Author Archives: advocate

Ending the Iraq War: A Primer

Posted on by

I previously reviewed the book “The Good Soldiers” by David Finkel about an infantry battalion that was part of the surge, and that led me to read a book that gives the anti-Iraq war perspective. This book by Phyllis Bennis certainly fits that description. There are quotes from a report by the National institute for Strategic Studies describing the war as creating “…an incubator for terrorism.” I may have chosen poorly, since the book has not had a single review posted on Amazon.

I attempt in my reviews to let authors tell their side of the story without editorial comment and then post disagreements in a posting on the blog link. There were sections that gave me difficulty complying with that approach. The book does contain interesting information about the history of Iraq and its ethnic diversity.

I thought using “frequently asked questions” to introduce discussion was a good approach. One question was, “Didn’t the ‘surge’ strategy work?” General Petraeus’s reported that the surge was working. The author disagreed, writing that the reduction in violence in Iraq came from the unilaterally declared ceasefire by Moqtada al-Sadar and his Mahdi Army militia and also because of payments given to Sunni militias in exchange for them not targeting US and UK occupation troops. Violence spiked in 2008 when Prime Minister Maliki ordered an attack on Sadr’s militia in Basra. Large numbers of Iraqi soldiers and police defected to Sadr. Iran arranged a ceasefire between the two Shi’a forces.

Many of the conflicts are between the Sunnis and Shi’a (most books use the term Shiite) militias. Sunnis Arabs make up 15-20 percent of the population and were disproportionally privileged in wealth and power in Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath Party. Shi’as are 55-60 percent of the population. The Kurds are primarily Sunnis.The Kurds have been protected by the US and are the most supportive of US policy. (There are an estimated 30 million Kurds in the world, and they are often named as the largest ethnic group without a state of their own.) Some have tried to make people think of themselves as Iraqis instead of Sunni, Shi’a, or Kurd, but with little success. One fact that is not in dispute is that there are fewer Iraqis in the country because of the war. An estimated two million Iraqis fled mostly to Jordan and Syria.

The borders of Middle East countries were established by “…the French-British trading schemes…” Faisal was appointed by the British to be king in 1921, and his son and grandson succeeded him. Faisal II was overthrown in a revolution against the monarchy in 1958. The Ba’athist government was officially secular but dominated by Sunnis. The book mentions that the CIA “…helped orchestrate the coup…” Saddam Hussein took control in 1968.

There are criticisms of several U.S. politicians to include Henry Kissinger, who developed and funded a plan for Iraqi Kurds to launch an uprising against Baghdad to weaken Iraq in its war against Iran. The Kurds were abandoned and were overrun by the Iraqi military after the war. Kissinger was said to have commented “…covert work should not be confused with missionary work.” President Clinton is criticized for claiming the U.S. was required by the UN to enforce the “no fly zone.” No UN resolution mentions creation or enforcement of such zones. All politicians arguing whether Iraq should be divided in three parts or united are said to be “…rooted in a set of thoroughly colonial assumptions about who has the ‘right’ to impose their will on Iraq and Iraqis from outside.”

The book frequently mentions “lie after lie” by the Bush administration in advocating the start of the war. Specifics include weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons programs, uranium yellowcake in Niger, Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, and Iraqi involvement in 9/11. There is a question whether U.S. actions brought a constitution to Iraq. There was a constitution adopted in 2005, but it was drafted mostly by U.S. lawyers under contract to the State Department.

The question “What war crimes have been committed in Iraq?” begins with bombing civilian targets and a long list of other actions designated as war crimes during the Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The twelve years of economic sanctions that followed were said to have resulted in the death of half a million Iraqi children. Secretary of State Madeline Albright infamously replied to a question about the children, “We think the price is worth it.” The invasion of Iraq is characterized “…as what the Nuremberg principles identify as the worst war crime: a crime against peace in the form of a war of aggression.” The “…congressional authorization passed in November 2002 granting Bush permission to go to war…” did not make the invasion legal.

Part II of the book presents the Bush administration’s arguments for the war and, in the opinion of the author, dispels them. The war is said to have increased recruitment of terrorists instead of making us safer. Iraq had carefully controlled borders before the war, but the U.S. demobilized the border guards. “Iraq has been transformed into a gathering place…for global terrorists…” The author says the real reasons the U.S. wanted a war were, “…oil, power, and ideology.” There are lengthy discussions that oil was main objective. There is a sarcastic comment in a couple of places that Americans seem to think the invading troops would be welcomed “…with sweets and flowers and singing in the streets.”

Part III discusses global effects of the Iraq war. The brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was ruthlessly secular and not a safe place for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Iraq now “…is global center stage for a concentrated host of terrorist forces.” The war has “…accelerated recruitment for al-Qaeda.”

There is an interesting discussion of how many Shi’a sought refuge in Iran during Saddam Hussein’s rule, and many of those have now returned to Iraq. Iran was one of the first countries in the region to recognize the government of Maliki, and one of the few to maintain full diplomatic relations. The other powerful Iraqi Shi’a, al-Sadr, spends much of his time in Iran “…burnishing his religious credentials…”

Part IV is about ending the war, and I don’t intend to spend much time with that since U.S. combat troops were withdrawn in December 2011 after the book was published. The author directs strong criticism toward the U.S. Congress which “…essentially abdicated its constitutional responsibility to declare or reject war in 2002 when it gave the Bush administration the power to decide whether to go to war against Iraq. Congress could have ended the war at any time by refusing to vote supplemental war funding bills out of committee.

See the posting on the blog link for an update about current events in Iraq.

Darn Tootin’

Posted on by

I saw this phrase in a Pickles cartoon by Brian Crane, and it made me curious. The Word Detective has an entertaining article about “folksy” expressions. It explains “darn” is a common euphemism for “damn.” Toot has meant “to call or proclaim loudly” since the 16th century. The expression is intended to affirm that you strongly agree with a statement.

The Good Soldiers

Posted on by

David Finkel wrote this book based on the eight months he was with the 2-26 Army Infantry Battalion that was ordered to Iraq as part of the “surge” announced by President George W. Bush in January 2007. The announcement set off a storm of criticism by people opposed to the war (I thought it should have been called “reinforcement”). Battalion commander Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich was eager for his unit to deploy from Fort Riley, Kansas to Baghdad.

The book does not give a clear answer whether the surge was a success or failure, although the tone indicates the author certainly did not consider it a success. The book does provide brutal insight into the lives of combat infantry soldiers facing the daily possibility of being blown apart inside their Humvees by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). Snipers were often waiting for them.

The first death was twenty-two year old Private First Class Jay Cajimat who died either instantly in an explosion or more slowly in the fire inside the Humvee that burned his arms and legs into stumps and the rest of him beyond recognition. The details of the deaths and treatment of the injured are difficult to read. As an example, a soldier treating a comrade with a head injury noted a piece of the injured man’s brain fell out as a bandage was being adjusted. The injuries aren’t always that obvious. The trauma suffered by those who watched fellow soldiers die will be with them for a lifetime. A friend of Kauzlarich had ominously warned him before he and his unit left Fort Riley, “You’re going to see a good man disintegrate before your eyes.”

The families, girl friends, wives, and children of the soldiers also suffered, and of course some suffered more than others. President Bush visited a soldier and his wife in Bethesda. The soldier was described as “ruined,” and was only able to do small movements with his eyes, fingers, and feet. The wife thanked Bush for coming, but wished she had told him he didn’t understand what they were going through and that he didn’t know how it felt. She began to cry, and Bush didn’t understand she was crying in anger.

Reality had been exposed even before the soldiers had left Fort Riley as they and their families completed forms prior to the deployment to select whether they wanted to be buried or cremated, the location of their cemetery, and what personal effects they wanted to have buried with them. The remainder of the country mostly was oblivious with the exception of watching news reports that were often about the opposing political views.

The author describes the soldiers leaving the Forward Operating Base (FOB) fully equipped for combat “…to make their first impression on 350,000 people who surely were just waiting to blow the dumbasses up.” They found an unexploded mortar shell with Iranian markings on the fins. “A lesson, perhaps, in who they would be fighting.”

Kauzlarich began the deployment believing that he and the men of his battalion were going to make a difference, and he was said to very frequently respond to questions or concerns with the comment, “It’s all good.” He also tended to make comments such as, “What’s the difference between ordinary and extraordinary? A little extra.” He had been influenced by studying the battle of Ia Drang in Vietnam, which was the subject of a book and movie called “We Were Soldiers Once…and Young.” He had been told by Hal Moore, the commander of the unit portrayed, to trust his instincts. He had almost daily opportunities to rely on his instincts and the skill and courage of his soldiers as they performed the missions intended to make Baghdad safe for Iraqis. He had great respect for Qasim, his counterpart in the Iraqi military, although the soldiers of the Iraqi unit would mostly desert in the face of intense combat. The explanation for those desertions is given in the descriptions of the torture and murder of Iraqis who had been suspected of helping the Americans.

Most of the soldiers would soon hate everything about Iraq. The hated the garbage along the roadsides that often was used to hide the IEDs and EFPs. They hated the open trenches of sewage, the smell, the heat, and their living conditions. Mostly they hated “…the way these people don’t care about freedom. I hate that human beings want to kill one another for nothing.” They didn’t understand why the Iraqis hated them as they risked their lives to make the country safe.

Not all felt that way. Bush said in a speech, “We’re helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the extremists…” Kauzlarich said, “I like this president.” Soldiers were beginning to refer to the “Lost Kauz,” and openly questioned how anyone could think they were winning. They began to openly admit to each other that they were hurting and scared.

General David Petraeus visited and acknowledged, “You never get used to the losses.” He went to Congress to present his report, and gave an optimistic outlook. He focused on the fact the number of combat deaths were declining. MoveOn.org bought a full page ad in The New York Times “…headlined GENERAL PETERAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?”

Chapter 10 describes the soldiers from the battalion being treated for their devastating injuries at the Brooke Army Medical Center (BMAC) in the company of their wives or other family members. They had been told they hadn’t lost their arms, legs, or sight. “You gave your arm. You gave your leg. You gave your sight.” One of the soldiers had a specimen cup where he collected the pieces of metal and plastic shrapnel he had been pulling out of his wounds.

The soldiers had to attend a mandatory seminar on what to expect after they returned home. Many of them would have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). All of them were told to expect flashbacks, to have trouble sleeping, and to be angry and jumpy. They were warned that some would have broken marriages and to find bank accounts cleaned out. None of them were expected to be unaffected. As they were preparing to return to the United States Senator Barrack Obama was telling General Petraeus, “I’m not suggesting that we yank all of our troops out of the way. I’m trying to get to an end point.”

I think the author sums up his feelings about whether the surge was worth it on the last page. He describes how Kauzlarich doesn’t open his eyes as he is departing in a helicopter. He thought to himself that they had won, “But he had seen enough.”

The Appendix lists the roster of soldiers in the battalion and has pictures of those Killed In Action.

Going to Hell in a Handbasket

Posted on by

The Phrase Finder defines the expression means “…to be rapidly deteriorating—on course for disaster.” It goes on to say that it isn’t all that clear why a handbasket is preferred to transport people to hell, although there is a theory that it comes from baskets being used to catch heads removed by the guillotine. An alternate expression is going to hell in a handcart. A medieval stained glass church window shows a woman being taken to purgatory in a wheelbarrow pushed by a blue devil.

The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin

Posted on by

This book by Masha Gessen describes how Vladimir Putin rose from low-ranking member of the KGB to “…absolute—and absolutly corrupt—power…” as the leader of the Russian Federation. I was eager to read the book and post this review because the latest statistics on this web site indicated large numbers of readers in the Russian Federation and the Ukraine.

The story of Putin’s childhood is murky. His parents were a disabled man and a woman who had almost starved to death and had lost another son. They had a larger apartment and more amenities than neighbors. The apparent advantages of the parent’s living arrangement created rumors about what the father might have done to serve the KGB. There also are rumors that Putin was adopted. The author says what is indisputable is that he “…by the standards of his time, was a miracle child.”

The KGB expected new recruits to be skilled in hand-to hand combat, and Putin studied Sambo, a Soviet martial art. He was assigned to a unit created to fight dissidents and later trained as a spy. He was assigned to Dresden where there were few spying opportunities. Mikhail Gorbachev began the policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, and dissidents in Leningrad had been emboldened by the time Putin and his wife and family returned from Dresden.

The demolition of the Angleterre Hotel, a Leningrad historic site, spawned a revolution. Dissidents calling themselves “Informals” began gathering and giving speech in front of the site, which they called “Information Point.” Glasnost had released the power of freedom and brought about the rapid collapse of the Soviet system.

Putin claimed he resigned from the KGB when the Soviet Union was collapsing. A man named Sobchak worked himself into being chairman of the Leningrad City Council and hired Putin as an assistant. One theory was that Sobchak was said to know “…that it is wiser to pick your KGB handler yourself than to have one picked for you.” Putin convinced one after another higher ranking officials he could be both trusted and controlled amongst all the political intrigue.

Oligarchs became incredibly wealthy as the country lurched to corrupt enterprise. Russia defaulted on its debts in 1998 amidst hyperinflation. The turmoil opened opportunities for the nondescript Putin. He worked his way into the trust of Boris Yeltsin, who had launched democracy in the Russian Federation with great hope, but Russians quickly became disillusioned amidst terrible economic conditions. Yeltsin resigned and named Vladimir Putin prime minster of Russia August 9, 1999. Yeltsin probably picked him because he believed Putin would not prosecute or persecute him.

The date of Putin’s appointment was intended to make him the “…instant incumbent…” The Russian people and world leaders were “…relieved that unpredictable, embarrassing Yeltsin was gone …” Few understood Putin believed a “…country is as great as the fear it inspires, and the media should be loyal.” The American media was focused on the Bush-Gore election and paid no attention to the turmoil in Russia or Putin’s immediate moves to transform the country back to a Soviet-style government.

There is a story about a tobacco riot  that gives insight into the kind of desperation that led to the collapse of democracy. People were constantly forced to search for food and other commodities, and the stores were often empty. Several thousand people gathered in central Leningrad to demand cigarettes. City council members arrived to prevent violence. It was well after dark when a stash of cigarettes was located and delivered. The protestors lit up and dispersed. However, “…it seemed the city would run out of everything.”

Putin used state control of the media and, according to the author, intimidation, corruption, murder, and terrorism against Russian citizens to solidify his power. The book presents many chilling stories about his actions and how he used corruption to make himself an incredibly wealthy man. The most disturbing accusation is that the FSB, the replacement for the KGB, set off bombs in apartment buildings that killed hundreds of men, women and children. Sacks of the explosive hexogen labeled “sugar” that were used to demolish the apartment buildings were found in a FSB warehouse. It is speculated the bombings were intended to make people want stricter state control; Putin used them to justify canceling gubernatorial elections. The bombings were officially blamed on an Islamic terrorist group. The official response to terrorist attacks was to “…maximize bloodshed…aimed to multiply the fear and the horror.”

There are disturbing stories of Putin’s willingness to punish critics. Wealthy people and powerful public figures who decided to publically oppose Putin’s abandonment of democracy and development of a “tyranny of bureaucracy” paid with their freedom or their lives if they didn’t first escape the country. Some critics died of mysterious poisons such as the radioactive element polonium which could not be obtained by anyone other than a central government. Some critics were convicted of invented crimes and imprisoned by Putin’s imposition of the Stalin theory that the courts existed to “…do the bidding of the head of state and dole out punishment…” He didn’t just apply his “don’t mess with me” policy domestically. He also officially abandoned the “no first nuclear strike” policy against foreign foes. Disasters such as the failure to rescue men on the nuclear submarine Kursh and the slaughter of more than 300 people, mostly women and children, at a school in Breslan by terrorists seemed to cause Putin little concern.

Putin also apparently can’t resist taking things. He pocketed the diamond Super Bowl ring shown to him by New England Patriot owner Robert Kraft. Kraft later ended the embarrassment by saying the ring was a gift. Putin took a glass replica of a Kalashnikov filled with vodka shown to him at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. The author calls him a pleonexia, which is a person who has “…the insatiable desire to have what rightfully belongs to others.”

Dmitry Medvedev (who is around five feet tall, although his height is classified) served as the stand-in when Putin had to leave office because of term limits. Medvedev publically admitted in 2011 that he and Putin had made arrangements for Medvedev to hold the office for Putin until Putin was once again eligible to be president.

All of this leads to the Epilogue, which gives a day-by-day description of the events immediately before and during the Russian Federation election in December 2011. Putin was announced to have been the winner, although the margin was narrow despite the suspected corruption of the election. Mikhail Gorbachev called for a re-vote. There was a Facebook posting “The Snow Revolution, or a Clean Slate.” Large numbers of people (the author estimates 150,000) arrived wearing white armbands or other white articles. I haven’t noticed U.S. coverage of what has happened since, but I intend to research the subject for a blog posting at that link.

O’clock

Posted on by

Apparently I am one of the few people who did not know “o’clock” is the contraction for the phrase “of the clock.” The explanation is listed on several sites, including Answers.com.