any war, people rally to the side that is perceived to
have the highest threshold of pain, and is likely to stay the course
the longest.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she does not consider Iraq
to be "a war to win, but a situation to manage," Iraqis otherwise
likely to side with Petraeus will think twice. All this past week, the
discussion in Baghdad teahouses centered on a mystery: How could so
many senators declare support for U.S. troops in Iraq while pressing
for a resolution to oppose their mission?
The one factor that can ensure Petraeus success is the perception that
the United States is united in its commitment to the new Iraq that
America has helped create from the ruins of the Saddamite tyranny.
The insurgents, the al Qaeda terrorists and the Shiite militias know
that they can't win in military terms. What they hope for is to win
politically - that is to say, ensuring defeat and humiliation for the
United States.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's chief theoretician, has repeatedly said
that the key aim of his so-called jihad in Iraq is to force the
Americans to run away, as the Soviets did from Afghanistan in 1989.
The reference to Afghanistan is interesting. The "Arab Afghans," of
which al Qaeda is the most notorious group, played no more than a
cameo role in driving the Soviets out. And the Taliban - a group
created by Pakistan five years after the Soviet departure - never
fought the Communists.
The Communist regime in Kabul was overthrown by an alliance of a Tajik
guerrilla army (led by Ahmad Shah Massoud) and a Communist militia -
whose leader, the Uzbek Abdul-Rashid Dostum, had decided to switch
sides. Years later, Dostum told me that he decided to switch when his
Moscow "contacts" told him that the new Soviet elite under Mikhail
Gorbachev was no longer interested in Afghanistan's fate.
With help from Pakistan's military, the Taliban and al Qaeda seized
power in Kabul four years after the communist regime fell. Yet, for
decades, jihadists of all ilks have claimed that they liberated
Afghanistan and destroyed the Soviet empire.
The Iraqi version of the Taliban, plus al Qaeda and Shiite mischief-
makers, can't win a military victory in Iraq just as their
counterparts in Afghanistan failed to achieve victory.
With a combination of intelligence, patience and determination,
Petraeus can win in Baghdad.
The battleground where his chances do not appear as good is
Washington. The United States today has become home to a veritable
industry of defeat - producing books, TV documentaries, research
papers, intelligence analyses and feature movies destined for a
growing market. Almost every day, some article assuming that the
United States has already been defeated in Iraq, and recommendmeasures
to deal with the consequences of defeat. And when the United States
does something, it does it Big: The defeat industry is assuming a
bewildering scale.
The citizen-soldier Petraeus is certain to win in Baghdad - just as
Gens. Tommy Frank, Rick Sanchez and Casey did in different contexts.
But will Washington allow his win to be recognized as victory?"
Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.
"..Words. We had weeks of debates in the Senate about Iraq. They
eventually went nowhere, being shut down (temporarily) by partisan
procedural disputes. But they were going nowhere anyway. The debates
were not about real fighting in a real place. They were about how the
various senators would position themselves in relation to that real
fighting in that real place. At issue? With what tone and nuance and
addenda to express disapproval of a troop surge that the president was
going to order anyway.
When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate
ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus
to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the
senators said they did not want done.
If you really oppose the surge, how could you not oppose the
appointment of the man whose very mission is to carry it out? Yet not
one senator did so. Instead, they spent days fine-tuning the wording
of a nonbinding, i.e. entirely toothless, expression of disapproval.
A serious legislative body would not be arguing over degrees of
disapproval anyway, but about the elements of three or four alternate
plans that might actually change our course in Iraq, something they
all say they desire. But instead of making a contribution to thinking
through how the war should be either prosecuted or liquidated, they
negotiate language that provides precisely the amount of distancing a
senator might need as political insulation should the surge either
succeed or fail...."
February 9, 2007 -- by Amir Taheri
" IN civilian clothes, Lt. General David Petraeus, the newly appointed
Commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, looks more like an academic
discussing an intellectual topic rather than a war leader preparing
for battle.....Petraeus arrives on the scene at a time when both the
insurgency and the Shiite militias are facing major problems.,,,,,,,,
Nevertheless, Petraeus still faces a number of major problems - the
most important one being uncertainty in Washington.
There is little doubt that many elements within America's political
elite want the United States to fail, for a variety of motives. At
least some of those elements would do all they can, short of being
charged with unpatriotic behavior, to ensure that the outcome of the
war in Iraq is seen as a defeat for the United States - even if it is
not so in reality.
Portraying Iraq as a failure isn't hard. To pronounce Petraeus'
mission a failure, all that defeat-mongers in Washington need is one
car bomb a day and one suicide attack a week.
Uncertainty in Washington will encourage the Iraqi protagonists to
hedge their bets, rather than throw all their weight behind Petraeus'
mission. In any war, people rally to the side that is perceived to
have the highest threshold of pain, and is likely to stay the course
the longest.
When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that she does not consider Iraq
to be "a war to win, but a situation to manage," Iraqis otherwise
likely to side with Petraeus will think twice. All this past week, the
discussion in Baghdad teahouses centered on a mystery: How could so
many senators declare support for U.S. troops in Iraq while pressing
for a resolution to oppose their mission?
The one factor that can ensure Petraeus success is the perception that
the United States is united in its commitment to the new Iraq that
America has helped create from the ruins of the Saddamite tyranny.
The insurgents, the al Qaeda terrorists and the Shiite militias know
that they can't win in military terms. What they hope for is to win
politically - that is to say, ensuring defeat and humiliation for the
United States.
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's chief theoretician, has repeatedly said
that the key aim of his so-called jihad in Iraq is to force the
Americans to run away, as the Soviets did from Afghanistan in 1989.
The reference to Afghanistan is interesting. The "Arab Afghans," of
which al Qaeda is the most notorious group, played no more than a
cameo role in driving the Soviets out. And the Taliban - a group
created by Pakistan five years after the Soviet departure - never
fought the Communists.
The Communist regime in Kabul was overthrown by an alliance of a Tajik
guerrilla army (led by Ahmad Shah Massoud) and a Communist militia -
whose leader, the Uzbek Abdul-Rashid Dostum, had decided to switch
sides. Years later, Dostum told me that he decided to switch when his
Moscow "contacts" told him that the new Soviet elite under Mikhail
Gorbachev was no longer interested in Afghanistan's fate.
With help from Pakistan's military, the Taliban and al Qaeda seized
power in Kabul four years after the communist regime fell. Yet, for
decades, jihadists of all ilks have claimed that they liberated
Afghanistan and destroyed the Soviet empire.
The Iraqi version of the Taliban, plus al Qaeda and Shiite mischief-
makers, can't win a military victory in Iraq just as their
counterparts in Afghanistan failed to achieve victory.
With a combination of intelligence, patience and determination,
Petraeus can win in Baghdad.
The battleground where his chances do not appear as good is
Washington. The United States today has become home to a veritable
industry of defeat - producing books, TV documentaries, research
papers, intelligence analyses and feature movies destined for a
growing market. Almost every day, some article assuming that the
United States has already been defeated in Iraq, and recommendmeasures
to deal with the consequences of defeat. And when the United States
does something, it does it Big: The defeat industry is assuming a
bewildering scale.
The citizen-soldier Petraeus is certain to win in Baghdad - just as
Gens. Tommy Frank, Rick Sanchez and Casey did in different contexts.
But will Washington allow his win to be recognized as victory?"
Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.
Feb 9th 2007 | 3:05 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The US and Iraq: selected editorial excerpts 02/09/2007;
"PJ O'Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
[email protected] om...
<snip>
Jan. 15, 2007
Associated Press
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A burger battle is brewing between a Texas state
legislator and the owners of Louis' Lunch, a restaurant established in
1895, where it has been claimed that the hamburger was invented.
However, with the new session of the Texas legislature now under way,
Republican State Rep. Betty Brown has proposed a resolution declaring
Athens, Texas, is the original home of the hamburger.
Brown, an Athens resident, says that a long ago resident of the town,
Fletcher Davis, had a luncheonette in the late 1880s and sold the
first burgers there.
A magazine article also suggests that Davis not only created the
hamburger, but sold it from a booth at the St. Louis World's Fair in
1904. A spokeswoman in Brown's office said she is proposing the
resolution on behalf of the Athens Chamber of Commerce,
Those claims are not sitting well with Ken Lassen Sr., 89, the third-
generation owner of Louis' Lunch, where he says his grandfather came
up with the first hamburger.
Lassen said it happened in 1900 when a man rushed into Louis' and
asked for something he could eat on the run. Louis Lassen, Ken
Lassen's grandfather, grabbed a broiled beef patty and put it between
two slices of bread.
Lassen notes there is the official designation of Louis' Lunch as the
burger birthplace, cited by the Library of Congress, under a
resolution initiated by U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
Mayor John DeStefano Jr., very much an advocate for his city, is
backing the Lassens and their claims.
"It's a well-known and established fact that New Haven is the home of
the hamburger. In fact, New Haven's claim to the hamburger is even
supported and documented in the Library of Congress," DeStefano said.
DeStefano notes that New Haven has been a cradle of creativity, as the
birthplace of the cotton gin, the first rubber tires, the corkscrew,
the Frisbee, lollipops, Erector Sets and pizza.
"We are even the birthplace of George Bush, who wants people to think
he's from Texas. So yes, the hamburger is as much a New Haven original
as President Bush," DeStefano said. "Get over it, Texas."
[email protected] om...
<snip>
Jan. 15, 2007
Associated Press
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A burger battle is brewing between a Texas state
legislator and the owners of Louis' Lunch, a restaurant established in
1895, where it has been claimed that the hamburger was invented.
However, with the new session of the Texas legislature now under way,
Republican State Rep. Betty Brown has proposed a resolution declaring
Athens, Texas, is the original home of the hamburger.
Brown, an Athens resident, says that a long ago resident of the town,
Fletcher Davis, had a luncheonette in the late 1880s and sold the
first burgers there.
A magazine article also suggests that Davis not only created the
hamburger, but sold it from a booth at the St. Louis World's Fair in
1904. A spokeswoman in Brown's office said she is proposing the
resolution on behalf of the Athens Chamber of Commerce,
Those claims are not sitting well with Ken Lassen Sr., 89, the third-
generation owner of Louis' Lunch, where he says his grandfather came
up with the first hamburger.
Lassen said it happened in 1900 when a man rushed into Louis' and
asked for something he could eat on the run. Louis Lassen, Ken
Lassen's grandfather, grabbed a broiled beef patty and put it between
two slices of bread.
Lassen notes there is the official designation of Louis' Lunch as the
burger birthplace, cited by the Library of Congress, under a
resolution initiated by U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.
Mayor John DeStefano Jr., very much an advocate for his city, is
backing the Lassens and their claims.
"It's a well-known and established fact that New Haven is the home of
the hamburger. In fact, New Haven's claim to the hamburger is even
supported and documented in the Library of Congress," DeStefano said.
DeStefano notes that New Haven has been a cradle of creativity, as the
birthplace of the cotton gin, the first rubber tires, the corkscrew,
the Frisbee, lollipops, Erector Sets and pizza.
"We are even the birthplace of George Bush, who wants people to think
he's from Texas. So yes, the hamburger is as much a New Haven original
as President Bush," DeStefano said. "Get over it, Texas."
Feb 9th 2007 | 4:39 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The US and Iraq: selected editorial excerpts 02/09/2007;
<Jan. 15, 2007
Associated Press
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A burger battle is brewing between a Texas state
legislator and the owners of Louis' Lunch, a restaurant established
in
1895, where it has been claimed that the hamburger was invented.
ASScl>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Mexul0AyIOn Feb 9, 8:05 am,
Associated Press
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A burger battle is brewing between a Texas state
legislator and the owners of Louis' Lunch, a restaurant established
in
1895, where it has been claimed that the hamburger was invented.
ASScl>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Mexul0AyIOn Feb 9, 8:05 am,
