Treasonous U.S. politicians outsourcing war decision to Israel

Remember when Republicans professed that all military decisions should be left to "commanders on the ground" (which is contrary to our citizen-led military designed by the Constitution, but never mind...)?

Well, when it comes to attacking Iran to make Israel feel more secure, U.S. commanders should be ignored, according to neocons like John McCain and Joe Lieberman. In fact, they think America's commander-in-chief should be ignored, because Israel's interests trump ours.

American leaders putting Israel's interests before our own are despicable; they are flirting with treason. Yeah, I said it.

Senators Forcing Obama to War With Iran

By MJ Rosenberg

February 22, 2012 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/senators-iran-war_b_1294305.html

Pentagon: The surge is temporary? Scratch that.

Looks like Scott Ritter was right about one thing: the Pentagon is announcing the surge won't be "temporary;" it may be a permanent escalation. The fix is in for a long-term occupation, if you ask me.


Gates: Iraq drawdown may be paused
By Robert Burns
February 11, 2008 | Associated Press

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday endorsed, for the first time, the idea of pausing the drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq this summer.

"A brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense," Gates told reporters after meeting with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Petraeus has indicated in recent weeks that he wants a "period of evaluation" this summer to assess the impact on Iraq security of reducing the U.S. military presence from 20 brigades to 15 brigades.

Of that five-brigade reduction, only one has departed thus far. The last of the five is to be gone by the end of July.

In his remarks at this U.S. base in southern Baghdad, Gates said Petraeus had given him his view on the drawdown, which some fear could result in giving up some of the security gains of recent months.

In endorsing Petraeus' suggestion of pausing after July, Gates made it clear that President Bush would have the final say. [Wait, I thought the 'commanders on the ground' had the final say? Which is it? Who decides? -- J] Until now it had been unclear how Gates felt about the idea of a pause; he had said publicly a number of times that he hoped conditions in Iraq would permit a continuation of the drawdown in the second half of the year.

In his remarks here, Gates indicated that he had begun some time ago to lean in Petraeus' direction.

"In my own thinking I had been kind of headed in that direction as well," Gates said. "But one of the keys is how long is that period (of pause and evaluation) and then what happens after that."

Although Petraeus and other senior commanders in Iraq had been suggesting the possibility of a pause in the drawdown, the idea runs counter to those in the military — particularly in the Army and Marine Corps — who worry that strains on troops from long and multiple combat tours will grow worse unless the drawdown continues after July.

Meantime, police and hospital officials said that twin car bombs struck near the compound of one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite politicians, killing at least six civilians and wounding 20. A dense cloud of black smoke rose over the offices of Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the country's largest Shiite party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, or SIIC. More than dozen cars were destroyed in a blackened area, and a brick building was blown apart.

[...]

Still, Gates said, "The situation in Iraq continues to remain fragile."

Odierno is departing after 15 months in charge of the headquarters that carries out Petraeus' strategy on a day-to-day basis. Odierno is returning to Washington and has been nominated by Bush for promotion to four-star rank and assignment as Army vice chief of staff.

On Sunday, Gates said Iraq's political leaders face hard choices on how to stabilize the country despite promising new signs of progress toward reconciliation.

"They seem to have become energized over the last few weeks," Gates said. [Oh, goody! Political progress is right around the corner...again. 5 more years! 5 more years!... -- J] The Pentagon chief told reporters who traveled with him from a conference in Germany that he wants to "see what the prospects are for further success in the next couple of months."

It was Gates' first visit this year and possibly his last before Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker return to Washington in April to recommend to Bush whether to continue reducing U.S. troop levels after Petraeus' current drawdown plan is completed in July.

The question is whether conditions in Baghdad and elsewhere have improved enough to permit even more troop cuts without risking a deterioration in security. Petraeus' strategy is based on an expectation that improved security over time will give Iraqi political leaders an impetus to make compromises on legislation and other moves toward reconciliation.

In an interview with reporters traveling with Gates, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond, commander of all U.S. forces in Baghdad, declined to say how many troops he would be losing during the drawdown, saying he believed that information was secret. But he said that whatever troop-cut decisions are made, he will make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the security gains achieved over the past several months are not sacrificed.

"We're not going to give back any terrain," Hammond said.

Before Gates' arrival, the U.S. military said a diary and another document seized during raids showed that some al-Qaida in Iraq leaders fear the terrorist group is crumbling and that many fighters are defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups. But violence also raged Sunday. The U.S. military said a car bomb exploded near an Iraqi checkpoint in an open-market area north of Baghdad, killing at least 23 civilians and wounding 25.

Surge in US, Iraqi deaths since the 'surge'

You can't simply look at the casualty statistics immediately before & after the "surge" in Iraq and make some kind of conclusions about how well it's going. To have a really informed opinion, you have to ask our commanders on the ground; and they've already told us that they won't know how well the "surge" is going for several more months. So, basically, enjoy your spring, and ignore all news from Iraq until our trusty commanders (who recently replaced our former trusty commanders) come back and inform us just how quickly & decisively we're going to win this thing.

Anyway, logic tells us that we have to KILL people to SAVE people. So, if more U.S. troops and Iraqis are dying, it's only because the surge is doing what it's supposed to do: Kill more bad guys. Sure, sometimes civilians get caught in the crossfire, as do our troops, but that's war. It's messy. The Iraqis who survive will thank us later. 

("By the way, I was being sarcastic." -- Homer Simpson).

Iraq death toll jumps 15 percent in March
April 1, 2007 | AFP

At least 2,078 people died in Iraq last month, 15 percent more than in February despite a massive security crackdown in Baghdad, the epicentre of violence, a security official said on Sunday.

On average, 67 people died across the country every day in March, compared to 64 in February.

A significant increase in Iraqi civilian, army and police deaths was evident last month, the official said, based on detailed statistics collected by the defence, interior and health ministries.

Civilian deaths topped the toll with 1,869 Iraqis killed in insurgency and sectarian bloodletting in March, compared to 1,646 in February.

Another 2,719 civilians were wounded last month, compared to 2,701 in February.

In March, 165 Iraqi policemen were killed against 131 the previous month, while 44 Iraqi soldiers died compared to 29 in February, the official said.

In March, 277 Iraqi policemen and 51 soldiers were wounded against 147 and 47, respectively during February.

The official said the death toll among militants had fallen to 481 in March compared to 586 killed the previous month.

But those arrested surged to 5,664 in March against 1,921, reflective of the massive Iraqi-US security operation launched on February 14 in which 80,000 troops have been deployed in and around the capital to root out insurgents.

The US military also lost 85 personnel in March, taking to 3,244 an AFP tally based on Pentagon statistics as of April 1, compared to 3,159 on February 28.

The US military losses, heavily outweighing the deaths of Iraqi soldiers if not Iraqi policemen, come despite Washington's claim that Iraqi forces are leading the security crackdown in the capital.

"Commanders on the ground," my ass!

I'm not the first to point this out, but not enough people are, including the Lib'rul Media: Bush said that his decisions in Iraq would be based on requests and recommendations from "commanders on the ground," not politicians in Washington, implying that his Iraq war was somehow apolitical, and divorced from partisan pressures and public opinion.

But Bush just announced that he's re-assigning the commanders on the ground. Bush would like to replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq. Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific, will replace Abizaid. And Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, will replace Gen. Casey.

I'm not debating whether Gen's. Fallon and Petraeus are qualified. I'm simply outraged by this latest example of Bush's gross hypocrisy -- well, lying, why sugarcoat it.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described Bush's hypocrisy succintly: "The president said he was going to listen to his commanders, but if he listens to his commanders he can't do this. I know he's shuffling some of them out, I've been told it's because they're not telling them what he wants to hear."

Harry Reid was referring in part to Gen. Abizaid, who has publicly expressed doubt about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, and who is now being replaced just when Bush is said to be seriously considering a "surge" of additional U.S. troops -- probably 20,000 to 30,000 of them.

I'll be honest: I think it's stupid to leave crucial political decisions about war & peace in the hands of our generals. After all, "war is politics by other means;" and our Founding Fathers intended that a civilian president (a politician) -- not a professional soldier -- would be commader-in-chief.

And for the record, I don't think Bush ever really did "hand them the keys" to the military. He, Rumsfeld, and Cheney have been directing our military all along. As they're supposed to. The point is that Bush sought to deflect criticism and responsibility from himself by copping out, by saying "It's the generals running this war, not lil' ole me!" We all knew it was B.S., the media knew it was B.S., yet somehow everyone was too polite to call Bush on this obvious lie.

People who agree with me will share in my outrage at Bush's latest 180, but they won't be surprised. You simply can't trust anything he says, because tomorrow it may change completely, and he'll tell you that's what he meant all along, a la 1984.

But you conservatives out there who support Bush -- how do you digest this crap without throwing up? What makes you persist in supporting this man, our lame duck president? What secret signals of integrity and competence do you receive from Bush that the rest of us miss? Or, are you just too proud to admit you invested your faith and reputation in a weasely, incompetent fraud?