On Wednesday evening, I watched The Charlie Rose Show, which featured as guests John Burns and Dexter Filkins of The New York Times. Both spent years in Iraq reporting on the present war.
I wanted to get their perspective on the present situation in Iraq and to hear what they thought of Gen. Petraeus' testimony before Congress. I watched with growing dismay as they seemed to agree with the general's opinion that real progress was being made and that we should tough it out in Iraq to give the Iraqis more time to sort things out among themselves. They see progress as coming from the bottom up rather than the top down. I agree that if the violence is to cease in Iraq, it is the Iraqi people themselves who will need to do much of the work. We part ways in that I don't see the necessity of the US keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. It seemed to me that the two basically agree with Petraeus.
What totally freaked me out is that not one of the three mentioned the troops who will have to do the hard and dangerous work of keeping the violence down, while the Iraqis work out their differences. It's as though they are chess pieces to be moved about the game board and not real human beings in harm's way, many of whom are worn out from repeated deployments and are working with equipment that is defective and worn out.
Petraeus is, in my opinion, the most honest general that we've had in charge in Iraq, because he comes closer to speaking the truth in describing the situation there than any of the others. He doesn't try to put lipstick on a pig.
Filkins was somewhat more realistic than Burns in that he described the downturn in violence as fragile and allowed that it may not hold and could turn explosive again at any time. I found this statement by Burns rather astonishing:
JOHN BURNS: And the notion I get, as you would expect of Americans who are, in my experience, very pragmatic and open-minded people, is that there`s a convergence on one idea. And that is that the way home, if there`s a way home -- and this has got to be incremental -- that we can`t now -- given all the complexities and uncertainties, it would be unwise to set -- to put ourselves into lockstep to draw up some overall solution. That, push forward, see where you are, make a decision at that point. It`s the way every football coach that I`ve ever watched plays his football games.
Arrrgh! This is not football! What he says about the American people is far from the truth. The great majority want our part in the war to come to an end.
A little background here. At the end of and in the aftermath of the Battle of Fallujah, Dexter Filkins and I exchanged emails for a brief period. He seemed a little pleased to have a granny from the bayou country send him emails and not tear into him with scathing criticism. Whatever I thought of the idea of destroying Fallujah to save it from the insurgents, I was not going to tear into the messenger from the scene about it. He did excellent battlefield reporting from his position embedded with the troops, and that's what I wrote to tell him. To me, the idea of leveling a city to save it seemed pure madness, but I did not tell him that, since he was still in a very dangerous situation. After a while, I stopped writing to him, since my thoughts on the war were quite gloomy, and I thought he had enough to contend with and did not need to hear my bitching and moaning.
At the website of the Charlie Rose Show, where you can see the video at the link above, I had left a comment. Afterwards, I checked to see if I still had Filkins email address, and I did. I was not sure that it was still a working address, but I sent him the following:
Dexter, I listened respectfully to you and John Burns in your interview with Charlie Rose. The violence in Iraq is down but may be creeping up again. I agree that the change will need to come from the bottom up, when the Iraqis have had enough. It seems that you and John support Gen. Petraeus's position.
I believe that Petraeus is the most honest general we have had leading the military effort in Iraq. I have a sticker on my car that says, " BRING THEM HOME", and I mean that, but I hope that we bring our troops home in a responsible way. I hope that we offer protection to the Iraqis who have worked for us and who will be in danger when we leave. I hope that we do not abandon support for the country once we leave. We owe the Iraqis a great deal for destroying so much of their country, for causing the displacement of so many of their citizens, and, directly or indirectly, causing the deaths of many of their citizens.
You and John were in Iraq, and I was not. That's why I listened respectfully to your words. As I wrote in the online commentary on the show:
Comment by Grandmère Mimi on Thursday, Apr 10 at 01:11 PM
I didn't hear either man mention the abuse and lack of support of the US troops in Iraq by their superiors. I didn't hear them mention that our warriors are worn out, that their equipment is worn out, that our Army and National Guard are being destroyed. I did not hear them mention that the present level of troop numbers are unsustainable. What I hear from Petraeus is give us another year, or two, or three, or however long we need. I'm hearing echoes of the pleadings in the midst of that other not-so-distant, but not-to-be-named war. I hear these two men supporting Petraeus. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I'm sorry that you and John chose not to address the matter of effects of the war on our military, because I think that is a vital issue.
Regards,
June Butler aka Grandmere Mimi
Filkins answered promptly and politely. I do not post or quote emails without permission, but I will try to paraphrase his response. He thanked me and admitted that he should have mentioned the strain on the troops, because it is a vital issue. He said that he wished to, but that he did not have the opportunity. He said that it was not so much that he supported Petraeus, but that he was trying to convey that the situation in Iraq was quite complex, and if he had the chance to do the interview again, he would talk about the troops, because the numbers serving now in Iraq cannot continue.
Fair enough. Still, that the three men could spend nearly an hour talking about Iraq and what should be done there without ever mentioning the troops is, to me, absolutely astonishing. I confess that I was depressed for two whole days after watching the interview.
Somewhat off topic, but I wanted to include a couple of quotes from the interview about the day Saddam fell:
CHARLIE ROSE: Now, this is anniversary today...
DEXTER FILKINS: The fall of Saddam.
CHARLIE ROSE: The fall of Saddam.
DEXTER FILKINS: Yes. Yes, when the statue came down. In fact...
CHARLIE ROSE: Which is often -- it`s a visible sense that...
DEXTER FILKINS: Yes. Yes. I mean, it was remarkable.
You know, I was outside the city that morning. You know, we slept in a palm grove. And, you know, waiting -- I don`t know -- John was in the middle of the city. I mean, speaking of crazy, I mean, he survived the whole bombardment.
And the Marines that I was with were kind of gearing up for a big fight. And, of course, you know, by 8:00 a.m. in the morning, it was clear there was no Iraqi army to speak of.
And then, of course, by 10:30 in the morning, the whole city was being looted. And, you know, by noon, the ministries were on fire.
Yes, what a day. I mean, it was -- I felt like, you know, I was on a football team and there were four minutes to go in the game and we were ahead by 40 to nothing, and we somehow found a way to lose.
(CROSSTALK)
DEXTER FILKINS: You could feel that day all the wind go out of it. It really -- just...
CHARLIE ROSE: Because of the chaos that was apparent and no one was in charge. And when you look back...
....
DEXTER FILKINS: ...I don`t know if they had 165,000 troops, but there was -- that day, April 9th, I ended up at -- you know, I don`t know, 2:00 p.m. I was in front of the Iraqi Olympic Committee office, which was -- John knows was run by Saddam -- one of Saddam Hussein`s notorious sons, Uday. I mean, he tortured people there, he executed people there.
But -- and it was a scene of great looting by 2:00 p.m. The Iraqis had just descended on it and they were tearing it to pieces.
They were leading out these beautiful Arabian horses, these stallions that were, you know, immaculate, racehorses carrying them out -- a big party. Right next to it was a platoon of American Marines just watching, and watching the whole sort of...
CHARLIE ROSE: Because somebody has given them the order to stand down.
DEXTER FILKINS: Well, I went over to the lieutenant, you know, who is in charge of maybe 40 guys. You know, he`s probably 22 years old. And I said, "Are you just going to let this happen?" By this time the whole city is on fire.
And he said, "I don`t have any orders." And he was a little annoyed with me. And so I kind of stood back, and then he did a remarkable thing, an incredible scene.
He lined his men up, I think maybe in part because I asked him. But he lined his men up in a long, horizontal line. And they started to march.
And he said, "Forward march." And they held their guns. And they started marching past the Olympic Committee office, back and forth and back and forth, as if they were hoping they would kind of frighten the Iraqis and the Iraqis would all go home.
And by this time, you know, it was 2:00 and the whole city was on fire. The Iraqis just looked up. They were paper tigers by 2:00 p.m.
Remarkable, isn't it?
Here is the link to the transcript, which comes out to 19 printed pages on single-spaced Wordpad.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Thought For The Day (Possibly Heretical)
Faith is not certainty so much as it is acting-as-if, in great hope.
"War Is Kind"
Ann sent me the link to this video with the comment, "Graphic - powerful. I hate this war. Ann"
Oh, Ann, I hate it, too. The video is powerful and graphic, as are the words.
Pray for peace in Iraq.
From the young woman who made the video:
This is a video I did for an English 1020 project. It was an interpretation of 3 poems which are credited at the end of the video. The poems are about war and the effects thereof.
Video remains copyright Meg Michelena, images copyright Corbis, and music copyright Carly Comando.
Ann's blog is What The Tide Brings In.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
The Middle Ground
From Mark Oakley in the Church Times:
THE Revd Rod Thomas wrote to this newspaper that “there are only really two sides to the current controversy over human sexuality . . . there is no room for middle ground” (Letters, 14 March). So far, media commentators have interpreted the division in the Anglican Communion in the same vein — as being between “conservatives” and “liberals”.
....
The division, however, is not really between conservatives and liberals at all. It is much more serious than that. It is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case.
Following the first approach, and contrary to much reporting, there are Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, conservatives, liberals, radicals, and everything in between — all knowing where they stand, but, in generosity of spirit, acknowledging the different but faithful approaches to the Bible, tradition, and reasoning that there are legitimately other than their own.
....
The second approach, however, challenges this spirit. It argues that there is only one way to interpret scripture or tradition on the issues that are presenting themselves, and that all other views are in error and should not be given any oxygen. Some bishops feel so strongly about this that they cannot even meet in conversation and prayer those fellow bishops with whom they so profoundly disagree. An irony emerges: those who argue so fiercely for family values do not set a good example of how to be a family. Communion needs communication.
....
Those who want a Church of strict uniformity will say that behind all the issues that currently divide us lies the primary topic of how the Bible is interpreted, and that what are often referred to as secondary issues are not.
Again, something of the traditional Anglican spirit is under attack here. The Anglican tradition has sought to be a scholarly, reflective, and intellectually honest one. It has therefore known that reading the Bible as a community and taking it seriously — honouring the many genuine historical and interpretative questions that are simply there — will inevitably lead to more than one conclusion.
....
A little self-reflection might be important. I cannot be the only person who, since my confirmation at the age of 11, has found himself changing thoughts and opinions on almost everything as the years pass. In those years, though, the Church of England has been large enough to be my home — a spiritual compass, not a dictator telling me with whom I cannot meet or pray.
....
This is not about conservatives and liberals. It is about the survival of the Anglican soul. There is middle ground — and it is where we should all be at times, for the sake of one another and the message of reconciliation entrusted to us.
The Ven. Mark Oakley is Archdeacon of Germany and Northern Europe.
I've quoted nearly the whole commentary, but I can't find other places to cut. What the Ven. Oakley says seems quite reasonable and right to me. I suggest that you go to the Church Times website and read the commentary in its entirety.
Thanks to Susan Russell at An Inch At A Time for the link to this commentary from Mark Oakley.
THE Revd Rod Thomas wrote to this newspaper that “there are only really two sides to the current controversy over human sexuality . . . there is no room for middle ground” (Letters, 14 March). So far, media commentators have interpreted the division in the Anglican Communion in the same vein — as being between “conservatives” and “liberals”.
....
The division, however, is not really between conservatives and liberals at all. It is much more serious than that. It is a division between, first, those who are willing to say that other Christians, who have different views or lifestyles to themselves, are still, nevertheless, Christian, and have a Christian integrity that must be part of the Church; and, second, those who think that this simply cannot and must not be the case.
Following the first approach, and contrary to much reporting, there are Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals, conservatives, liberals, radicals, and everything in between — all knowing where they stand, but, in generosity of spirit, acknowledging the different but faithful approaches to the Bible, tradition, and reasoning that there are legitimately other than their own.
....
The second approach, however, challenges this spirit. It argues that there is only one way to interpret scripture or tradition on the issues that are presenting themselves, and that all other views are in error and should not be given any oxygen. Some bishops feel so strongly about this that they cannot even meet in conversation and prayer those fellow bishops with whom they so profoundly disagree. An irony emerges: those who argue so fiercely for family values do not set a good example of how to be a family. Communion needs communication.
....
Those who want a Church of strict uniformity will say that behind all the issues that currently divide us lies the primary topic of how the Bible is interpreted, and that what are often referred to as secondary issues are not.
Again, something of the traditional Anglican spirit is under attack here. The Anglican tradition has sought to be a scholarly, reflective, and intellectually honest one. It has therefore known that reading the Bible as a community and taking it seriously — honouring the many genuine historical and interpretative questions that are simply there — will inevitably lead to more than one conclusion.
....
A little self-reflection might be important. I cannot be the only person who, since my confirmation at the age of 11, has found himself changing thoughts and opinions on almost everything as the years pass. In those years, though, the Church of England has been large enough to be my home — a spiritual compass, not a dictator telling me with whom I cannot meet or pray.
....
This is not about conservatives and liberals. It is about the survival of the Anglican soul. There is middle ground — and it is where we should all be at times, for the sake of one another and the message of reconciliation entrusted to us.
The Ven. Mark Oakley is Archdeacon of Germany and Northern Europe.
I've quoted nearly the whole commentary, but I can't find other places to cut. What the Ven. Oakley says seems quite reasonable and right to me. I suggest that you go to the Church Times website and read the commentary in its entirety.
Thanks to Susan Russell at An Inch At A Time for the link to this commentary from Mark Oakley.
It's So Good To Have "Friends"
My "friend", that clever old dog Clumber at Barkings of An Old Dog, came up with this PhotoShop. I knew that once I put up a real likeness on my site that it would be ill-used by "friend" and foe alike.
Folks in Louisiana have long known Boudreaux's Butt Paste as the best ointment around for diaper rash for babies. Now its popularity has spread far and wide, and the old dog said, I’m sure Mimi is thinking “If only I really had invented this stuff!”
If only.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Is The US No Longer A Republic?
From Juan Cole:
War turns Republics into dictatorships. The logic is actually quite simple. The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush, gutting the constitution and allowing the American Right to start referring to him not as president but as 'commander in chief' (that is a function of the civilian presidency, not a title.)
Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.
So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field.
That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship achieved not by coup but by moral laziness.
....
Bush campaigned on being a 'uniter not a divider' in 2000. In fact, he is the ultimate Divider, and leaves burning buildings, millions of refugees, and hundreds of thousands of cadavers in his wake. He is not Iraq's Brownie. He is Iraq's Katrina itself.
Just as New Orleans's Ninth War[d] will still be a moonscape when Bush goes out of office, so will Iraq.
This is just so totally depressing to me that I am nearly paralyzed. I don't know what to write about here, because the present situation with the Iraq War has dragged me down so today. Somehow it seems all that matters.
From the AP via the Orlando Sentinal:
WASHINGTON - The new timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq? There isn't one.
The American public is tired of the war. Democrats are calling for a U.S. troop exodus from Iraq. But President Bush said Thursday that he told his top commander in Iraq that he can take "all the time he needs" to decide whether more troops can come home after the latest round of cutbacks is completed in July.
....
"The president still doesn't understand that America's limited resources cannot support his limitless war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Let me be clear: This is not a so-called troop pause. With today's announcement, the president has signaled to the American people that he has no intention of bringing home any more troops.
"Instead he is leaving all the tough decisions to the next administration."
And what about you folks in the Congress, Harry? Why don't you make some tough decisions? DO YOUR JOB!
War turns Republics into dictatorships. The logic is actually quite simple. The Constitution says that the Congress is responsible for declaring war. But in 2002 Congress turned that responsibility over to Bush, gutting the constitution and allowing the American Right to start referring to him not as president but as 'commander in chief' (that is a function of the civilian presidency, not a title.)
Now Bush has now turned over the decision-making about the course of the Iraq War to Gen. David Petraeus.
So Congress abdicated to Bush. Bush has abdicated to the generals in the field.
That is not a Republic. That is a military dictatorship achieved not by coup but by moral laziness.
....
Bush campaigned on being a 'uniter not a divider' in 2000. In fact, he is the ultimate Divider, and leaves burning buildings, millions of refugees, and hundreds of thousands of cadavers in his wake. He is not Iraq's Brownie. He is Iraq's Katrina itself.
Just as New Orleans's Ninth War[d] will still be a moonscape when Bush goes out of office, so will Iraq.
This is just so totally depressing to me that I am nearly paralyzed. I don't know what to write about here, because the present situation with the Iraq War has dragged me down so today. Somehow it seems all that matters.
From the AP via the Orlando Sentinal:
WASHINGTON - The new timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq? There isn't one.
The American public is tired of the war. Democrats are calling for a U.S. troop exodus from Iraq. But President Bush said Thursday that he told his top commander in Iraq that he can take "all the time he needs" to decide whether more troops can come home after the latest round of cutbacks is completed in July.
....
"The president still doesn't understand that America's limited resources cannot support his limitless war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Let me be clear: This is not a so-called troop pause. With today's announcement, the president has signaled to the American people that he has no intention of bringing home any more troops.
"Instead he is leaving all the tough decisions to the next administration."
And what about you folks in the Congress, Harry? Why don't you make some tough decisions? DO YOUR JOB!
Department Of Ya Coulda Fooled Me
From the New York Times:
Get real, people. That is not a naked woman reflected in Vice President Dick Cheney's sunglasses.
Click on the picture for the larger view. What do you think?
This is a "laughing on the outside, crying on the inside" post. The Iraq War has me dragged way down today.
Note: New picture added.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
"Afghan Trials Unfair"
From the AP via New York Times:
Human Rights First lauded the Afghan government's decision to try the detainees, formerly held in the prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Bagram, Afghanistan, in a court of law. But the New York-based group said in a new report that the legal proceedings are unfairly based on little more than allegations by American officials.
"Where there is evidence of criminal activity, persons should be tried in proceedings that comport with international fair trial standards," Human Rights First said in its report. "In Afghanistan, the trials of former Bagram and Guantanamo detainees being conducted since October 2007 fall far short of this mark."
In trials that last between 30 minutes and an hour, defendants have been sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 20 years, it said.
Thirty minutes to an hour? What kind of trial can be completed in that period of time, unless the defendant pleads guilty?
Among the group's findings:
-- During the trials, no prosecution witnesses and little or no physical evidence are presented.
-- Defense lawyers are not present when a client is interrogated by the prosecution or when intelligence officials collect evidence, so defendants are unable to challenge the evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
-- Lawyers are appointed to the case after the investigation is concluded and generally have only five days to review the government's evidence prior to trial.
Hmmm.
"Consider your verdict, the King said to the jury.
"Not yet, not yet!" the Rabbit hastily interrupted. "There's a great deal to come before that!"
"Call the first witness," said the King; and the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and called out, "First witness!"
....
Here the Queen put on her spectacles, and began staring at the Hatter, who turned pale and fidgeted.
"Give your evidence," said the King; "and don't be nervous, or I'll have you executed on the spot."
....
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
Yes, yes. That's what the trials remind me of.
Human Rights First lauded the Afghan government's decision to try the detainees, formerly held in the prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Bagram, Afghanistan, in a court of law. But the New York-based group said in a new report that the legal proceedings are unfairly based on little more than allegations by American officials.
"Where there is evidence of criminal activity, persons should be tried in proceedings that comport with international fair trial standards," Human Rights First said in its report. "In Afghanistan, the trials of former Bagram and Guantanamo detainees being conducted since October 2007 fall far short of this mark."
In trials that last between 30 minutes and an hour, defendants have been sentenced to prison terms ranging from three to 20 years, it said.
Thirty minutes to an hour? What kind of trial can be completed in that period of time, unless the defendant pleads guilty?
Among the group's findings:
-- During the trials, no prosecution witnesses and little or no physical evidence are presented.
-- Defense lawyers are not present when a client is interrogated by the prosecution or when intelligence officials collect evidence, so defendants are unable to challenge the evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
-- Lawyers are appointed to the case after the investigation is concluded and generally have only five days to review the government's evidence prior to trial.
Hmmm.
"Consider your verdict, the King said to the jury.
"Not yet, not yet!" the Rabbit hastily interrupted. "There's a great deal to come before that!"
"Call the first witness," said the King; and the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and called out, "First witness!"
....
Here the Queen put on her spectacles, and began staring at the Hatter, who turned pale and fidgeted.
"Give your evidence," said the King; "and don't be nervous, or I'll have you executed on the spot."
....
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
Yes, yes. That's what the trials remind me of.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)