Saturday, December 30, 2006
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT IRAQ
What do we know about Iraq? That is a suitable question to ponder as the world holds its breath to see what "the decider" is going to do now, since the administration's past and current approach has been condemned by everybody -- except the hardcore 21% of Americans polled. If some of "the decider's" advisors were to sit down together and examine what is known, or should be known, about Iraq, actions might begin to make sense.
What do we know about Iraq? Following are a few answers. Might this listing offer clues to rational actions?
Iraq is an arbitrarily created nation the size of California. Most of it is desert or mountainous, but there is a fertile area running across between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers -- once the cradle of civilization (and maybe the Garden of Eden). It had a total population of 26 million, decimated by departure of refugees and by casualties.
There are two kinds of Muslims -- Shiite and Sunni. Most of the Islamic world is Sunni, except for Iran and Iraq, and only 10% of the Muslim population is Shiite.
Iran is Shiite (Persian), and Iraq is 60% Shiite (Arab). Iraq is about 20% Sunni (Arab). It is nearly 20% Sunni (Kurd). Kurds are friendly to us. Saddam was a Sunni Arab.
Most of the oil in Iraq is in Kurdish or Shiite provinces (11 of 18).
The new government in Iraq is dominated by the Shiites on the basis of population, and the insurgency against the government has been largely Sunni.
The Kurds to not accept the Shiite government's control of the oil, or in deal making for producation and sale of oil. Neither do Sunnis.
The Shiites in Iraq are aided by Iranians of like religion, while the Sunnis are aided by the other Arab states of their religion.
The violent struggle is largely between the Sunni insurgency an the government dominated by the Shiite majority. Neither likes Americans.
The Kurds have had a semi-autonomous government in their own area, and violence is not a problem there. Their problem is fitting into the central government of Shiites.
The violent struggle in Baghdad has become an organized effort by Shiite militia, often overlapping with the police and the government army, to drive Sunni residents out of dually populated zones -- ethnic cleansing by area. Many Sunnis are in insurrection, a backlash against Shiites and their government. The U.S. is supporting the Shiite government.
It is unclear just how much or how little Al Quaida is adding to the mix of violence, except their targeting of U.S. troops with ambush attacks. The operate separately, but sometimes in consort with Sunni insurgents. The U.S. acts and speaks as if both are the same.
The U.S. is now performing the role of a biased armed referee favoring the Shiite government in its efforts to establish control over a resistant Sunni population. Shiites want to establish politically favorable zones, looking toward eventual governing power with oil money shares referred back to the provinces.
Everything that the U.S. does in Iraq exposes troops to hostile fire from both religious factions, and especially from largely Sunni Al Quaida bandits. Whatever the U.S. does in Iraq is viewed as hostile by some significant part of the Muslims of the world, thus complicating our relations.
* * * * *
Such simple knowledge about Iraq, and the nature of its internal problems, has thus far been unattended or ignored by "the decider" and his advisory corps. Thus armed, a wise and prudent person might well be able to reason out a proper course of action for this nation. That course would likely be one which would avoid further unnecessary risk to our troops on the ground there. It would be a course which would leave the Iraqis to find their own common ground for settling their sectarian political disputes without the U.S. troops as armed referees.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
What do we know about Iraq? Following are a few answers. Might this listing offer clues to rational actions?
Iraq is an arbitrarily created nation the size of California. Most of it is desert or mountainous, but there is a fertile area running across between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers -- once the cradle of civilization (and maybe the Garden of Eden). It had a total population of 26 million, decimated by departure of refugees and by casualties.
There are two kinds of Muslims -- Shiite and Sunni. Most of the Islamic world is Sunni, except for Iran and Iraq, and only 10% of the Muslim population is Shiite.
Iran is Shiite (Persian), and Iraq is 60% Shiite (Arab). Iraq is about 20% Sunni (Arab). It is nearly 20% Sunni (Kurd). Kurds are friendly to us. Saddam was a Sunni Arab.
Most of the oil in Iraq is in Kurdish or Shiite provinces (11 of 18).
The new government in Iraq is dominated by the Shiites on the basis of population, and the insurgency against the government has been largely Sunni.
The Kurds to not accept the Shiite government's control of the oil, or in deal making for producation and sale of oil. Neither do Sunnis.
The Shiites in Iraq are aided by Iranians of like religion, while the Sunnis are aided by the other Arab states of their religion.
The violent struggle is largely between the Sunni insurgency an the government dominated by the Shiite majority. Neither likes Americans.
The Kurds have had a semi-autonomous government in their own area, and violence is not a problem there. Their problem is fitting into the central government of Shiites.
The violent struggle in Baghdad has become an organized effort by Shiite militia, often overlapping with the police and the government army, to drive Sunni residents out of dually populated zones -- ethnic cleansing by area. Many Sunnis are in insurrection, a backlash against Shiites and their government. The U.S. is supporting the Shiite government.
It is unclear just how much or how little Al Quaida is adding to the mix of violence, except their targeting of U.S. troops with ambush attacks. The operate separately, but sometimes in consort with Sunni insurgents. The U.S. acts and speaks as if both are the same.
The U.S. is now performing the role of a biased armed referee favoring the Shiite government in its efforts to establish control over a resistant Sunni population. Shiites want to establish politically favorable zones, looking toward eventual governing power with oil money shares referred back to the provinces.
Everything that the U.S. does in Iraq exposes troops to hostile fire from both religious factions, and especially from largely Sunni Al Quaida bandits. Whatever the U.S. does in Iraq is viewed as hostile by some significant part of the Muslims of the world, thus complicating our relations.
* * * * *
Such simple knowledge about Iraq, and the nature of its internal problems, has thus far been unattended or ignored by "the decider" and his advisory corps. Thus armed, a wise and prudent person might well be able to reason out a proper course of action for this nation. That course would likely be one which would avoid further unnecessary risk to our troops on the ground there. It would be a course which would leave the Iraqis to find their own common ground for settling their sectarian political disputes without the U.S. troops as armed referees.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Saturday, December 16, 2006
LAST MAN TO DIE
"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" queried a decorated, young, former navy lieutenant with several Purple Hearts of the Congress in 1971 about the Viet Nam War. Although John Kerry was much maligned by his political enemies for his role in leading protests to a war in which he had fought, the question remains a poignant one. It is particularly relevant to our own era.
The thought of being the last soldier to die in any war is a tough one to put one's mind around. It would be even more difficult to fathom the wantonly lost feeling in contemplating the last one to die unnecessarily or without good cause.
The Militant Moderate has been sufficiently disturbed by these thoughts to be motivated to see what might be readily available on the internet about those soldiers who had been the last to die in some of our wars. It became even more disturbing to find that these last men to die were so obscure as to be beyond easy reach or identification. An irony of the search was that certain of these names were found only on trivia sites. How sad!
George Pike, a Canadian, was said to be the last to die in the combat lines on November 12, a day after the effective date of the Armistice ending World War I. However, there were numerous casualties of many nationalities on the day of the Armistice. It was said that vigorous artillery barrages, much heavier than usual, were exchanged on the morning in an apparent effort to inflict as much harm as possible before the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month when the Armistice would go into effect.
Charles McMahon, age 21, of Massachusetts and Darwin Lee Judge, age 19, of Iowa, were the last ones to die in Viet Nam, at the Saigon airport guarding the departure there in 1975. So, these two young men were the last to die in that mistaken war about which Kerry inquired of Congress four long years earlier. Their bodies were left behind.
Some say that Abraham Lincoln was the last to die in America's Civil War that killed 600,000. However, the last young soldier to die in combat was John Williams from Indiana, who died one month after the surrender at Appomatox in a skirmish at Palmito Ranch in Texas. He was the only casualty of that last battle.
Certainly, it is a sad, discomforting thought to think of the young men who have been the last to die in our wars. However, in another sense, the last to die are no more significant than the first, and the first are no more significant than those between themselves and the last. Deaths in war are a sad thing. This writer has experienced death in war within his own family. It is a heart wrenching experience that lasts forever.
But it is even more tragic to be either the last, or in any position, among those who die in a mistaken cause or following mistaken orders. Who can forget the gallantry of the Light Brigade, memorialized in the epic poem set in the Crimean War? Or, who can forget the tragic and wasteful error of Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg?
Let us not leave our young Americans to die in Iraq as a continuation of a mistake! More than 1,000 will die there between now and the beginning of 2008, the earliest timeline for departure from Iraq. Can we not save these?
We would wish that the last to die there came yesterday.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Sunday, December 10, 2006
COMMON SENSE AT LAST!
The airing of the report of the bi-partisan Iraq policy commission is like a fresh breeze, a shift in the prevailing southerly winds, while stranded on the north side of the trash dump. It is a remarkable change from the accustomed stench in the air from past voices. The commission's assessment of the mess in Iraq squared with that which nearly everyone believed to be true -- other than those 30% diehard partisans who vote in every poll that Bush is doing a good job in the presidency.
The commission's assessment of the sitution appears to be receiving more universal acceptance than its blueprint for improving the chances for "success," although that has been well received also.
One noticeable improvement is the commission's use of "success" insted of "victory" or "winning," and the clarity of its definition of "success" as the achievement of a stable Iraq government capable of keeping order and tending to its own affairs. This clarifies the mission.
Under Bush's leadership team, we have had a wandering, meandering notion of what constitutes our goal there. "Mission Accomplished," the sign in Bush's famous staged aircraft carrier photo-op might have been true if we had just stayed with the original idea of toppling Saddam, who was considered by them as a threat to peace, and finding non-existent " weapons of mass destruction." But then our goal seemed to change to nation building, which Bush deplored in his campaign, and the "establishment of a democracy which would be a beacon of liberty for the peoples living under tyranny in the Middle East." All this, of course, was while the country was spinning out of control.
The commission's report should have stressed more vigorously the principle of "self-determination" for Iraq, as viewed by the ethnic and sectarian groups there. Our notion of a constitutional republic and representation according to population is unlikely to work in a tripartite situation where one group has a 60% dominance over the other two. We helped set up a government which is really under the control of the majority Shiite group, and the Sunnies have never accepted it.
Any form of structure which does not give the direct governance most affecting the lives of the people to their own sectarian or ethnic group has problems from the start. If this is what the Iraqis want, then let them work out how. We can be facilitators of the process, and not designers of the outcome. Once a form of government with popular support among all sectors has begun, the can deal with the foreign-influenced Al Quaida terrorist remnant.
Regardless of what we have been told by our president, sectariean violence, Sunni insurgency against a government dominated by their opposition, and Shiite reprisals are the major causes of violence. If we eliminate these three by allowing a desired tripartite structure of government, the the real terrorists will become a less formidable problem.
Just now it appears that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are near an agreement among themselves on distribution of oil revenues. This could be the beginning of something good.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The commission's assessment of the sitution appears to be receiving more universal acceptance than its blueprint for improving the chances for "success," although that has been well received also.
One noticeable improvement is the commission's use of "success" insted of "victory" or "winning," and the clarity of its definition of "success" as the achievement of a stable Iraq government capable of keeping order and tending to its own affairs. This clarifies the mission.
Under Bush's leadership team, we have had a wandering, meandering notion of what constitutes our goal there. "Mission Accomplished," the sign in Bush's famous staged aircraft carrier photo-op might have been true if we had just stayed with the original idea of toppling Saddam, who was considered by them as a threat to peace, and finding non-existent " weapons of mass destruction." But then our goal seemed to change to nation building, which Bush deplored in his campaign, and the "establishment of a democracy which would be a beacon of liberty for the peoples living under tyranny in the Middle East." All this, of course, was while the country was spinning out of control.
The commission's report should have stressed more vigorously the principle of "self-determination" for Iraq, as viewed by the ethnic and sectarian groups there. Our notion of a constitutional republic and representation according to population is unlikely to work in a tripartite situation where one group has a 60% dominance over the other two. We helped set up a government which is really under the control of the majority Shiite group, and the Sunnies have never accepted it.
Any form of structure which does not give the direct governance most affecting the lives of the people to their own sectarian or ethnic group has problems from the start. If this is what the Iraqis want, then let them work out how. We can be facilitators of the process, and not designers of the outcome. Once a form of government with popular support among all sectors has begun, the can deal with the foreign-influenced Al Quaida terrorist remnant.
Regardless of what we have been told by our president, sectariean violence, Sunni insurgency against a government dominated by their opposition, and Shiite reprisals are the major causes of violence. If we eliminate these three by allowing a desired tripartite structure of government, the the real terrorists will become a less formidable problem.
Just now it appears that the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are near an agreement among themselves on distribution of oil revenues. This could be the beginning of something good.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Sunday, December 03, 2006
STAY IN THE MAINSTREAM
Were the leaders of the new democrat majority in the Congress to ask the Militant Moderate for his advice, it would be the very simple principle: STAY IN THE MAINSTREAM.
The people of the country wanted a change. They were tired of a government that would not listen nor heed their voice. They were tired of a war with no goals relevant to them, and no end in sight. The were tired of government which catered to only one sector of America -- the business and social elite. The people were tired of incompetence and ineptness. They were tired of a government which did little to control either its own fiscal extravagances or the rapacious pillaging of public and personal budgets by special interests. They were tired of a government which would neither enforce its own immigration laws nor protect its own workers and home industries in trade laws and outsourcing.
But democrats must be cautious lest they become distracted by the siren songs of the disenchanted minorities in their midst.
This win was not an opportunity for the pursuit of the gay/lesbian agenda, nor was it an endorsement for the enlargement of the victim and protected categorizations. This was not a victory for the "finger in the face" attitudes and legal challenges of those who disrespect traditional societal views, national symbols, or authority of any kind. People actually do resent usurpation of the meaning of marriage, and many still find public display of gay affection disturbing. Eventually most may become tolerant, if not accepting, of certain more limited domestic contracts, but this is not the right timing.
The election was not an endorsement for abortion, although it may have been something of a repudiation of government intrusion and interference in private and family affairs (as per the Schiavo case). This whole issue is more one of freedom and liberty. It has to do with efforts of some to (unconstitutionally) "establish religion" into the laws of the nation, thereby seeking to criminalize certain of our liberties and our freedoms. Americans must remain free to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness," values inherent in our republic. Americans must remain free to live their own private lives and to die with dignity in their own time -- free from government intrusion based upon someone else's religious creed. This issue needs to be reframed positively in the public forum.
It is important that democrats stay in the mainstream on the issue of immigration. Nobody favors illegal immigration, and everybody wants border security. Few really expect every illegal immigrant over the last two decades to be rounded up and deported, but nearly everyone expects the most recent trasgressors to experience just that fate. Everybody expects strong employer penalties and strict enforcement. Everybody thinks that illegal immigrants should be registered, enrolled, accounted, and traced.
The people have rejected the republican "fix" for Social Security, which had a marked resemblance to the life-changing procedure the veterinarian performs on pets. However, there are simple adjustments that may be made in Social Security, which will preserve it in its traditional form as a safety net for all workers. Be cautious with this one.
There is a mainstream on most issues, and democrats should be careful of political tangents off that mainstream if they expect to compete for the hearts and minds of the electorate in 2008.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The people of the country wanted a change. They were tired of a government that would not listen nor heed their voice. They were tired of a war with no goals relevant to them, and no end in sight. The were tired of government which catered to only one sector of America -- the business and social elite. The people were tired of incompetence and ineptness. They were tired of a government which did little to control either its own fiscal extravagances or the rapacious pillaging of public and personal budgets by special interests. They were tired of a government which would neither enforce its own immigration laws nor protect its own workers and home industries in trade laws and outsourcing.
But democrats must be cautious lest they become distracted by the siren songs of the disenchanted minorities in their midst.
This win was not an opportunity for the pursuit of the gay/lesbian agenda, nor was it an endorsement for the enlargement of the victim and protected categorizations. This was not a victory for the "finger in the face" attitudes and legal challenges of those who disrespect traditional societal views, national symbols, or authority of any kind. People actually do resent usurpation of the meaning of marriage, and many still find public display of gay affection disturbing. Eventually most may become tolerant, if not accepting, of certain more limited domestic contracts, but this is not the right timing.
The election was not an endorsement for abortion, although it may have been something of a repudiation of government intrusion and interference in private and family affairs (as per the Schiavo case). This whole issue is more one of freedom and liberty. It has to do with efforts of some to (unconstitutionally) "establish religion" into the laws of the nation, thereby seeking to criminalize certain of our liberties and our freedoms. Americans must remain free to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness," values inherent in our republic. Americans must remain free to live their own private lives and to die with dignity in their own time -- free from government intrusion based upon someone else's religious creed. This issue needs to be reframed positively in the public forum.
It is important that democrats stay in the mainstream on the issue of immigration. Nobody favors illegal immigration, and everybody wants border security. Few really expect every illegal immigrant over the last two decades to be rounded up and deported, but nearly everyone expects the most recent trasgressors to experience just that fate. Everybody expects strong employer penalties and strict enforcement. Everybody thinks that illegal immigrants should be registered, enrolled, accounted, and traced.
The people have rejected the republican "fix" for Social Security, which had a marked resemblance to the life-changing procedure the veterinarian performs on pets. However, there are simple adjustments that may be made in Social Security, which will preserve it in its traditional form as a safety net for all workers. Be cautious with this one.
There is a mainstream on most issues, and democrats should be careful of political tangents off that mainstream if they expect to compete for the hearts and minds of the electorate in 2008.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
