Having already sacrificed its international and domestic political effectiveness to prolong the ill-fated war in Iraq, the White House now stands poised to throw more money at the problem. The ethical and strategic costs of the war in Iraq have always been too great to bear, but the ever-increasing financial costs imperil future American economic solvency.
In a July 11 Wall Street Journal op-ed, writer Kimberly Kagan touted the success of the Iraq surge strategy. Kagan noted, among other supposed triumphs, that the Maliki government had "confronted Muqtada al-Sadr for promoting illegal militia activity, and has apparently prompted this so-called Iraqi nationalist to leave for Iran for the second time since January." While one can perhaps excuse Kagan’s sunny defense of the surge, (the plan was partly devised, after all, by her husband, Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, a fact which the Wall Street Journal did not reveal to readers) the repeated attempts by conservative defenders of Bush’s Iraq policy to dispute Sadr’s nationalist credentials and treat him as an Iranian puppet indicate a real and troubling lack of knowledge of the Iraqi political scene, and of Sadr’s place within it.
Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY) is a member of the House financial and foreign affairs committees. He is also co-chair of the House Dialogue Caucus. Recently he published an op-ed in The Hill on the low U.S. ranking in the Global Peace Index. FPIF contributor Michael Shank interviews him on the reasons for America’s poor showing.
Michael Shank: The recently launched Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Peace Index, which rates countries on their level of peacefulness, ranked the United States 96th out of 121 countries surveyed. Does this come as a surprise to you?
Farideh Hassanzadeh (Mostafavi) is an Iranian poet, translator, and freelance journalist. Her first book of poetry was published when she was 22 years old. Her poems appear in the anthologies Contemporary Women Poets of Iran and Anthology of Best Women Poets. She writes regularly for Golestaneh, Iran News, and many other literary magazines and newspapers. Her poems translated into English appear in Kritya, Jehat, interpoetry, museindia, earthfamilyalpha, and Thanalonline. Her anthology of contemporary American poetry will appear in 2007. You can read her poem Isn’t It Enough? here.
The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).
On February 7, 2007 Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice informed the House Foreign Relations Committee that she had requested 129 military employees to fill State Department positions in support of the President’s new Iraq plan. Officials at the Pentagon, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, bristled at the request—insisting that they had personnel shortages of their own. This vignette may appear to be just another incident of bureaucratic turf battles, yet it has dramatic and far-reaching implications, both for national security and for the U.S. Government. Beneath this tussle lies a first order national security policy dilemma: What should our government’s division of labor be for the post Cold War security environment? And, how should manpower and funding resources be distributed to prepare for this environment?
As we enter our fifth year of occupation, and as Iraq continues to degenerate into sectarian violence and civil war, I think it important that we talk, vet to vet. Real talk, talk from the heart, as we did back in Iraq, in the Nam, in Korea, on the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific. Let us put aside, for a moment, all the bunk we have been fed over the years by those who were not there. You know who I mean. The politicians and war strategists who cavalierly make war, decide tactics, and send us off to fight, bleed, and die for a cause that is uncertain or non-existent. Self-proclaimed "patriots" who, while remaining safe at home, try to convince us that the threat to our way of life – – to America and to freedom – – is real and grave and that the disruption of our lives and the sacrifices we make, and that our brothers and sisters make, are necessary and glorious.
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus talks about the anti-war movement and where we stand today on the cusp of the 4th anniversary of the war. Listen to this interview : mp3 or Windows Media Player Q: March 19th will be the 4th anniversary of the war. Where has the anti-war movement gone since the February 2003 demonstrations which brought out nearly one million people in New York City and around the globe to say no to war with Iraq? Rev. Yearwood: We’ve come in different directions. First thing we recognize is since that day 3,150 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. There are reports of between 500,000-600,000 Iraqis who have died. There are reports that we’ve spent a half-trillion dollars so far fighting this war. We are at a point now where we see a sense of urgency in the anti-war community from the academics to the activists from the street heat to the revolutionary bloggers. There is a sense that if we do not do something at this juncture, especially as we reach the fourth anniversary, that humanity is on line. I’m sure others have felt that way when our world has been at war, in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and others. But this war is different because America is the only superpower. The stakes are raised putting mankind and humankind on the line.