from Robert Cramer:
I just returned from Jordan where I attended a seminar on Islam and American Foreign Policy. What struck me most is that the more you talk to leaders from the Muslim world - the more you study the polling of Muslim attitudes - the clearer it is that George Bush didn't just get the "War on Terror" a little wrong. The basic thrust of the "War on Terror" was 100% wrong - 180 degrees off the mark.
In fact, you could argue, that if Osama Bin Laden himself had designed the strategy, it is hard to imagine how - in its essentials - it could have done more to play into the hands of the small fraction of Muslim extremists who resort to terror.
Bush's policy seemed to presume that if the military could just track down and kill enough Islamic radicals and terrorists, terrorism could be wiped out. But even the Bush administration understood that the small, hard core of Muslim terrorists depends upon support from a much broader group of radicalized Muslims - for new recruits, for money, for protection.
... read the rest after the click. It summarizes some interesting Gallup Poll findings obtained from tens of thousands of random interviews in the Muslim world between 2001 and 2007.
Hint: They DON'T hate us for our freedoms.
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iraq. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2009
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Shock and Awe: Guernica: April 26, 1937
by Joseph Palermo
Seventy-one years ago, on April 26, 1937, the German Luftwaffe used the people of Guernica in northern Spain as laboratory animals in an experiment to see what it would take to bomb a city into oblivion. The head of the German air force, Herman Goering told the tribunal at Nuremburg during his war crimes trial: "The Spanish Civil War gave me an opportunity to put my young air force to the test, and a means for my men to gain experience."
Goering's Nazi flyboys rained incendiary bombs on the center of the market town of some 5,000 residents. In five bombing raids, twenty-nine planes dropped 44,000 pounds of explosives. A firestorm engulfed the central plaza of the city, and biplanes strafed the fleeing civilians with machine guns. Most of the city's buildings were either completely destroyed or severely damaged. The bombing killed 1,650 people, and wounded 889, most of them older civilians, and women, and children. The Nazi bombing of the undefended town of Guernica became the first aerial destruction of a civilian center, and it shocked the world. President Franklin D. Roosevelt correctly called it an atrocity, and Pablo Picasso immortalized it with his anguished mural, Guernica.
But within a few short years the murder of innocents from the air at Guernica was dwarfed by the 45,000 civilians killed in Hamburg, the 100,000 civilians killed in Dresden, the 130,000 killed in Tokyo, and the 280,000 killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In early February 2003, a few days before Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his power-point presentation to the United Nations making the case that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction," American officials demanded that a curtain be draped over the U.N.'s reproduction of Picasso's Guernica. They believed it would be inappropriate for Powell to make his pitch for aggressive war while standing in front of the 20th Century's most iconic protest against the inhumanity of war.
More after the click ...
My comment:
Trite but too true, "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". Did you pay attention in your history classes? Did they even teach you anything about Guernica?
Seventy-one years ago, on April 26, 1937, the German Luftwaffe used the people of Guernica in northern Spain as laboratory animals in an experiment to see what it would take to bomb a city into oblivion. The head of the German air force, Herman Goering told the tribunal at Nuremburg during his war crimes trial: "The Spanish Civil War gave me an opportunity to put my young air force to the test, and a means for my men to gain experience."
Goering's Nazi flyboys rained incendiary bombs on the center of the market town of some 5,000 residents. In five bombing raids, twenty-nine planes dropped 44,000 pounds of explosives. A firestorm engulfed the central plaza of the city, and biplanes strafed the fleeing civilians with machine guns. Most of the city's buildings were either completely destroyed or severely damaged. The bombing killed 1,650 people, and wounded 889, most of them older civilians, and women, and children. The Nazi bombing of the undefended town of Guernica became the first aerial destruction of a civilian center, and it shocked the world. President Franklin D. Roosevelt correctly called it an atrocity, and Pablo Picasso immortalized it with his anguished mural, Guernica.
But within a few short years the murder of innocents from the air at Guernica was dwarfed by the 45,000 civilians killed in Hamburg, the 100,000 civilians killed in Dresden, the 130,000 killed in Tokyo, and the 280,000 killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In early February 2003, a few days before Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his power-point presentation to the United Nations making the case that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction," American officials demanded that a curtain be draped over the U.N.'s reproduction of Picasso's Guernica. They believed it would be inappropriate for Powell to make his pitch for aggressive war while standing in front of the 20th Century's most iconic protest against the inhumanity of war.
More after the click ...
My comment:
Trite but too true, "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". Did you pay attention in your history classes? Did they even teach you anything about Guernica?
Friday, April 04, 2008
100 Years of Peaceful Occupation in Iraq
from Crooks and Liars
So, for those keeping score at home, McCain 1) endorsed a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 2) denounced a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 3) re-embraced his first point; and 4) blasted those who agreed with his second point as being incompetent.
At the risk of sounding impolite, this guy is starting to make Bush look like he’s engaged and knowledgeable.
Get it all after the click ...
So, for those keeping score at home, McCain 1) endorsed a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 2) denounced a multi-decade presence in Iraq; 3) re-embraced his first point; and 4) blasted those who agreed with his second point as being incompetent.
At the risk of sounding impolite, this guy is starting to make Bush look like he’s engaged and knowledgeable.
Get it all after the click ...
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
"Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month."
Barack Obama on Thursday, March 20th, 2008 in a speech in Charleston, W.Va.
So, I went to Politifact.com to find out if that was true. Here's what I found out:
Yes, families pay more for Iraq war than cable. It's True.
The cost of the Iraq war has often been expressed in billions or trillions, numbers so big and abstract they remind us of Carl Sagan's description of the universe (“billions and billions of stars…”).
The candidates have cited alternative uses for the war money, saying it would have been better spent on health coverage for the uninsured (Sen. Hillary Clinton) or on more school teachers (Sen. Barack Obama).
In a speech on March 20, 2008, Obama took a different approach and emphasized the personal cost of the war.
“When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war,” he said in the speech in Charleston, W.Va.
At $100 per month, the war cost to each U.S. household would be more than cable TV (average bill: $58), but less than a car payment (average bill: $400-500).
So, I went to Politifact.com to find out if that was true. Here's what I found out:
Yes, families pay more for Iraq war than cable. It's True.
The cost of the Iraq war has often been expressed in billions or trillions, numbers so big and abstract they remind us of Carl Sagan's description of the universe (“billions and billions of stars…”).
The candidates have cited alternative uses for the war money, saying it would have been better spent on health coverage for the uninsured (Sen. Hillary Clinton) or on more school teachers (Sen. Barack Obama).
In a speech on March 20, 2008, Obama took a different approach and emphasized the personal cost of the war.
“When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war,” he said in the speech in Charleston, W.Va.
At $100 per month, the war cost to each U.S. household would be more than cable TV (average bill: $58), but less than a car payment (average bill: $400-500).
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Hoisting the Jolly Roger = Support the Troops
House to investigate defense contract to firm that shipped Chinese-made ammo to Afghanistan
Nick Juliano / Raw Story
A lengthy investigation published Thursday reveals that the Pentagon gave an inexperienced 22-year-old a $300 million contract to provide ammunition to Afghanistan. The shady deal resulted in decades old, substandard munitions being delivered to US and Afghan troops fighting on the front lines of the war on terror.
Following publication of a lengthy New York Times article, the House Oversight Committee announced it would investigate AEY Inc., a fledgling company that thrived after 2003 as the US government began handing out billions of dollars to private defense contractors. Chairman Henry Waxman invited company officials as well as representatives of the State and Defense departments to testify at a hearing next month, according to a news release.
More after the click ...
My comment:
I just love it when private enterprise steps in to demonstrate that the morals and ethics of the invisible hand of the market (i.e profit motivation) is far superior to any other way of dealing with any given situation. It's obvious to me that I'm in the wrong business. Even a measly 10% profit on $300 million would get me through the day.
Nick Juliano / Raw Story
A lengthy investigation published Thursday reveals that the Pentagon gave an inexperienced 22-year-old a $300 million contract to provide ammunition to Afghanistan. The shady deal resulted in decades old, substandard munitions being delivered to US and Afghan troops fighting on the front lines of the war on terror.
Following publication of a lengthy New York Times article, the House Oversight Committee announced it would investigate AEY Inc., a fledgling company that thrived after 2003 as the US government began handing out billions of dollars to private defense contractors. Chairman Henry Waxman invited company officials as well as representatives of the State and Defense departments to testify at a hearing next month, according to a news release.
More after the click ...
My comment:
I just love it when private enterprise steps in to demonstrate that the morals and ethics of the invisible hand of the market (i.e profit motivation) is far superior to any other way of dealing with any given situation. It's obvious to me that I'm in the wrong business. Even a measly 10% profit on $300 million would get me through the day.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Between Iraq and a Hard Place
A freind sent me a rant about the situation in Iran and Iraq. I had to respond ... so, for the heck of it, here's my response:
Regarding the situation in the Middle east ... I think you've been handed a slightly distorted view of the world.
"They" are the aggressor if history starts at 9/11. Even that's not true. Remember, Saddam didn't have WMDs and Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda ... and absolutely no connection with 9/11 when we invaded Iraq.
I refer you to bed Linen's video tape of late September 2001 in which he outlines his reason for the attack. It had nothing to do with him hating our freedoms (as we've been told by the simple minded) or anything of the like. He quite plainly says he hated us because we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia. That's gotten lost in the national conversation.
They weren't that kind of pissed when we were in Afghanistan! Iran praised us and provided support for our mission in Afghanistan! Pakistan had gotten tired of the Talibam that they'd supported since the Soviets had been kicked ot of Afghanistan .. and were glad to see someone doing something about them. Our response was to invade and establish a military presence in the second most holy country in the Muslim world. Duh! That'll cool things down. Right? Does the image of throwing gasoline on an open fire ring a bell? (how ironic that gasoline comes from OIL)
As for wanting to kill us ... probably. Given the carnage we've left behind us, I'm quite sure there's a lot of support in certain quarters for that sentiment.
However, al Qaeda doesn't have a Navy or an Air Force so I don't think we need to worry a lot about a full scale attack on our soil ... not like we feared (with reason) with regard to the Soviet Union
In the meantime, your description of the facts on the ground in Iran and Iraq and throughout the region sounds like a page from the Neocon interpretation that's put us right where we are today.
McCain already tipped his hand ... but let me say first that I sincerely appreciate his service in Vietnam. He has gone on record at least 4 times in the last couple weeks - even after being corrected by Lieberman - as believing that it has been reported in the media and that its common knowledge that al Qaeda in Iraq has been traveling to Iran for training. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iraq is Shi'ite. Sunnis and Shiites would sooner stick electric drills in each others ears (a favorite pass time in the streets of Baghdad until fairly recently) than spit on each other ... much less provide aid and training to each other. Further, McCain has also gone on record as believing that the rivalry between the Shiites and the Sunni have never been particularly violent ... I suppose that has some element of truth in it ... if you're willing to ignore the last 1,400 years of history. It is indiscreet a best and irresponsible at worst to express opinions like that when one obviously doesn't know Shi'ite from Shinola!
Let's start with some numbers that I've been able to glean from various sources.
Al Qaeda in Iraq - the franchise of bed Linen's outfit over in Afghanistan/Pakistan represents about 2% of the fighters and they've managed to make themselves very unpopular, even among their Sunni brethren. Their numbers are shrinking as a result. They lost recruiting power for their indiscriminate killing of anything that walks, crawls or flys. They supplement their numbers with foreign fighters - Islamic extremists who buy into the American Satan story and take the jihad express from Saudi Arabia (our hand-holding, kiss the prince on the lips ally, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and primary source of most of bed Linen's income).
That leaves the other 98% of the fighters on the ground in Iraq. Some Sunni, some Shi'a, a few Kurd. They are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths, both American and Iraqi. They have no desire to follow us home. As a matter of fact, they're only reason for fighting against us is because we're there ... in their country. Sorta like the way you feel about Mexicans being here? Only imagine that the Mexicans came with tanks and assault rifles and flack jackets and F-16s and Cobras and set up bases surrounded by concertina wire and high voltage lighting. Imagine the Mexicans kicking your door down in the middle of the night and dragging you and your wife into the streets. Imagine the depth of your abiding love for Mexicans at that point. Then imagine hearing on the nightly news that the government they'd installed said it was OK for them to be here. I have no doubt that you'd be mass producing Improvised Explosive Devices in your basement. Anyway, they DON'T want to follow us home. They just want us to get the flock outa THEIR country. Thats the 98% of the fighters ... who are, for the most part, killing each other over a theological detail ... when they're not taking pot shots at us. Because, ya see, they believe they have the one true religion ... revealed to them through the inspiration of God ... sorta like everybody else's religion in that regard. Of course, somebody has to be wrong because all the different religions can't be the one true religion, can they? (Did you by any chance see Jesus Camp.)
Anyway, scenario - we leave. They have what's left of al Qaeda in Iraq for breakfast. End of story for those who want to kills US as a result of their religious insanity. With that minor task out of the way they will then set about resuming the Sunni / Shi'ite (read Hatfield and McCoy) feuding that has been going on for the last 1,400 years - with a little break for about 30 years while Saddam garroted ANYONE who stepped out of line ... particularly the Shi'a and the Kurds. The only thing our presence is doing there is extending interrupted feud.
So ... what would leaving accomplish that staying wouldn't? a.) no more reason for foreign fighters to enter Iraq in order to use our boys for target practice. They'd have to move over to Afghanistan where we have some semblance of world support, and b.) they could resume the 1.400 year old blood bath a little sooner because it's going to happen. We took the cork out of the bottle (Saddam) and we don't have the kind of horse power to put it back in - besides, he's dead.
Bush I and Clinton had a policy of containment that worked. Bush II introduced Cowboy Diplomacy to the world stage. It didn't work .. in spades! Now, with McCain's obvious total lack of understanding regarding even who the friggin' players are and complete obliviousness to the history of the region ... we move from Cowboy Diplomacy directly into Blazing Saddles Diplomacy. (and I quote: "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran ... for 100 years.") Five years in a 1960-70s VC prison camp dose NOT make a foreign policy genius. It is NOT foreign POLICY experience ... it's certainly foreign. It's certainly experience ... but it don't friggin' count in this arena.
Regarding the situation in the Middle east ... I think you've been handed a slightly distorted view of the world.
"They" are the aggressor if history starts at 9/11. Even that's not true. Remember, Saddam didn't have WMDs and Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda ... and absolutely no connection with 9/11 when we invaded Iraq.
I refer you to bed Linen's video tape of late September 2001 in which he outlines his reason for the attack. It had nothing to do with him hating our freedoms (as we've been told by the simple minded) or anything of the like. He quite plainly says he hated us because we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia. That's gotten lost in the national conversation.
They weren't that kind of pissed when we were in Afghanistan! Iran praised us and provided support for our mission in Afghanistan! Pakistan had gotten tired of the Talibam that they'd supported since the Soviets had been kicked ot of Afghanistan .. and were glad to see someone doing something about them. Our response was to invade and establish a military presence in the second most holy country in the Muslim world. Duh! That'll cool things down. Right? Does the image of throwing gasoline on an open fire ring a bell? (how ironic that gasoline comes from OIL)
As for wanting to kill us ... probably. Given the carnage we've left behind us, I'm quite sure there's a lot of support in certain quarters for that sentiment.
However, al Qaeda doesn't have a Navy or an Air Force so I don't think we need to worry a lot about a full scale attack on our soil ... not like we feared (with reason) with regard to the Soviet Union
In the meantime, your description of the facts on the ground in Iran and Iraq and throughout the region sounds like a page from the Neocon interpretation that's put us right where we are today.
McCain already tipped his hand ... but let me say first that I sincerely appreciate his service in Vietnam. He has gone on record at least 4 times in the last couple weeks - even after being corrected by Lieberman - as believing that it has been reported in the media and that its common knowledge that al Qaeda in Iraq has been traveling to Iran for training. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iraq is Shi'ite. Sunnis and Shiites would sooner stick electric drills in each others ears (a favorite pass time in the streets of Baghdad until fairly recently) than spit on each other ... much less provide aid and training to each other. Further, McCain has also gone on record as believing that the rivalry between the Shiites and the Sunni have never been particularly violent ... I suppose that has some element of truth in it ... if you're willing to ignore the last 1,400 years of history. It is indiscreet a best and irresponsible at worst to express opinions like that when one obviously doesn't know Shi'ite from Shinola!
Let's start with some numbers that I've been able to glean from various sources.
Al Qaeda in Iraq - the franchise of bed Linen's outfit over in Afghanistan/Pakistan represents about 2% of the fighters and they've managed to make themselves very unpopular, even among their Sunni brethren. Their numbers are shrinking as a result. They lost recruiting power for their indiscriminate killing of anything that walks, crawls or flys. They supplement their numbers with foreign fighters - Islamic extremists who buy into the American Satan story and take the jihad express from Saudi Arabia (our hand-holding, kiss the prince on the lips ally, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and primary source of most of bed Linen's income).
That leaves the other 98% of the fighters on the ground in Iraq. Some Sunni, some Shi'a, a few Kurd. They are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths, both American and Iraqi. They have no desire to follow us home. As a matter of fact, they're only reason for fighting against us is because we're there ... in their country. Sorta like the way you feel about Mexicans being here? Only imagine that the Mexicans came with tanks and assault rifles and flack jackets and F-16s and Cobras and set up bases surrounded by concertina wire and high voltage lighting. Imagine the Mexicans kicking your door down in the middle of the night and dragging you and your wife into the streets. Imagine the depth of your abiding love for Mexicans at that point. Then imagine hearing on the nightly news that the government they'd installed said it was OK for them to be here. I have no doubt that you'd be mass producing Improvised Explosive Devices in your basement. Anyway, they DON'T want to follow us home. They just want us to get the flock outa THEIR country. Thats the 98% of the fighters ... who are, for the most part, killing each other over a theological detail ... when they're not taking pot shots at us. Because, ya see, they believe they have the one true religion ... revealed to them through the inspiration of God ... sorta like everybody else's religion in that regard. Of course, somebody has to be wrong because all the different religions can't be the one true religion, can they? (Did you by any chance see Jesus Camp.)
Anyway, scenario - we leave. They have what's left of al Qaeda in Iraq for breakfast. End of story for those who want to kills US as a result of their religious insanity. With that minor task out of the way they will then set about resuming the Sunni / Shi'ite (read Hatfield and McCoy) feuding that has been going on for the last 1,400 years - with a little break for about 30 years while Saddam garroted ANYONE who stepped out of line ... particularly the Shi'a and the Kurds. The only thing our presence is doing there is extending interrupted feud.
So ... what would leaving accomplish that staying wouldn't? a.) no more reason for foreign fighters to enter Iraq in order to use our boys for target practice. They'd have to move over to Afghanistan where we have some semblance of world support, and b.) they could resume the 1.400 year old blood bath a little sooner because it's going to happen. We took the cork out of the bottle (Saddam) and we don't have the kind of horse power to put it back in - besides, he's dead.
Bush I and Clinton had a policy of containment that worked. Bush II introduced Cowboy Diplomacy to the world stage. It didn't work .. in spades! Now, with McCain's obvious total lack of understanding regarding even who the friggin' players are and complete obliviousness to the history of the region ... we move from Cowboy Diplomacy directly into Blazing Saddles Diplomacy. (and I quote: "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran ... for 100 years.") Five years in a 1960-70s VC prison camp dose NOT make a foreign policy genius. It is NOT foreign POLICY experience ... it's certainly foreign. It's certainly experience ... but it don't friggin' count in this arena.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Showing Love and Respect for Our Mercenaries Contractors in Iraq
IRAQ: Fever Named After Blackwater
By Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail*
FALLUJAH, Mar 26 (IPS) - Iraqi doctors in al-Anbar province warn of a new disease they call "Blackwater" that threatens the lives of thousands. The disease is named after Blackwater Worldwide, the U.S. mercenary company operating in Iraq.
"This disease is a severe form of malarial infection caused by the parasite plasmodium falciparum, which is considered the worst type of malarial infection," Dr. Ali Hakki from Fallujah told IPS. "It is one of the complications of that infection, and not the ordinary picture of the disease. Because of its frequent and severe complications, such as Blackwater fever, and its resistance to treatment, P. falciparum can cause death within 24 hours."
What Iraqis now call Blackwater fever is really a well-known medical condition, and while it has nothing to do with Blackwater Worldwide, Iraqis in al-Anbar province have decided to make the connection between the disease and the lethal U.S.-based company which has been responsible for the death of countless Iraqis.
More after the click ...
By Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail*
FALLUJAH, Mar 26 (IPS) - Iraqi doctors in al-Anbar province warn of a new disease they call "Blackwater" that threatens the lives of thousands. The disease is named after Blackwater Worldwide, the U.S. mercenary company operating in Iraq.
"This disease is a severe form of malarial infection caused by the parasite plasmodium falciparum, which is considered the worst type of malarial infection," Dr. Ali Hakki from Fallujah told IPS. "It is one of the complications of that infection, and not the ordinary picture of the disease. Because of its frequent and severe complications, such as Blackwater fever, and its resistance to treatment, P. falciparum can cause death within 24 hours."
What Iraqis now call Blackwater fever is really a well-known medical condition, and while it has nothing to do with Blackwater Worldwide, Iraqis in al-Anbar province have decided to make the connection between the disease and the lethal U.S.-based company which has been responsible for the death of countless Iraqis.
More after the click ...
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida
WASHINGTON —
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.
The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.
The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.
More after the click ...
My comment:
But we do have ample evidence of direct operational links between Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld. Don't they count as ties to terrorism?
UPDATE:
March 12, 2008 1:58 PM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
Read the rest after the click ...
Monday, March 10, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Bush Budget Adds to Military, Cuts Prevention
Miriam Pemberton and Anita Dancs / Foreign Policy Focus
Voters--Republicans and Democrats alike--are telling pollsters they want, not a modest course correction, not a turned page, but a whole new book. The security budget President Bush proposed today is anything but.
Every year since 2004, according to analysis by the Task Force on a Unified Security Budget for the United States, published by the Institute for Policy Studies, nearly 90% of security spending, excluding the supplemental appropriations for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has been devoted to achieving security by military force. Spending on prevention tools, including diplomacy, nonproliferation, foreign aid, contributions to international organizations and homeland security put together accounts for only 10% of the security budget. This year is no exception.
This year military spending even excluding expenditures on the wars we are actually fighting will be higher than at any time since World War II. It will exceed the military spending of all other nations combined. If President George W. Bush gets the budget he has requested, we will spend in the 2009 fiscal year 18 times the money engaging the rest of the world through the military as by any other means.
Read the rest after the click ...Sunday, December 23, 2007
It's Common Sense, Not Pacifism
by Charley Reese
I should clarify something during this season when everyone hopes for peace and good will: I am not a pacifist.
If war is forced upon us, we have no choice but to fight it. Ernest Hemingway said it well when he observed that there are several things worse than war, and they all come with defeat.
I have opposed and still oppose the war in Iraq because, knowing something about the Middle East, I knew it would be futile. I knew we weren't threatened by Iraq. I knew that the war would be a war of aggression on our part. I knew that no clear-cut victory would be possible.
Even though there has been some diminution in violence, the fundamental political problem remains. The Sunnis, the Shi'ites and the Kurds are not fond of each other. For a long time, the Shi'ites and the Kurds suffered under Saddam Hussein's primarily Sunni regime. Now that the Shi'ites and the Kurds are in control, they are not going to be easily reconciled. Furthermore, the Kurds don't especially like Arabs and want an independent country. The Turks don't especially like the Kurds and will react violently to any move on the part of the Kurds to declare independence.
So, the U.S. forces in the country have a wolf by the ear. We can keep the level of violence reasonably contained as long as we stay there, but neither the armed forces nor the U.S. budget can afford to stay there indefinitely. And to leave, we have to let go of the wolf.
The rest after the click ...
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
And its 1-2-3 what are we fightin' for?
'Bad' Women Raped and Killed in Southern Iraq
by Ali al-Fadhily on AntiWar
BAGHDAD -
Women are being killed by militia groups in southern Iraq for not conforming to strict Islamic ways, the police say. And increased threats from militia groups are driving many women away from their homes.
Basra police chief Gen. Jalil Hannoon has told reporters and Arab TV channels that at least 40 women have been killed during the past five months in the southern city.
"We are sure there are many more victims whose families did not report their killing for fear of scandal," Hannoon said.
The militias dominated by the Shia Badr Organization and the Mahdi Army are leading imposition of strict Islamic rules. The enforcement of these rules comes at a time when British troops have left Basra, the biggest town in the south, to the Iraqi government.
More after the click ...
My comment: I guess we're winning ... democracy and freedom are on the march! Mission accomplished!!
by Ali al-Fadhily on AntiWar
BAGHDAD -
Women are being killed by militia groups in southern Iraq for not conforming to strict Islamic ways, the police say. And increased threats from militia groups are driving many women away from their homes.
Basra police chief Gen. Jalil Hannoon has told reporters and Arab TV channels that at least 40 women have been killed during the past five months in the southern city.
"We are sure there are many more victims whose families did not report their killing for fear of scandal," Hannoon said.
The militias dominated by the Shia Badr Organization and the Mahdi Army are leading imposition of strict Islamic rules. The enforcement of these rules comes at a time when British troops have left Basra, the biggest town in the south, to the Iraqi government.
More after the click ...
My comment: I guess we're winning ... democracy and freedom are on the march! Mission accomplished!!
Sunday, December 16, 2007
A Modern Christmas Carol
... or get the video here.
Words and music by Billy Joel. Sung by Cass Dillon. Joel wanted someone a little closer in age to the sentiment ...
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Algebra of Occupation
by Conn Hallinan
Foreign Policy in Focus
In 1805, the French army out maneuvered, outsmarted, and outfought the combined armies of Russia and Austria at Austerlitz. Three years later it would flounder against a rag-tag collection of Spanish guerrillas.
In 1967, it took six days for the Israeli army to smash Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and seize the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. In 2006, a Shi'ite militia fought the mightiest army in the Middle East to a bloody standstill in Lebanon.
In 1991, it took four days of ground combat for the United States to crush Saddam Hussein's army in the Gulf War. U.S. losses were 148 dead and 647 wounded. After more than five years of war in Iraq, U.S. losses are approaching 4,000, with over 50,000 wounded; 2007 is already the deadliest year of the war for the United States.
In each case, a great army won a decisive victory only to see that victory canceled out by what T.E. Lawrence once called the "algebra of occupation." Writing about the British occupation of Iraq following the Ottoman Empire's collapse in World War I, Lawrence put his finger on the formula that has doomed virtually every military force that has tried to quell a restive population.
Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk has cited Lawrence to this effect: "Rebellion must have an unassailable base... it must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form a disciplined army of occupation too small to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts. It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2 percent active in a striking force, and 98 percent passive sympathy. Granted mobility, security ... time and doctrine ... victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive."
Finish the though here ...
My comment:
In case anyone missed the turn there, T. E. Lawrence was also known as Lawrence of Arabia. He helped to lead a rag-tag army of "A-rabs" that was instrumental in bringing down the Ottoman Empire during WWI. He was very familiar with Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the desert and the people. He spoke the language, he lived by their customs, he fought with them.
Even if our adventure in Iraq was the "right" war (and the preponderance of evidence from the beginning unequivocally says it's not) it is not being fought by "our rules". We are no longer picking the time and place of battle. Our technology is co-opted. We are not in control of the battle field.
We have steadily moved from "Mission Accomplished" to "there's no military solution".
What could T. E. Lawrence possibly know that our leaders don't?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Thought for the Day
"Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him."
- Colonel Potter, M*A*S*H
Name them. Maim them. Kill them.
From the beginning of the American occupation in Iraq, air strikes and attacks by the U.S. military have only killed "militants," "criminals," "suspected insurgents," "IED [Improvised Explosive Device] emplacers," "anti-American fighters," "terrorists," "military-age males," "armed men," "extremists," or "al-Qaeda."
The pattern for reporting on such attacks has remained the same from the early years of the occupation to today. Take a helicopter attack on Oct. 23 of this year near the village of Djila, north of Samarra. The U.S. military claimed it had killed 11 among "a group of men planting a roadside bomb." Only later did a military spokesperson acknowledge that at least six of the dead were civilians. Local residents claimed that those killed were farmers, that there were children among them, and that the number of dead was greater than 11.
Here is part of the statement released by U.S. military spokeswoman in northern Iraq, Maj. Peggy Kageleiry:
"A suspected insurgent and improvised explosive device cell member was identified among the killed in an engagement between Coalition Forces and suspected IED emplacers just north of Samarra. … During the engagement, insurgents used a nearby house as a safe haven to re-engage coalition aircraft. A known member of an IED cell was among the 11 killed during the multiple engagements. We send condolences to the families of those victims and we regret any loss of life."
As usual, the version offered by locals was vastly different. Abdul al-Rahman Iyadeh, a relative of some of the victims, revealed that the "group of men" attacked were actually three farmers who had left their homes at 4:30 a.m. to irrigate their fields. Two were killed in the initial helicopter attack and the survivor ran back to his home where other residents gathered. The second air strike, he claimed, destroyed the house killing 14 people. Another witness told reporters that four separate houses were hit by the helicopter. A local Iraqi policeman, Capt. Abdullah al-Isawi, put the death toll at 16 – seven men, six women, and three children, with another 14 wounded.
More on AntiWar ...
My comment: I don't know what the real story is, but I do know that the first casualty of war is truth.
Monday, November 26, 2007
On taking off your shoes so you can count to twenty ...
from Wonkette
The Pentagon has said that 4,471 soldiers sustained injuries to their brains in Iraq and Afghanistan as of September 30th. There’s just one teeny-tiny problem with that number, which is that the the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs have either seen or treated more than 20,000 soldiers for brain injuries than the Pentagon reports have been injured.
The Pentagon has said that 4,471 soldiers sustained injuries to their brains in Iraq and Afghanistan as of September 30th. There’s just one teeny-tiny problem with that number, which is that the the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs have either seen or treated more than 20,000 soldiers for brain injuries than the Pentagon reports have been injured.
The new numbers come from a variety of sources, including VA records and 4 U.S. bases that have supplied multiple units to the conflicts. The Pentagon’s explanation? If they don’t notice that soldiers are fucked up before they leave Iraq or Afghanistan (even if they sustain the injuries there), then they aren’t counted as official casualties. Also, I’m sure that this counting method in no way affects their ability to get treatment or receive VA benefits because our government wouldn’t do that. Nope.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
So much for "staying to keep the violence under control"
In Basra, violence is a tenth of what it was before British pullback, general says
BAGHDAD (AP):
Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.
"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.
Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.
"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.
Last spring, British troops' daily patrols through central Basra led to "steady toe to toe battles with militias fighting some of the most tactically demanding battles of the war," Binns said. Now British forces rarely enter the city center, an area patrolled only by Iraqis.
In mid-December, British forces are scheduled to return control of Basra province back to Iraqi officials — officially ending Britain's combat role in Iraq.
"We've been in that de facto role since we moved out of the palace...but we hope the (December) transfer will symbolize the end of a period many in Basra city perceived as occupation," Binns said.
With an overwhelmingly Shiite population, Basra has not seen the level of sectarian violence that has torn Iraq apart since the Feb. 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine north of Baghdad.
But it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops, as well as between Shiite militias vying for control of the city and its security forces.
British officials expected a spike in such "intra-militia violence" after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none, Binns said.
More in the International Herald Tribune ... (emphasis added)
My comment: Fewer troops, less violence? No f@&%ing comment.
The people in Iraq don't hate us for our freedoms ... they hate us because we're there.
Al Qaeda doesn't hate us for our freedoms, either ... they said quite clearly in their initial statements that they hated us because we had troops stationed in their holiest of holy lands - Saudi Arabia.
Now, I don't put much credibility in anyone's religious silliness but, I do think it's probably a good idea to listen to people when they give us their reasons for hating us. If we actually listened, it would go a long way toward providing the proper solution.
My sense is that Bush's language comprehension is, unfortunately, on par with his verbal eloquence. Cheney just wants to be a regular Dick, shot something ... and ensure that Haliburton makes more profit than they know what to do with.
BAGHDAD (AP):
Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.
"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.
Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.
"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.
Last spring, British troops' daily patrols through central Basra led to "steady toe to toe battles with militias fighting some of the most tactically demanding battles of the war," Binns said. Now British forces rarely enter the city center, an area patrolled only by Iraqis.
In mid-December, British forces are scheduled to return control of Basra province back to Iraqi officials — officially ending Britain's combat role in Iraq.
"We've been in that de facto role since we moved out of the palace...but we hope the (December) transfer will symbolize the end of a period many in Basra city perceived as occupation," Binns said.
With an overwhelmingly Shiite population, Basra has not seen the level of sectarian violence that has torn Iraq apart since the Feb. 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine north of Baghdad.
But it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops, as well as between Shiite militias vying for control of the city and its security forces.
British officials expected a spike in such "intra-militia violence" after they pulled back from the city's center, and were surprised to find none, Binns said.
More in the International Herald Tribune ... (emphasis added)
My comment: Fewer troops, less violence? No f@&%ing comment.
The people in Iraq don't hate us for our freedoms ... they hate us because we're there.
Al Qaeda doesn't hate us for our freedoms, either ... they said quite clearly in their initial statements that they hated us because we had troops stationed in their holiest of holy lands - Saudi Arabia.
Now, I don't put much credibility in anyone's religious silliness but, I do think it's probably a good idea to listen to people when they give us their reasons for hating us. If we actually listened, it would go a long way toward providing the proper solution.
My sense is that Bush's language comprehension is, unfortunately, on par with his verbal eloquence. Cheney just wants to be a regular Dick, shot something ... and ensure that Haliburton makes more profit than they know what to do with.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
So, who are we fighting, anyway?
Richard Dreyfuss on AntiWar
Who is the enemy? Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? And what's our objective?
Nearly five years into the war, the answers to basic questions like these ought to be obvious. In the Alice in Wonderland-like wilderness of mirrors that is Iraq, though, they're anything but.
We aren't fighting the Sunnis. Not any more, anyway. Virtually the entire Sunni establishment, from the moderate Muslim Brotherhood-linked Iraqi Islamic Party (which has been part of every Iraqi government since 2003) to the Anbar tribal alliance (which has been begging for U.S. support since 2004 and only recently got it) is either actively cooperating with the American military or sullenly tolerating what it hopes will be a receding occupation. Across Sunni-dominated parts of Iraq, the United States is helping to build army and police units as well as neighborhood patrols – the Pentagon calls them "concerned citizens" – out of former resistance fighters, with the blessing of tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, and Salahuddin provinces, parts of Baghdad, and areas to the south of the capital. We have met the enemy, and – surprise! – they are friends or, if not that, at least not active enemies. Attacks on U.S. forces in Sunni-dominated areas, including the once-violent hotbed city of Ramadi, Anbar's capital, have fallen dramatically.
Among the hard-core Sunni resistance, there is also significant movement toward a political accord – if the United States were willing to accept it. Twenty-two Iraqi insurgent groups announced the creation of a united front, under the leadership of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top Ba'ath Party official of the Saddam era, and they have opened talks with Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia who was Iraq's first post-Saddam prime minister.
We aren't fighting the Shia. The Shia merchant class and elite, organized into the mostly pro-Iranian Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Islamic Dawa Party, are part of the Iraqi government that the United States created and supports – and whose army and police are armed and trained by the United States. The far more popular forces of Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army aren't the enemy either. In late August, Sadr declared a cease-fire, ordering his militia to stand down; and, since then, attacks on U.S. forces in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq have fallen off very sharply, too. Though recent, provocative attacks by U.S. troops, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, on Sadr strongholds in Baghdad, Diwaniya, and Karbala have caused Sadr to threaten to cancel the cease-fire order, and though intra-Shia fighting is still occurring in many parts of southern Iraq, there is no Shia enemy that justifies a continued American presence in Iraq, either.
And we certainly aren't fighting the Kurds. For decades, the Kurds have been America's (and Israel's) closest allies in Iraq. Since 2003, the three Kurdish-dominated provinces have been relatively peaceful.
We're not exactly fighting al-Qaeda any more either. Despite President Bush's near-frantic efforts to portray the war in Iraq as a last-ditch, Alamo-like stand against Osama bin Laden's army, U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq are having a hard time finding pockets of al-Qaeda to attack these days, though the group still has the power to conduct deadly attacks now and then. In recent weeks, Gen. David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and other authorities have pretty much declared al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) dead and buried. That happy funeral is the result not of brilliant U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, but of the determination of our newfound Sunni allies to exterminate the group. No lesser authority than Gen. Petraeus himself now admits that al-Qaeda has been expelled from every single one of its strongholds in Baghdad. In Anbar province, according to Crocker, "People do feel the weight's off. Al-Qaeda is simply gone."
More after the click ...
Who is the enemy? Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? And what's our objective?
Nearly five years into the war, the answers to basic questions like these ought to be obvious. In the Alice in Wonderland-like wilderness of mirrors that is Iraq, though, they're anything but.
We aren't fighting the Sunnis. Not any more, anyway. Virtually the entire Sunni establishment, from the moderate Muslim Brotherhood-linked Iraqi Islamic Party (which has been part of every Iraqi government since 2003) to the Anbar tribal alliance (which has been begging for U.S. support since 2004 and only recently got it) is either actively cooperating with the American military or sullenly tolerating what it hopes will be a receding occupation. Across Sunni-dominated parts of Iraq, the United States is helping to build army and police units as well as neighborhood patrols – the Pentagon calls them "concerned citizens" – out of former resistance fighters, with the blessing of tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, and Salahuddin provinces, parts of Baghdad, and areas to the south of the capital. We have met the enemy, and – surprise! – they are friends or, if not that, at least not active enemies. Attacks on U.S. forces in Sunni-dominated areas, including the once-violent hotbed city of Ramadi, Anbar's capital, have fallen dramatically.
Among the hard-core Sunni resistance, there is also significant movement toward a political accord – if the United States were willing to accept it. Twenty-two Iraqi insurgent groups announced the creation of a united front, under the leadership of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top Ba'ath Party official of the Saddam era, and they have opened talks with Iyad Allawi, a secular Shia who was Iraq's first post-Saddam prime minister.
We aren't fighting the Shia. The Shia merchant class and elite, organized into the mostly pro-Iranian Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Islamic Dawa Party, are part of the Iraqi government that the United States created and supports – and whose army and police are armed and trained by the United States. The far more popular forces of Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army aren't the enemy either. In late August, Sadr declared a cease-fire, ordering his militia to stand down; and, since then, attacks on U.S. forces in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq have fallen off very sharply, too. Though recent, provocative attacks by U.S. troops, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, on Sadr strongholds in Baghdad, Diwaniya, and Karbala have caused Sadr to threaten to cancel the cease-fire order, and though intra-Shia fighting is still occurring in many parts of southern Iraq, there is no Shia enemy that justifies a continued American presence in Iraq, either.
And we certainly aren't fighting the Kurds. For decades, the Kurds have been America's (and Israel's) closest allies in Iraq. Since 2003, the three Kurdish-dominated provinces have been relatively peaceful.
We're not exactly fighting al-Qaeda any more either. Despite President Bush's near-frantic efforts to portray the war in Iraq as a last-ditch, Alamo-like stand against Osama bin Laden's army, U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq are having a hard time finding pockets of al-Qaeda to attack these days, though the group still has the power to conduct deadly attacks now and then. In recent weeks, Gen. David Petraeus, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and other authorities have pretty much declared al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) dead and buried. That happy funeral is the result not of brilliant U.S. counterinsurgency efforts, but of the determination of our newfound Sunni allies to exterminate the group. No lesser authority than Gen. Petraeus himself now admits that al-Qaeda has been expelled from every single one of its strongholds in Baghdad. In Anbar province, according to Crocker, "People do feel the weight's off. Al-Qaeda is simply gone."
More after the click ...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Reconstruction efforts in Iraq proceed apace
The largest dam in Iraq is in serious danger of an imminent collapse that could unleash a trillion-gallon wave of water, possibly killing thousands of people and flooding two of the largest cities in the country, according to new assessments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other U.S. officials.
Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. "The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability," in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.
At the same time, a U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $27 million, was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.
The rest following the click ...
My comment:
Potentially 500,000 civilian deaths? Added to the 650,000 already in the ground? And you think they hate us for our freedoms?
Population
US - 301,139,947 (July 2007 Estimate)
Iraq - 27,499,638 (2007 Estimate)
Assuming there's any reality to the 650,000 reported above and another 500,000 potential deaths as a result of this huge infrastructure collapse; that's 1,150,000 deaths or 4% of the total population of the country.
For there to be an equivalent disaster here in the US, we'd be looking at over 12,000,000 people dead. I wonder how we'd feel if someone came to this country, stayed for 4+ years and left 12 Million bodies in their wake?
It's the dictionary definition of a total "clusterfuck"!
clusterfuck
Military term for an operation in which multiple things have gone wrong. Related to "SNAFU" (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up") and "FUBAR" (Fucked Up Beyond All Repair -or- Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition).
In radio communication or polite conversation (i.e. with a very senior officer with whom you have no prior experience) the term "clusterfuck" will often be replaced by the NATO phonetic acronym "Charlie Foxtrot."
As in: "By the time the artillery came in the enemy was already on top of us. It was a total clusterfuck."
So, how do you say "Katrina" in Arabic?
Even in a country gripped by daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the Mosul Dam has alarmed American officials, who have concluded that it could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths by drowning Mosul under 65 feet of water and parts of Baghdad under 15 feet, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub, the dam manager. "The Mosul dam is judged to have an unacceptable annual failure probability," in the dry wording of an Army Corps of Engineers draft report.
At the same time, a U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $27 million, was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.
The rest following the click ...
My comment:
Potentially 500,000 civilian deaths? Added to the 650,000 already in the ground? And you think they hate us for our freedoms?
Population
US - 301,139,947 (July 2007 Estimate)
Iraq - 27,499,638 (2007 Estimate)
Assuming there's any reality to the 650,000 reported above and another 500,000 potential deaths as a result of this huge infrastructure collapse; that's 1,150,000 deaths or 4% of the total population of the country.
For there to be an equivalent disaster here in the US, we'd be looking at over 12,000,000 people dead. I wonder how we'd feel if someone came to this country, stayed for 4+ years and left 12 Million bodies in their wake?
It's the dictionary definition of a total "clusterfuck"!
clusterfuck
Military term for an operation in which multiple things have gone wrong. Related to "SNAFU" (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up") and "FUBAR" (Fucked Up Beyond All Repair -or- Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition).
In radio communication or polite conversation (i.e. with a very senior officer with whom you have no prior experience) the term "clusterfuck" will often be replaced by the NATO phonetic acronym "Charlie Foxtrot."
As in: "By the time the artillery came in the enemy was already on top of us. It was a total clusterfuck."
So, how do you say "Katrina" in Arabic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)