Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Getting to Zero
Having pretty carefully considered the arguments for and against leaving troops in Iraq beyond this year, I ultimately found Doug Ollivant's argument to be the most persuasive. So I support the president's decision to end U.S. military involvement in the war in Iraq. But wars, like history, do not stop when America decides it no longer wants to be involved. This is worth remembering, both in terms of what is taking place in Iraq today as well as what might take place in Afghanistan in 2014. So by all means, say U.S. involvement in the war has ended. But think carefully before saying the war has ended.
U.S. involvement in the Iraq
U.S. involvement in the Iraq war ended?! Surely you jest! Who until recently headed the Central Intelligence Agency? At what august institution does he now hang his hat? Who replaced him in his old job?
This may be the end of *overt* involvement, but it seems to me that this administration's new national defense strategy has been clear for quite some time.
...and note that I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. If we can keep Qods shenanigans sufficiently limited with our counter-shenangians, I think the free world -- Iraq inclusive -- will be better off for it.
"But think carefully before
"But think carefully before saying the war has ended."
Ah, combat operations in Iraq ended on Sep 1, 2010 . Get with the plan, Andrew.
"Decision to end U.S.
"Decision to end U.S. involvement."
That's an interesting way of describing the process of getting your ass booted out, despite months of under-the-table begging of the Iraqi political class for a largely condition-free extension. If Obama had his way, and his vaunted diplomacy was worth a shit, we'd be staying with an extended presence.
Hack much?
Has anyone came out and
Has anyone came out and stated what the aid package will be to the post "combat troop" era in Iraq? Including all the black budgets.
How much aid America puts into a country determines the involvement, not "combat troops".
Have to get the metrics right to see through the hair splitting language politicians use to explain the future.
Recent case study of splitting hairs, Libya. First the US did not have "boots" on the ground, that has morphed into no "military" personnel. Everyone knows US citizens were involved at the ground level, they were civilian employees and contractors paid by the US taxpayer if not directly then through NATO or some other budget that was US funded.
Think it is time for the semantics to end. This administration and America needs some sunshine.
BTW.....The people of Libya took Gaddafi from where they found him at the culvert. They beat him with a boot and harassed him. Then they put him on the hood of a truck. The Libyan crowd took Gaddafi from the hood of the truck and in the process of walking him away, shot him stone cold dead. Gaddafi was not armed and had summit to his captors. Isn't that a war crime?
Is this humanitarian, or just revenge? It is all semantics. The people that got the US involved will get up on their pulpits and tell the world how good they are. After all, these are the same people that have lived their lives pushing Civil and Human Rights at the American public. Well over a billion US dollars spent on Rwanda overcompensating.
There are three videos that show the progression of what happened to Gaddafi.
1) First is this video from GlobalPost. It is at the top of the article and shows Gaddafi alive and well.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/new-videos-piece-together-qa...
2)Second what happened after Gaddafi was put on the hood of the truck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR8v00pfglg
(If you stop frame through the video, it is Gaddafi)
3)Third this is how it ended.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-do386E0ftg
The discussion at the beginning of Libya 17FEB was about whom the US was supporting, I think Americans found out in living color.
I always said that the only people that could find a solution to the ME problems are the people in the ME. America has to tie its hands behind its back which results in major cost of American life and treasure. The strategy used in these wars gives a tremendous amount of leverage to the people that America fights. The alternative erodes who Americans are. America loses either way. America has also lost freedoms and privacy at home.
Exum, we agree. This is not the end, it is just a new chapter.
Where does it stop?
Think it might be time for Americans to focus on America. Looks like the world can take care of it own problems. Young Americans need jobs and older Americans need a graceful end to their lives. Libya and Afghanistan are not America's future.
Both American Republicans and Democrats are in denial. To stop this, someone has to lose politically.
That is the truth of this war.
You are speaking as if it
You are speaking as if it were the US that decided it didn't want to be there. I seem to recall the Iraqis throwing you out despite much protest and pleading. Sour grapes, much?
What did 8 years of war get
What did 8 years of war get us in terms of strategic and policy gains?
To be sure it vaulted into stardom (undeservedly so) certain army generals for being the so called jedi masters of coin. It also got the army stuck in a rut of broken thinking that coin works, which then led to the futile coin-surge in Afghanistan.
It has also contributed to a severe atrophying of combined arms skils in the US Army.
But other than these things, what in a positive strategic and policy sense has 4400 dead and countless billions in treasure gotten us?
I would like to hear from folks like you, Nagl, Ollivant and many others who for the longest times were strident supportes of the coin way, and who glommed on quite effectively to the building coin triumph narrative.
It may be better for the
It may be better for the Administration to present this departure from Iraq as the fulfillment of a promise to the American people, but our leaders should not confuse this with the reality that the Iraqis are calling the shots, not us. As for our commerical and cultural relations, to be handled by a gigantic embassy, we would be wise to take a close look at that brillian idea as well. Just what will those hundreds and hundreds of good folks inside the Green Zone be able to accomplish from their fortress. Is their presence going to make it more attractive for American firms to do business in Iraq? Are they really going to be at the center of the building of cultural relationships in a country where working for [or with] official Americans is still very dangerous?
As for cultural relations, our private and public educational and cultural institutions are already very involved in exchanges and other programs with Iraqis in their respective fields. The professional linkages between specialists is aided by the connection of Iraqi-Americans to both Iraqi and American universities, hospitals and research institutes. Peforming and other artists are also making their own connections. Whatever anti-USG sentiment there is does not extend to the vibrant US culture that is admired, immitated and much in demand. To thrive, though, it must not be tied to the USG.
There are obvious reasons why other countries, such as Turkey, have had an easier time in forging economic ties. Know who owns the popular hamburger chain that has a branch right outside the Green Zone? Iranians.
Well, if youre invading
Well, if youre invading Wasiristan and starting a hot war with Pakistan, then I guess you wont have much time to spare in Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/23/afghanistan-pakistan-us-hami...
The stupid. It hurts.
The U.S. is apparently
The U.S. is apparently keeping a private army on hand in Iraq:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/mission-accomplished-lingering-questions-remain-for-white-house-on-iraq-afghanistan.php
Who is getting paid for this?
http://gulftoday.ae/portal/ad754350-e290-4dad-bb06-ec30cc5b72c0.aspx
So, let's look at the real question here: will these 10,000 eager diplomats and their private army be enough to prevent the Iraqis from re-nationalizing their captured oil and kicking out the likes of Halliburton, Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron and Conoco?
Can you spell:
Can you spell: I-m-p-e-r-i-a-l o-v-e-r-r-e-ac-h???
Lets invade Russia, its always a good idea.
Plus or minus fifteen
Plus or minus fifteen thousand personnel, minimum, in two major base installations is not zero, or not except in the most dire of scenarios.
I'd really like to see Clinton go to the IMF.
With the greatest of respect, I feel a whole of sorrow to see our strength and surplus wealth being used to enforce defacto Inclosure Acts in regions currently not being maximally exploited for revenue streams. Especially when the Big Ether is filled with all the water and light civil society will need for the forseeable future.
It's like fighting over crumbs while ignoring a pot of gold.
Or the corner, like in the Wire.
1. What I hear is that our
1. What I hear is that our negotiators weren't especially interested in dickering over the SOFA.
2. If the Iraqis agreed to extend the existing agreement, fine.
3. If not, we'd get out and the administration could use that for its political ends.
4. If the Iranians turned Sadr loose or began reasserting old claims to the Shat Al Arab or the southern oil fields, we would respond using war reserves stockpiled in Kuwait and elsewhere.
5. Think the Iraqis are wondering what hit them.
6. Not sure supporting the Iraqi Government will be as easy as all that.
7. Some clever folks in the West Wing, tho.
V/R JWest
Gunboat, you bring a good
Gunboat, you bring a good subject to the table.
What IS the State Department mission in Iraq. Ten thousand is one huge staff. They must REALLY be planning to return the profit from that INVESTMENT to Americans.
What is America really getting out of all this? Is the INVESTMENT justified?
Who is looking at this and who decides? I already know who has to pay for it.
The erosion of American democracy is very distasteful.
"It has also contributed to a
"It has also contributed to a severe atrophying of combined arms skils in the US Army."
Which are good for what, exactly? Where are those big Soviet tank armies, again? You want to march on Peking and hoist the Stars and Stripes over the Forbidden City, or something?
The lede, NYT: Occupy
The lede, NYT: Occupy Oakland
There is, please note, an Occupy Orange. Good for them!
My apologies for the string
My apologies for the string of typos that have populated my comments for the last whatever. I will do better.
Edit: That's Orange County, Ca.
I fail to see the lack of reality in the potential offered by near space flight. Isn't it a better investment than killing our neighbors, destroying our ancient cities in war and despoiling the surface of the earth?
Granted, it is not the only place to put our attention... and here I will make something in the nature of a confession. I'm disgusted by the news of current events and have for several days not ventured to explore many of the thoughts that come up even just scanning the headlines and pictures.
I am angry, feel the hurt of the situations I see in pictures and read expressed, and at times feel overwhelmed by the complexity of all that is going on. But I no longer wonder how World War II could have come about. Not any longer. That seems pretty clear.
I need to learn HTML.
Agree with Visitor and
Agree with Visitor and others:
Think it might be time for Americans to focus on America. Looks like the world can take care of it own problems. Young Americans need jobs and older Americans need a graceful end to their lives. Libya and Afghanistan are not America's future.
What were the COINdinistas thinking? How could such occupations ever benefit the U.S.? Oh, but those countries are happy to take our palletized dollars. Those in the higher echelons gung-ho for these operations were feeding at the gravy train, for sure. Meanwhile, our country bleeds,
--Lisa
RangerAgainstWar on October
RangerAgainstWar on October 29, 2011 - 5:43pm
If you want to take the deep dive look at this... http://waysandmeans.house.gov/taxreform/
Think it drives Exum batty when we go off subject, for me one hand washes the other. You have to stop being myopic and put the pieces together, we have to pay for our agenda. Many issues drive the Middle East.
In the NYT today, there was an opinion article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/libyas-forgotten-refuge... about migrant workers in Libya being trapped. If you get into the discussion, the author indicates that through the UN, some of those Libyan workers will be allowed to come to the US. These people are not trapped, they have home countries! Congress just passed $36M in funding for welfare payments to refugees from America's foreign conflicts.
Congress is telling the American people it can no longer afford Social Security? Talk about priorities.
Bottom line. Money does not grow on trees.
Chairman Camp has it backward. Corporate America has finally reached a limit to how many American jobs they can offshore, the profits from off shore operations has been interrupted. Today US Corporations have to pay the same tax no matter where the profit is made. Companies are taxed on the profits made offshore, the tax payments can be differed until the profits come back to the US. This is why we are talking about Corporations holding over a Trillion in profits off shore since the last Congressional deal was cut in 2004 to allow profits to be repatriated at a reduced tax rate. Chairman Camp wants to reform the US tax system and move it to a territorial system.
In a Territorial System, the tax on profit changes depending the country. Camp proposed the highest tax rate to be in CONUS and a 5.25% rate to be paid on off-shore operations. The 5.25% rate would be retroactive to 2004, the year of the last repatriation deal that Congress made. There are some rules that attempt to avoid erosion of tax base in the US (AKA tax havens, like Incorporating in Bermuda or the Caymans, like GOOGLE does to shift income and avoid taxes). These rules that apply to passive income (aka, intellectual property, royalty money on patents), thin capitalization(taking a loan out in the US to fund offshore operations just to get the tax deduction on loan interest), and income shifting (what GOOGLE does as mentioned). These tax base anti-erosion rules are what Chairman Camp is proposing to "keep" jobs in America. There is nothing in Camp's proposals to keep jobs in America, this is a Trojan Horse. The reality is, the creation of intellectual property is shifting off-shore. US Universities are setting up campuses offshore for Corporate research. Industry has Design Centers all over the world. In Camp's legislation "transferring" intellectual property offshore would be penalized. Guys, IP generation IS offshore. Thin Capitalization rules are moot, if you are paying 5.25% offshore taxes, you do not need a tax deduction or US loan. At the tax rates proposed, you do not need to shift Corporate Income. If you look at Camp's legislation from a mile high, the rates are so much lower as compared to the current tax system, there are not incentives to keep jobs in the US. Corporations would have no limits to chasing cheap labor.
We are not going to stop Globalization and off shoring. We can make it work for Americans, America, and the world.
This is what I think should happen with Corporate tax reform. Chairman Camp's reforms should be turned inside out. The highest Corporate tax should be paid on off-shore operations, the lowest should be paid in CONUS. Why? Cost of doing business. Look at what the US government pays to stabilize the world to enable markets. DOD spending is a major expense. Congress is part of the legal team of US corporations, Congress creates free trade treaties. POTUS is GE's salesperson of the year, he changed US law to enable military jet engine sales to India after the mid-term elections and he just enable the sale of GE replacement engines for the Marine helicopters being sold to Turkey. POTUS lobbied India's government to change its laws to enable Duke University to open Campuses and Research Centers in India for Duke's capital generations plans. Secretary of State flies the wings off of jets to stabilize markets through FP. Our State/Federally funded Universities are educating foreign student new hires for Corporate off shore operations, US taxpayers foot the bill. All that spending is off the Corporate Spread Sheet, it costs money.
The further US Corporations do business from Washington, the more it costs to stabilize markets. Corporations would get their low tax rates, in the US. Outside CONUS, the Corporations would pay more to cover expenses of the US government to stabilize Corporate market places. The offshore tax rate could be organic, in that it could be a changing rate to comprehend the social, economic, and political environments in foreign countries. Impact of the cost of living could be normalized faster. Rather than the race to get the cheapest labor, Corporations would be getting the best labor.
Of course Corporations would complain. They are racing to service the five fold population of India/China. The windfall would be for the US government. Still it would be a WIN-WIN. Corporations are free to do business anywhere they would like and they would get a fantastic tax rate in the US.
If Jeffry Immelt, GE's CEO, objects to the higher off shore rates, he can become a Chinese citizen and lobby the Chinas' Communist government for GE's needs.
Like I said turning Chairman Camp's proposal inside out, it is win-win.
BTW.... Exum, your USAID budget get wacked. Funding for helping GI's is thin. Move your thinking a little higher up the brain stem.
Sums it up
Sums it up nicely:
http://public.globecartoon.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/globecartoon.woa/wa/de...
To all, I'm still rather
To all,
I'm still rather confused.We call it a war , or so this thread states. It was free choice. Who are we fighting? The people of Iraq or extremists, often called Terrorists?.If it's terror then where's the threat? Panetta himself said that AQ has no more than 1-200 operatives world wide. So where's the war?
Isn't this more like LIC? Why the hyperbole?
Can one have a war against a noun, or is another country required?
The sky is not falling.
jim at rangeragainstwar
Tell me once again, what was
Tell me once again, what was all that about "Never again"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/libyas-forgotten-refuge...
The 'cost' of war includes the cost to refugees of their former lives, and yet the purported benefits of these actions are described as low in cost.
Visitor on October 30, 2011 -
Visitor on October 30, 2011 - 9:15pm
The 'cost' of war includes the cost to refugees of their former lives, and yet the purported benefits of these actions are described as low in cost.
Lot happens in the background, a lot that Americans either filter out, ignore completely, or are just to wrapped up in their lives to realize. Things like this http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/world/africa/shabab-identify-american-... which is a hang over from the UN operation in Somalia (AKA, Blackhawk Down early 90's. Abdisalan Hussein Ali was 22 years of age, he was about three years old when the UN relocated his family to Minneapolis,MN )
American hire and pay good salaries and benefits to our government employees, think people in government get too involved in their agendas to do what is right for America's future.
I like to help people, in the case of Abdisalan Hussein Ali looks like we put him in the front row of the class room giving him everything in opportunity. Did not help. This is not an isolated case.
For the Libyan refugees, I do not get it. All these people have home countries. When the Egyptians in Libya ended up in Tunisia as refugees early in the conflict, the State Department sent US military planes to transport these Egyptians to Egypt. The Egypt military had cargo planes on the tarmac sitting idle at the time. Since, then Egyptian military has purchase even more cargo planes. Egypt is currently spending some serious money on military equipment contracts. So much has been spent that Egyptians are concerned that the new government will be broke by the time that it is formed. Egypt had the planes and resources to send two cargo planes to Pakistan filled with flood aid. Egypt and the area N. African countries do not have the resources to take care of their citizens in Libya. Huh?
I am confused. Where is the emergency and justification for helping refugees?????
Think it time to change the employes that did this.
Abdisalan Hussein Ali would
Abdisalan Hussein Ali would have been about 11 years of age when his family was moved to Seattle in 2000.
My mistake.
Either way we are currently reliving the past. Did we learn anything?
Seems to be there is a common denominator in our government 1994, 2011.
Who is that? Who is responsible.
Add your comment