Deadly March of Folly
(continued from home page, left column)
The world rests on a fulcrum, threatening to slide off into the
insanity of further war. Will the president on orders from his puppet
master, vice president Dick Cheney, cause our military to launch
a war with Iran or will it be up to the leaders in the military
to ignore the orders of these selected commander-in-chiefs, Cheney/Bush,
and take over the government?
As we have no history of military coups it is not likely, or is
it? Is it possible there will be a postponement of elections in
2008 under the threat of an emergency, a result of nuclear terror
raining down upon Iran? Stay tuned to your television, unless you
want to stop this madness and take to the streets in greater numbers
than before!
—Karen Boerboom
—Captain, USAF, Vietnam Era Veteran
—Platteville, WI
EDITOR’S NOTE:
In support of her letter, Capt. Boerboom referred us to Michael
Smith and Sarah Baxter, “US
Generals Will Quit if Bush Orders Iran Attack,”
which appeared in The Sunday Times (London), February 25, 2007.
Examining her reference we found that Smith and Baxter reported:
“‘There are four or five generals and admirals we know
of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,’ a
source with close ties to British intelligence said. ‘There
is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people
question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.’”
They continued, “A British defence source confirmed that there
were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike.
‘All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t
have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion.
Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for
them.’”
Adding fuel to her reference, we noted that on Wednesday
April 11, the Washington Post has reported that, in response to
Bush’s desire to appoint a “war czar” to oversee
military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and who know where else,
“at least three retired four-star generals approached by the
White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the
position, the sources said, underscoring the administration’s
difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after
five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its
military…”
“… ‘The very fundamental issue is, they don't
know where the hell they’re going,’ said retired Marine
Gen. John J. ‘Jack’ Sheehan, a former top NATO commander
who was among those rejecting the job.”
See Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks, “3 Generals Spurn the
Position of War ‘Czar’” Washington Post, April
11, 2007. See washingtonpost.com
THE PROPER WAY TO
“CUT AND RUN” FROM IRAQ.
Written by Richard C. Skidmore to
The New York Times, November 19, 2006.
To the Op-Ed Page Editor:
First we must estimate the cost of maintaining this war for the
next two years as Mr. Bush is inclined to do if left to his own
devices. At 1:44 pm on March 28th, 2007, the cost—to that
moment—for the Bush/Cheney Iraq War was $376 billion from
Congressional appropriations over the 48 months from March 19, 2003.
This results in approximately $7.8 billion per month, or $164.5
billion for the about 21 months left in Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney’s
term of office.
Since the current administration believes that those funds can be
afforded for prosecuting war in Iraq, I propose we use those same
monies to promote peace and attempt to repair the damage we’ve
wrought. The money would be appropriated by Congress and placed
in an escrow account in obvious guarantee of its availability.
The US would announce that the funds would be for rebuilding Iraq
after an orderly US military withdrawal, and made available only
to Iraqi firms—and international firms who employ Iraqis at
a fair wage. There would be neutral international administrators
in place to monitor contracts and authorize payments based on verified
progress.
All areas of the country would receive funds on an equal per-capita
basis, with at minimum, restoration, or installation of all public
services. The funds would only be dispersed after US withdrawal,
and phased-in as violence subsides. A hierarchy of need, as established
by the Iraqi people through polling, and ratified by the Iraqi government,
would guide the rebuilding process.
During the withdrawal of troops, this plan provides incentive for
the people of Iraq to advocate from within for the cessation of
violence, and gives the central government a benevolent role advocating
for the needs of the entire nation.
The scope of the project and the resulting jobs will insure (as
long as no factions are excluded) that stability is in everyone’s
interest.
—Richard C. Skidmore
—Media Consultant
—Aquinnah, MA
EDITOR’S
NOTE:
For an up-to-the-second running total of the cost of the Iraq
War to U.S. taxpayers (based on Congressional appropriations figures)
go to the National
Priorities Project website.
SAILOR TAKE WARNING.
Written by Robert Shore to
The New York Times, April 2, 2007.
To the Editor:
The utter seriousness with which the Administration and the media
have taken the
British claim that its patrol boat was in Iraqi waters
when it was intercepted by an Iranian naval vessel is a sign of
the extent to which rationality has been degraded by the Iraq war.
It seems to be taken for granted by everyone that there was no justification
for the Iranian action if the British boat was indeed in Iraqi waters.
But what right does a British patrol boat have in the first place
to be searching vessels even if they were in Iraqi waters? The occupation
of Iraq by the United States and its British ally is utterly illegal
and outrageous. Neither country has the slightest justification
for being in Iraq, thousands of miles from its own borders. Great
Britain should not be invoking international law as a justification
for its own actions done in total disregard of international law."
—Robert Shore
—Watertown, MA
EDITOR’S NOTE:
In prefacing his submission, Mr. Shore included the following
comment:
“Although
the sailors have now been released the letter is still relevant
as it exemplifies an attitude that pervades the media reporting
on Iraq. Our enormous military presence in Iraq is unquestioned.
The least sign of any Iranian presence is seen as a ‘meddling
in Iraqi affairs.’”
|
