About Iraq

James William Smith asked:


The Democratic presidential primary will be over soon. Eventually, New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, will have to concede the Democratic party nomination fight to Barrack Obama. The polls in Pennsylvania continue to show a very slight lead for the former First Lady. However, in North Carolina public opinion polls indicate a huge lead for Barack Obama. If the polls are correct then it will probably be after the North Carolina primary that the campaign of Hillary Clinton accepts its now inevitable end.

The moment Hillary Clinton withdraws from the 2008 Presidential campaign, the Iraq war will begin to dominate the general election debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. A preview of what will become the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential election campaign could be seen this week in the Senate during the questioning of General David Petraeus by both candidates. Each candidate’s questioning of General Petraeus highlighted the differences on the Iraq issue between the two men. McCain’s questions were concerned with military tactics for success while Obama was clearly looking for a strategy for a complete military withdrawal.

The truth is that the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election depends on the events of the next six months in Iraq. In fact, for the last several years, election results have tracked the public’s perceptions about the progress of the war. The Democratic success in the 2006 congressional elections correlated to a low point in the public’s opinion of the war. More recently, the resurgence of John McCain’s candidacy has followed an increased public optimism about the success of the troop surge and the decrease in U.S. fatalities in the country.

It has recently become evident that the situation in Iraq will not be resolved by the time that George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009. More than 140,000 United States troops will likely remain in the country when a new presidential administration takes office. As a result, it will be up to the next President to handle this increasingly costly war. It is clear that a McCain administration would continue the policy of the current Bush administration in Iraq. Under McCain, Iraq will not be given a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. However, Democratic candidate Barrack Obama favors a troop withdrawal timetable and what he calls a “diplomatic surge” to include Iran.

Obama favors a diplomatic surge with Iran because, according to General Petraeus, Iran is behind much of the current violence in Iraq. Last week, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran has “fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of “special groups”. These “special groups” are “funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government (the Green Zone) … causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital.”

Also consider General Petraeus response to Senator Joseph Lieberman’s question about the threat of Iran to American fighting men and women in Iraq. “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?” Liberman asked. “It certainly is. … That is correct,” said General Petraeus.

It is clear that the United States backed government of Iraq is fighting a proxy war with “special groups’ backed by the government of Iran. An escalation of violence in Iraq during the next six months without any hope of immediate resolution would probably help the candidacy of Democrat Barack Obama.

However, the recent comments from General Petraeus may also be a prelude to a general escalation of a conflict between the United States and Iran, a conflict to be initiated before George W. Bush leaves office. The fact is that, in addition to contributing to the violence in Iraq, Iran continues to enrich uranium. The enrichment of uranium continues despite three United Nations Resolutions and Sanctions.

It is evident that the nations of the West (including Israel) will not accept a nuclear Iran and that the United Nations has not been effective in stopping the ongoing Iranian nuclear enrichment program. In addition, the United States cannot withdraw military forces from Iraq with the Iranian-sponsored violence in the country. As a result, the Iranian problem in Iraq could well act as a military cover for a United States bombing campaign designed to address not only the problem of the Iranian sponsored “special groups” but Iranian nuclear facilities as well.

It is a long way to the United States Presidential election in November. A lot can happen in the war in Iraq during the next seven months. However, as in the last several American elections, the status of the war in Iraq will play a major role in deciding the outcome. It probably would not help the candidacy of Republican John McCain if the recent violence in Iraq escalates or if the war expands into Iran by election day.

Jesus

Warren Graham asked:


Let me start, lest I be accused of being utterly out of touch with reality, by acknowledging that the Bush Administration has made mistakes, many and grievous, in its prosecution of the Iraq War. Chief among these—and this is, by no means, intended as an exhaustive list—is the intelligence failure concerning WMD, the elimination, top to bottom, of Ba’ath Party functionaries (the only people who knew how to do ANYTHING in Iraq), the total misunderstanding (or non-understanding) of the ancient hatred between Sunni and Shiite factions and Kurds, the unwillingness of rank and file Iraqis to embrace Western-style secular democratic values, the lack of preparedness of our military to serve as a police force, as opposed to a fighting force, and generally inadequate military planning, in trying to fight what has proven to be a difficult war “on the cheap.”

Having said all that, and further conceding that reasonable minds may differ (and do) about the wisdom and efficacy of having placed our armed forces in Iraq in the first instance, the nauseating spectacle of a rush by denizens of both political parties to surrender is a national disgrace, not to mention horrendous and disastrous policy.

Generally speaking, the arguments against having made the choice to invade Iraq (as it was articulated at the time of the national debate, NOT with the convenience and benefit of hindsight), is that there was insufficient evidence of an imminent threat to the U.S., and that the war against terror was properly venued in Afghanistan, and not in Iraq. Fair enough. It should be pointed out, though, that the intelligence failure was shared by the intelligence services of our European Allies and Israel, and that the canard that the President lied about WMD, knowing all the while that Saddam did not possess them, is simply unsupported by any credible evidence (save the rantings of the far left, for those true believers who find rantings to be sufficient to the task).

It has been argued, with some merit, I think, that the real reason we went into Iraq (NOT the other lefty mantras about controlling the oil supply or avenging Bush Sr.’s brush with death at the hands of Saddam hirelings), was at the instance of the so-called “neocons” who had the President’s ear, and who proposed, by instilling a democracy in Iraq, to reinvent the reality that is the Middle East. The counter argument to that neocon mindset, I believe, is that Western-style secular democracy is not a value which can or ever will be embraced in a part of the World which has always been defined either by tribal warfare, strong-man dictatorship or rule of the mullahs. It is, say the critics of the “neocons” no accident that no democracy has ever taken root on its own in that region, except in the case of Israel which is, of course, sui generis, for a variety of reasons. The WMD argument, they go on to say, was a smokescreen to launch an invasion proving the old adage that “war is just politics by another means,” i.e., that it was motivated entirely by a policy of realpolitik. As viscerally satisfying as it was to this author to have removed Saddam and his subordinate thugs from power, I cannot, in fairness, belittle this argument, because I believe it to be largely credible or, at a very minimum, plausible. And while some Americans might well have, nevertheless, supported this military adventure on the basis of the “redrawing of the map” theory, most would probably have not. So WMD, while not a lie, was, perhaps, an excuse.

So much for history. But what now? Even if one concedes that the commencement of this War was misguided and mismanaged, in many and varied respects, ever since, we must consider the tragic, yet painfully obvious consequences of capitulation.

Democrats, having trounced the Republicans in the recent election, widely billed as a referendum on Iraq, are praying that the collective amnesia of the public will cause it to forget that many Democrats voted with Bush and continued to side with him until the War became difficult and less popular. Worse still is the disgusting “rats fleeing from a sinking ship” conduct of many Republicans, who have not only distanced themselves from the Administration, but try to avoid calling themselves Republicans and now, with the benefit of several years experience, are recommending either prompt, or specifically timed withdrawal from Iraq.

These, my friends, are the politics of surrender. On the Democratic side, the motivation is obvious and transparent: that party has won, in spades, a recent election, and its leadership feels itself empowered. Some, especially those on the left, are so driven by blind fury at previous Republican successes (especially in 2000 and 2004) and poisonous hatred for George Bush, that consideration of U.S. national interests are but a secondary consideration to the sweet music of his vilification. Many of those who urge either immediate withdrawal or a date certain for bringing the troops home cannot possibly be so blind or stupid as to think that such action will not have far-reaching horrific implications for American prestige in the World and our ability to influence international affairs; the only rational conclusion, therefore, is that they must surely be indifferent. Their avowed argument that Iraq has become “another Vietnam”– surely the tiredest of tired clichés– is simply unsupportable. That was a different war, fought for different reasons and motivated by highly attenuated foreign policy considerations. There is no doubt (or should be none) among sentient human beings, with any understanding of what has been happening for the past decade, what conclusion our Islamic fascist enemies and the forces of international terrorism will draw from such an ignominious conclusion to this affair.

Amongst Republicans, the impetus by some of them to flee from an Administration on the ropes is not only reprehensible as a matter of principle and loyalty; it will avail them nothing. Indeed, history has shown us time and again that there is nobody so unelectable as a Republican posing as a Democrat. Ronald Reagan, love him or hate him, owed his success to the fact that he never stopped being…well, Ronald Reagan, and unabashedly so. Trying to escape from the current unpopularity of the President’s policies will show them up to the public as nothing more than the hypocrites they are. The consequence of this, of course, is that the election debacle of 2006 will prove a harbinger of worse times yet to come for the GOP.

It may be that, in time, it becomes evident that Iraq neither wants, nor can achieve any kind of democracy. I do not believe that we can, as yet, draw that final conclusion, though the time for Iraqis to “step up to the plate” and prove otherwise is growing short.

The polls and recent election results seem to show that the American Public is, understandably, weary of this War and wishes to have it over. But does that mean that a majority of Americans support an action that amounts, in essence to surrender? I surely hope not. What is needed at this crucial moment in history is leadership. If the public cannot find it in our President, I, for one, hope that someone else with credibility (hopefully not someone from “talk-radio”) stands up and argues articulately for putting our national interest and security above facile isolationist rhetoric and the short term comfort of bringing our beloved young men and women home with the job half-done.

Those who hold World War II up as the only “justified war,” fought by the U.S. in the past century, and beset by no dissension or moral ambiguity, have conveniently forgotten that many voices, some quite prominent, including Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy, were lifted in opposition to any intervention on behalf of the foes of Hitler, until those voices were drowned out in the national bloodlust prompted by Pearl Harbor. We have also forgotten that a mere four months before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, there were calls on Lincoln from the North (especially the “antiwar” factions in New York—how very little has changed!) to stop the bloodletting and sue for peace with the Confederacy.

Now, in an age of instant television news and internet access (George Will once pointed out that, had the TV cameras been rolling at the Battle of Antietam, the Civil War would have ended in 1862, in a draw, in the face of public outrage at the carnage), we live in a society with an extremely short attention span, and no tolerance for pain whatsoever; especially disheartening in the face of a War in which very few, indeed, have been called upon to share in the sacrifice. Maybe, in fact, it is precisely this sense that the War is someone else’s problem and merely a pesky annoyance to most Americans, that explains our apparent national willingness to “pick up our marbles and go home.” This is a short-sighted and dangerous proposition. Our enemies are nothing, if not patient, and even worse, they are true believers in their cause. They know, or think they know, that the West has no stomach for sacrifice and no will to do what is necessary to prevail. It is my fervent hope that they mistake healthy, open democratic debate for weakness. But alas, sadly, they may ultimately prove to be right.

I think the time has come for us to ask ourselves a difficult and introspective question: What do WE believe in?

Copyright 2007

Carmen

Gary Watts asked:


I suspect that many of those who are opposed to the tactical changes in Iraq explained by the president in his speech to the nation on Jan. 10 and reinforced in his State of Union speech this past week do not believe that Iraq is a major front in a wider war.

They don’t accept that we are at war with Islamic fascists. When these people use “war” and “terror” in the same sentence, they don’t mean military war. They mean rhetorical war as in “war on drugs” or “war on organized crime.” Sen. John Kerry stated this position clearly in his campaign for the presidency, “The war on terror is … occasionally military … But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation …” To these people, bringing the troops home from Iraq means that the war is over.

Here is the argument: To view terrorism as war exaggerates its threat. You don’t give in to terror, but you do not use the military as the tip of the sword - and certainly no massive pre-emptive military strikes followed by invasion. Acts of terror are crimes. Some are horrific, yes, but still acts committed by criminals, not soldiers of a sovereign state - with whom wars are fought. The American criminal justice system with its individual liberty guarantees is the institution that should be responsible for apprehending and judging any alleged perpetrators.

Viewed through this lens, the detainees at Guantanamo are not “the enemy.” Rather, they are “the accused,” innocent until proven guilty in an American court of law. Similarly, the NSA counterintelligence program must be “domestic spying” because we are not at war with any foreign nation.

When queried about the aftermath of a troop withdrawal from Iraq before Iraq is capable of handling its own security, those who favor such a move say, “Not our war - not our problem.”

President Bush’s position is that premature withdrawal from Iraq will result in both a catastrophe for the Iraqi people and a major setback in the war against the Islamists. The president believes that defeat in Iraq will give Islamists a home base like they enjoyed in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 from which they can plan and coordinate attacks against the United States.

The New York Times editorialized on the morning before the president’s speech, “Mr. Bush must acknowledge that there is no military solution for Iraq,” but just five paragraphs later the Times wrote, “Nor can America simply turn its back on whatever happens to Iraq after it leaves. With or without American troops, a nightmare future for Iraq is a nightmare future for the United States, too, …”

So, we bring the troops home, but we don’t turn our backs. What does that mean? If our leaving results in a regional war or “Iraq’s people and its oil fields fall under the tightening grip of a more powerful Iran,” which the Times speculates could happen, what do we do? Talk, discuss, engage, negotiate like we should have been doing all along, right?

In my view, those who think that negotiations are silver bullets for every possible situation either haven’t had much experience negotiating or are terribly naive. Iran is the perfect case in point.

People engage in negotiations if it is in their self-interest and for no other reason. During the Cold War both the United States and the Soviet Union negotiated with each other because each could be destroyed by the other. Society survival was the self-interest of both parties.

Years of negotiating with European powers to the contrary, the present leadership of Iran has decided that becoming a member of the nuclear bomb making club is in their self-interest. On the other hand, the leadership of the United States has decided that a nuclear-armed Iran is not in our best interests.

Iran is a major player in encouraging unrest in Iraq because it is in its self-interest - civil war is good, anarchy even better. There is only one incentive that would, in the short term, keep Iran’s hands off of Iraq. Let them have the bomb.

The president will not allow this.

Jessie

aubade_11 asked:


What kinds of jobs are available over there?
Where can I find out what companies are doing contracting work in Iraq?
What is the average salary?
Any other info about this type of work would be appreciated as well, thanks.

Stephanie

extremeimports06 asked:


I am a SPC in the CT National Guard and am very interested in going to Iraq. i have been trying to go for the last 2 years with no success. My chain of command is very lackadaisical when it comes to this matter. Where could i find out if the 192nd MPs have an open slot? Also where could i go to get a complete list of deploying units?
my unit isnt scheduled to deploy until 2012. i would like to go before then.

Alexander

Bin Yang asked:


It has been reported that injured Iraq war veterans are underserved. In fact, rehab can be done in a cost-effective way with a rewarding outcome to , society, businesses insurance companies and the injured.

People disabled, such as the injured Iraq war veterans, workers, accident victims and others, are usually under tremendous stress. The deepest pain with disability is that the freedom of the person is taken away internally, making it seem hopeless. In addition, they have to face many sudden changes, both physical and psychological. The tremendous stress can affect their thinking, and prevent them from properly viewing their future recoveries and taking care of their physical bodies. Dr. Benson at Harvard has proven with years of studies that they may have other cognitive, psychological and physical symptoms negatively affecting them from stress as well.

In addition, not every doctor tries hard enough, as indicated below, and some attorneys focus more on financial outcomes. These two “authority figures” in their lives can put their recoveries into a cage of deeper depression and lower motivation.

My family has been there, too. After a tragic accident, my mother was placed on a ventilator. After five weeks of intensive care, the ICU physicians concluded that my mother would be ventilator-dependent for the rest of her life. My mother refused to live on a machine. I had to hold my tears to do my own assessment. I found my mother did not breathe efficiently, so I taught her a new way to breathe and practiced with her. Within three days, my mother was taken off the ventilator successfully. Had I not questioned ICU doctors, as well as my own physicians at that time, my mother would have chosen to die.

Later during rehabilitation, various experts gave us similar “usual” predictions. Again, we did our way–we tried many kinds of relaxation methods, and worked with nine other specialists, including herbs and acupuncture. Now my mother has been able to shop, cook, talk and laugh rather independently again. There are many turnaround stories like my mother’s in rehabilitation and other recovery. Having been there, I know the pain deeply. Every injured person deserves the best recovery and to have his or her life back. There is an effective method during rehabilitation process.

A big part of rehabilitation is thorough stress management as well as some human software updating (mind) and some health maintenance. The injured people need a customized stress & recovery program. Our thinking system is like software running inside of us — we can learn, relearn and update. Several rehabilitation programs, including Mayo’s and Harvard’s, have also noticed the importance of stress management in rehabilitation.

This group of people can have many other types of external and internal stressors, such as financial and social support, their own beliefs and views, their stress coping style, poor health maintenance, and, ultimately, poor recoveries. Injured people need to build up their own relaxation hierarchy, so they can think clearly, participate in their recoveries efficiently, including seeking help as needed. There are 16 kinds of relaxation with many variations of each kind; deep breathing and meditation are two kinds. In addition to staying healthy, the injured can learn from successful recovery stories, have their related human software updated, and revitalize their internal power. Preventing tomorrow’s stress is particularly important to this group, due to their low reserves.

Under this custom program, the injured will learn how to maintain a clear mind, efficient software and good health; they will learn not to follow “authority figures” blindly, but trust themselves more, try harder and smarter, and recover better and faster, like my family. Some of them may need more and stronger assistance, such as antidepressants, to pass their most difficult times.

The quicker this group can recover, the more confident they can be, and the harder they will try. The faster they can stand up, the more productive and happy they will be, our society and businesses will be, and the more medical and legal costs businesses, insurance companies and government can save in the long run. Many individuals have a good chance to stand up if they are able to utilize their full potential and all resources.

Are you or your people utilizing yours and their full potential and all resources to recover and stand up?

Gabriel

Jennifer Alinio asked:


Soldiers who survive wars without injuries may not have all the reason to rejoice as they may unconsciously have developed other ailments. In a recent study, it showed that almost 20 percent of U.S. soldiers from Iraq or one out of five were diagnosed with migraines.

Although some perceive migraine as a relatively not serious condition, doctors would say otherwise. Migraine may be “unserious” to some but may result to more complicated health conditions or even fatal.

The study results also showed that there is a link between migraine and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In the development of his conclusion, the researcher conducted interviews on almost 2,200 U.S. Army soldiers within 90 days of their return from a year of combat duty in Iraq. Most of the veterans did have significant exposure to combat situations while serving in the war-torn country.

Half of the soldiers who suffered from migraines were also clinically depressed, compared to just 27 percent of those without the painful headaches, the researchers reported.

And 39 percent of migraine sufferers were also deemed to have PTSD, compared to just 18 percent of soldiers without migraines. Anxiety disorders were also higher among migraine-prone veterans (22 percent) compared to those without the headaches (10 percent).

However, the researcher found difficulty in assessing whether the pain of migraine helps trigger depression and anxiety in returning soldiers, or whether these types of psychological ills help spur migraines.

Generally, migraine begins as a dull ache and then develops into a constant throbbing and pulsating pain that you may feel at the temples, as well as the front or back of one or both sides of the head.

Usually the pain is accompanied by a combination of nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and noise. Some people experience an aura before an attack.

Latest statistics show that more than 29.5 million Americans suffer from migraine, with women being affected three times more often than men. This vascular headache is most commonly experienced between the ages of 15 and 55, and 70% to 80% of sufferers have a family history of migraine.

Less than half of all migraine sufferers, however, have received a diagnosis of migraine from their healthcare provider. Migraine is often misdiagnosed as sinus headache or tension-type headache.

Experts say many factors can trigger migraine attacks, such as alteration of sleep-wake cycle; missing or delaying a meal. Sunlight, fluorescent lights, TV and movie viewing; certain foods and excessive noise are also known triggers. Stress and/or underlying depression are important trigger factors that can be diagnosed and treated adequately.

Treatment for migraine may include over-the-counter or prescription medications like Fioricet. Fioricet is available online through drugstoretm.com. It has been proven to be a safe and effective relief for migraine and other types of headaches.

Self-help techniques such as relaxation training and biofeedback likewise ease the pain. Yet sufferers are advised to immediately consult a doctor if the pain persists as this may be a symptom of a more complicated condition.

If migraines are not controlled properly, experts said, they would most likely bring on depression. On the other hand, anxiety is a frequent trigger for migraine.

But good news to sufferers is that whatever their cause, most migraines can be curbed or controlled. Yet doctors lament there are so many sufferers who haven’t had proper treatment.

Researchers believe the recent study on the war veterans will be a wake-up call to military and civilian doctors to look a bit further whenever they spot migraines in a patient, because those headaches could point to psychological troubles, as well.

Edwin