Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Confusion of War and Politics
As the mid-term elections draw near, the unavoidable issue is going to be that of the War on Terror (WOT) and the War in Iraq (WII). A lot of people opposed to one or both wars are claiming that there is no connection between the two and that the President misled the country into believing that there was. They are right on the first point, but wrong on the second.
A war is a war, but two wars aren’t always fought for the same reason. During the Cold War, it was the goal of the United States to have the ability to fight two region wars simultaneously. That has never happened until now. People should question the administration’s ability to complete this task because forces have been in reduction since the end of the CW and the first Gulf War.
The War in Iraq has to do with the broken cease fire agreements of the Iraq war. These agreements were arranged with Gen. Swartzkopf and were reinforced with UN resolutions. Hussein broke both of these agreements. He engaged US forces in the No Fly zone, refused to comply with inspections and manipulated the embargoes so that they were ineffective with the aid of other UN partners. Correlations between it and WOT are minimal, regardless of any “selling points” the administration publicly used to begin fighting. US participation in the UN has more to do with W.I.I. than WOT. However, because of the region of the world in which Iraq is part, some goals of the WIT have been achieved in Iraq, most notably the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Of equal importance is the diversion of Al-Qaeda into Iraq, which has diminished the overall strength of the terrorist group.
The Iraqi invasion also serves the War on Terror in other ways. The administration believes that establishing a peaceful democracy in Iraq can serve as an example to other nations and lead to a “domino effect” in the region, particularly in Iran where the younger population is more liberal and western minded than the politicians who lead them.
Iraq also serves as convenient launching point for any future military action needed in the Middle East.
The War on Terror is a response to the attack on American soil in 2001. It is the full utilization of federal assets deployed world wide to stop terrorism and capture terrorists. Afghanistan is seen as the primary front in this war because the US military was deployed there to topple the Taliban government when it refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden. But currently, military presence there is mostly confined to Coalition forces and American Special Forces conducting search and destroy missions against insurgents and stabilizing the new government. But, while military forces are being used to distract terrorists in the Middle East, federal law enforcement and intelligence assets are being used world wide and at home to prevent future homeland attacks. Much remains to be accomplished on this front, particularly in the areas of border and port security.
As the mid-term elections draw near, the unavoidable issue is going to be that of the War on Terror (WOT) and the War in Iraq (WII). A lot of people opposed to one or both wars are claiming that there is no connection between the two and that the President misled the country into believing that there was. They are right on the first point, but wrong on the second.
A war is a war, but two wars aren’t always fought for the same reason. During the Cold War, it was the goal of the United States to have the ability to fight two region wars simultaneously. That has never happened until now. People should question the administration’s ability to complete this task because forces have been in reduction since the end of the CW and the first Gulf War.
The War in Iraq has to do with the broken cease fire agreements of the Iraq war. These agreements were arranged with Gen. Swartzkopf and were reinforced with UN resolutions. Hussein broke both of these agreements. He engaged US forces in the No Fly zone, refused to comply with inspections and manipulated the embargoes so that they were ineffective with the aid of other UN partners. Correlations between it and WOT are minimal, regardless of any “selling points” the administration publicly used to begin fighting. US participation in the UN has more to do with W.I.I. than WOT. However, because of the region of the world in which Iraq is part, some goals of the WIT have been achieved in Iraq, most notably the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Of equal importance is the diversion of Al-Qaeda into Iraq, which has diminished the overall strength of the terrorist group.
The Iraqi invasion also serves the War on Terror in other ways. The administration believes that establishing a peaceful democracy in Iraq can serve as an example to other nations and lead to a “domino effect” in the region, particularly in Iran where the younger population is more liberal and western minded than the politicians who lead them.
Iraq also serves as convenient launching point for any future military action needed in the Middle East.
The War on Terror is a response to the attack on American soil in 2001. It is the full utilization of federal assets deployed world wide to stop terrorism and capture terrorists. Afghanistan is seen as the primary front in this war because the US military was deployed there to topple the Taliban government when it refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden. But currently, military presence there is mostly confined to Coalition forces and American Special Forces conducting search and destroy missions against insurgents and stabilizing the new government. But, while military forces are being used to distract terrorists in the Middle East, federal law enforcement and intelligence assets are being used world wide and at home to prevent future homeland attacks. Much remains to be accomplished on this front, particularly in the areas of border and port security.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Are we going to war with Iran? I think Iran has been challenging us to war for years.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/18/retired-colonel-suggets-we-are-conducting-military-ops-in-iran-right-now/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2006%2F09%2F18%2Fgardiner-iran%2F&frame=true
A major reason for invading Iraq has been to get troops on the ground near Iran. Why Iran? Let’s look at a few reasons.
1. The hostage crisis of November 4, 1979 gave the United States a black eye that has never been avenged. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html
2. The continuous fermenting of Anti-Americanism hatred in the region that began in earnest since the hostage crisis. The effect of this propaganda was evident on September 11, even if Iran was not directly involved.
3. The bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 has the fingerprints of Iran all over it. This time it was a black eye drew blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
4. Suspected support of the Iraqi insurgency and sectarian violence. Iranians are Shiite.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-22-voa75.cfm?CFID=49404147&CFTOKEN=80936622
5. The confirmed use of uniformed military forces in the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. According to the Bush doctrine, action against Iran is now justified.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51191
6. The potential threat of nuclear Iran threatening important oil-suppliers in the Middle East. The administration has been watching this long before the Iraqi invasion. You can bet that surrounding Arab nations are quietly fretting about this as well.
Still, conventional military wisdom suggests that we are long way off from war. It is military infeasible for us to provide an October surprise. But wouldn’t a November 4 attack be a beautiful thing? Tehran will be celebrating their 27th anniversary and we show up to supply the fireworks.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/18/retired-colonel-suggets-we-are-conducting-military-ops-in-iran-right-now/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2F2006%2F09%2F18%2Fgardiner-iran%2F&frame=true
A major reason for invading Iraq has been to get troops on the ground near Iran. Why Iran? Let’s look at a few reasons.
1. The hostage crisis of November 4, 1979 gave the United States a black eye that has never been avenged. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825448.html
2. The continuous fermenting of Anti-Americanism hatred in the region that began in earnest since the hostage crisis. The effect of this propaganda was evident on September 11, even if Iran was not directly involved.
3. The bombing of the Marine barracks in 1983 has the fingerprints of Iran all over it. This time it was a black eye drew blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing
4. Suspected support of the Iraqi insurgency and sectarian violence. Iranians are Shiite.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-22-voa75.cfm?CFID=49404147&CFTOKEN=80936622
5. The confirmed use of uniformed military forces in the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. According to the Bush doctrine, action against Iran is now justified.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51191
6. The potential threat of nuclear Iran threatening important oil-suppliers in the Middle East. The administration has been watching this long before the Iraqi invasion. You can bet that surrounding Arab nations are quietly fretting about this as well.
Still, conventional military wisdom suggests that we are long way off from war. It is military infeasible for us to provide an October surprise. But wouldn’t a November 4 attack be a beautiful thing? Tehran will be celebrating their 27th anniversary and we show up to supply the fireworks.
Military Tribunes and the Geneva Convention as they are applied to terrorists.
Recent rulings by the Supreme Court have troubled me. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/
As a former soldier, I had been repeatedly trained in upholding the Geneva Conventions and one thing I clearly remember is that there are sets of rules that apply to civilians and rules that apply to soldiers. Civilians who engage in acts of war are considered spies or “unlawful combatants.”
The Geneva Convention was enacted to civilize an uncivil act; war. It was assumed that these rules would be applied to nations engaging other nations with armed and uniformed soldiers. Spies and other unlawful combatants are not covered under the GC as prisoners of war, because they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” which is one of the conditions necessary to be covered for treatment as a POW in the GC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Unlawful combatants are criminals of war, and criminals of war have previously been allowed to be subject to military tribunals. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
In EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), there were German soldiers who came into Florida and New York via submarine, then ditched their uniforms in order to blend into society for the purpose of planting explosives. In this case, the court found military tribunals “constitutional” for
1. Violation of the law of war.
2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.
3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.
4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.
Do we see the comparisons? Today, we have in custody, non-uniformed unlawful combatants, often citizens from other countries, who have used explosives to attack local populations and military in addition to coalition forces.
Now I would like to think that the administration had this case in mind when it argued for the military tribunals, but I don’t know why the SC would have reversed its previous decision.
The fact that the Supreme Court is viewing non-combatants differently now in this war says to me that the GC has not been clearly understood by anyone. Why shouldn’t the Bush Administration ask for Congressional clarification of the inhumane treatment clauses of the Geneva Convention if the Supreme Court can’t understand what a non-uniformed combatant is?
Recent rulings by the Supreme Court have troubled me. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/
As a former soldier, I had been repeatedly trained in upholding the Geneva Conventions and one thing I clearly remember is that there are sets of rules that apply to civilians and rules that apply to soldiers. Civilians who engage in acts of war are considered spies or “unlawful combatants.”
The Geneva Convention was enacted to civilize an uncivil act; war. It was assumed that these rules would be applied to nations engaging other nations with armed and uniformed soldiers. Spies and other unlawful combatants are not covered under the GC as prisoners of war, because they do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” which is one of the conditions necessary to be covered for treatment as a POW in the GC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
Unlawful combatants are criminals of war, and criminals of war have previously been allowed to be subject to military tribunals. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1
In EX PARTE QUIRIN, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), there were German soldiers who came into Florida and New York via submarine, then ditched their uniforms in order to blend into society for the purpose of planting explosives. In this case, the court found military tribunals “constitutional” for
1. Violation of the law of war.
2. Violation of Article 81 of the Articles of War, defining the offense of relieving or attempting to relieve, or corresponding with or giving intelligence to, the enemy.
3. Violation of Article 82, defining the offense of spying.
4. Conspiracy to commit the offenses alleged in charges 1, 2 and 3.
Do we see the comparisons? Today, we have in custody, non-uniformed unlawful combatants, often citizens from other countries, who have used explosives to attack local populations and military in addition to coalition forces.
Now I would like to think that the administration had this case in mind when it argued for the military tribunals, but I don’t know why the SC would have reversed its previous decision.
The fact that the Supreme Court is viewing non-combatants differently now in this war says to me that the GC has not been clearly understood by anyone. Why shouldn’t the Bush Administration ask for Congressional clarification of the inhumane treatment clauses of the Geneva Convention if the Supreme Court can’t understand what a non-uniformed combatant is?
