Iraq on The Huffington Post

Richard Allen Smith: Afghanistan: A Broken Promise to Military Families

2009-12-03T18:27:00Z

For the last several years, our Armed Forces have been plagued by a lack of what is known as dwell time -- the amount of time Soldiers have at home with their families between deployments. In 2008, I was personally assured by an Obama campaign surrogate that dwell time would be increasing under Obama's military leadership. Even in January of this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates assured military families that they would have more time together before sending their loved ones back to combat:

WASHINGTON -- Combat troops should get 15 months home for every 12 months deployed by October, and 30 months dwell time by October 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates said the anticipated drawdown in Iraq and planned growth in Army and Marine Corps should allow commanders to give servicemembers longer dwell time.

And even as late as Tuesday, the day of the President's speech outlining his plan to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in the next six months while not increasing the pace of withdrawal from Iraq, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen stated that this would not have an effect on dwell time:

Deployment lengths for U.S. servicemembers will remain about the same - seven months for Marines, and 12 months for soldiers. With the planned reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq to 50,000 by August 2010, Mullen said he doesn't expect an adverse affect on dwell time - the time between deployments. Dwell time will increase slightly for Marines over the next year and for soldiers over the next two years, he said.

And in fact, directly after the President's speech, I personally spoke with a senior White House official who informed me that all of the service chiefs had reviewed this strategy and that no adverse effects on dwell time were anticipated.

So is everyone good on that time line? In 2008 during the campaign, in January right after the inauguration, the day before the speech, and directly after the speech military families were assured that their time with their loved ones would not be lessened as a result of this already questionable strategy.

Well, VoteVets.org didn't buy into that math, and it appears that was for good reason:

The build up also will put more strain on troops by giving them less time than hoped for at home. Mullen said supplying the extra forces for Afghanistan while there are still so many in Iraq will mean putting off for a couple of years the goal of lengthening the time they rest and retrain at home in between tours of duty -- a period the military calls "dwell time." The Army had been moving toward giving two years of dwell time between each one-year tour.

That's from Congressional testimony yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Afghanistan strategy, spoken the day after Mullen told us dwell time would be increasing and a few hours after the White House assured me that this policy would have no adverse affect on dwell time.

Reacting to Admiral Mullen's testimony, Iraq War Veteran and VoteVets.org Chairman Jon Soltz voiced his own concerns:

This is just one of the troubling consequences of the Obama strategy for Afghanistan. Can we really guarantee Dwell Time for troops at least equal to the length of their deployments? What about ending Stop Loss, or not using the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), or mobilizations that are no longer than 12 months for the National Guard and Reserve? All of those could be in jeopardy. These concerns are why VoteVets.org can't endorse this strategy. The math doesn't add up, and Admiral Mullen's testimony raises more concerns and questions than answers.

Admiral Mullen's testimony simply illustrates that the concerns voiced in the aftermath of the Command-in-Chief's speech by VoteVets.org are real, legitimate and valid. The question, on this issue, now becomes whether the effect on dwell time is an isolated issue, or the first in the force sustainability card house to fall with 12-month deployments and an end to stop-loss tumbling after. The President and his national security apparatus made a promise to America's military families, and those families deserve to have the promise kept.

Iraqi Women Forced Into Sex Slavery

2009-12-02T16:42:42Z

Rising numbers of Iraqi women are being sold into sexual slavery every year because of the waning economy and dire security situation.

Oliver Willis: 9/11? Yes, 9/11.

2009-12-02T03:05:19Z

One of the more troubling reactions from the left that I saw during President Obama's speech about our Afghanistan policy was this utter and absolute nonsense that Obama was somehow invoking the spirit of George W. Bush by discussing our Afghan strategy and 9/11.

I dunno, maybe its due to years and years of Rudy Giuliani's noun-verb construction or the simplistic, numb language of George W. Bush beating the common sense out of our ears, but it is as clear as can be that the reason we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11. The connection of Afghanistan to 9/11 is legions away from the made-up Iraq to 9/11 connection. Afghanistan and 9/11 are as linked for all time as closely as Tokyo is connected to December 7, 1941.

We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.

Again, these things are clear. Not a single characterization of them by President Obama deviated from what we all saw.

I supported Obama for many reasons, but for me, personally, the primary reason was that George W. Bush failed to fight the war against terrorism -- specifically the Al Qaeda network -- in any competent manner. Al Qaeda's stated desire to hurt and cripple the country -- stated time and again by Bin Laden and his lieutenants -- demands a strong and clear response from us. Basically from the standoff at Tora Bora until now, the response to this challenge has been mush.

It makes me feel weird, but in this instance I see many on the left absolutely playing to the stereotypes of the right. If we simply withdraw, this does not keep us safer. Just because George W. Bush royally screwed up as commander-in-chief, it doesn't mean that America never fights again. Afghanistan isn't Iraq. This isn't about imaginary weapons of mass destruction, or a terror "connection" that's the fevered dream of a hack Weekly Standard writer. Suicide bombers hit in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania directly based on the orders and finances of the people we're after in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border region.

I am not someone who is a kneejerk supporter of war and military action, but I feel that when we or our allies are under threat or have been attacked, we often need to respond militarily with a clear set of stated goals and an exit plan. The whole reason I didn't support the war in Iraq but support the war in Afghanistan is based on how each conflict meets the test.

Obama made great pains to point out that for the war party on the right that this was not a blank check, this would not be an echo of that ridiculous Iraq plan Bush put out that just said "Victory!" on every page. In order to fight war, Obama has made clear that he seeks to emulate the successful strategies of Presidents like Lincoln and Roosevelt. We aren't increasing troop strength in Afghanistan to satisfy John McCain or Charles Krauthammer. We're doing it in order to finish the crap job of the President they supported for almost a decade.

If you don't support increasing the amount of troops, that is a fine and patriotic position to have -- though I vehemently disagree with it -- but folks on the left have got to quit rewriting history by pretending Obama is somehow suddenly a hawk on the Afghanistan situation. Similarly, the connection between 9/11 and Afghanistan isn't simply the rhetorical flourish of a leader, but stuff that actually exists. Those making honest arguments in opposition to the President's policy should adhere to the reality-based school of argument.

I think the President spoke to us as adults about the single biggest security threat to the country, an issue on par with the economy in relation to its importance (an economic recovery is no good if we don't have our way of life). I think he made, finally, a clear case about this threat and our solution to it that he plans to implement. I think at the end of the day this is how to clean up the mess left for us by the previous administration, while also doing what is in our power to defend ourselves and our allies.

Oliver Willis blogs daily at OliverWillis.com

Tom Gregory: Obama To Bring Troops Home!

2009-12-02T00:53:37Z

(Reuterz: West Point, NY)

Speaking before a fully-packed audience of uniformed mandatory attendees, President Obama announced that he will deploy 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan, promising to bring them home just in time to vote in the next presidential election.

A White House spokesperson said "Bringing troops home always plays well with the voters, but in order to do that, we need to send them somewhere first."

The deployment is estimated to cost taxpayers $30 Billion -- roughly the same as bailing out Goldman Sachs.

Citing the 9/11 attacks, The President emphasized that winning in Afghanistan is absolutely crucial if we are "to learn from the lessons history has taught us."

Apparently not his best subject, Mr. Obama failed to mention that history also teaches us that everyone who has tried this before -- including the Russians, the British, the Ottomans, Alexander The Great, and Genghis Khan- all failed miserably.

Obama Met With Journalists Before West Point Speech: 'Americans Are Right To Be Concerned'

2009-12-01T23:45:36Z

Obama, speaking with a group of columnists and reporters at a White House lunch today, conceded that Americans "are right to be concerned" about the additional expense of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. "But that's not how I make decisions. If I were basing my decisions on polls, then the banking system might have collapsed and you probably wouldn't have GM or Chrysler, and it's not clear that the economy would be growing again."

...The hour-long discussion was on the record, but we attendees agreed to embargo the content...

Paul Rieckhoff: The Forgotten Cost of War: Caring for Veterans

2009-12-01T21:54:11Z

President Obama has finally laid out his strategy for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he did so without using the word "veteran" and without articulating any back-end support for our returning troops. In typical fashion, we've heard the media's talking heads ask: Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam? Why only 30,000 troops? Will the exit strategy embolden the Taliban?

And now, the politics and policy of the new strategy have been broken down into predictable soundbite-sized morsels by the partisans and pundits. But few have focused on how the Administration plans to support those 30,000 troops when they return home. Nor have we heard much talk of their families who won't be on planes to Afghanistan, but are still making sacrifices every day on the home front. These are the brave Americans responsible for executing this new plan or waiting for a knock on the door that they pray will never come.

President Obama's plan will significantly increase the demands on our service members, almost 800,000 of whom have already served multiple tours. The propeller-heads in Washington have crunched the numbers determining how much it will cost to send these new forces to the front. But I'm not at all convinced that they've done the back-end planning that's necessary for a complete war plan; one that cares for these troops when they come home. As we saw with the implementation of the new GI Bill, failing to plan is planning to fail. If the President doesn't plan adequately now, Walter Reed will only be the beginning of a decades-long national embarrassment of failing to care for our nation's veterans and their families.

The only way to avoid another round of heartache, disappointment and frustration is to guarantee that our returning troops will receive the full support of the president, Congress, the Department of Defense, the VA and the American people (a critical spoke on this wheel that has been neglected for far too long).

We can start by ensuring that every service member receives the resources they need when they come home. This doesn't mean a welcome home parade, although that's always a nice gesture. It means leaders in Washington that don't live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue stepping up right now. Congress must send the VA health care budget to the president immediately. As of tonight's address, the VA budget is already 61 days late.

But Congress cannot stop there. The outdated and ineffective military and VA disability systems that leave hundreds of thousands of veterans waiting for claims to be processed must be reformed. And during these trying economic times, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that every veteran can find employment and a place to call home.

Finally, President Obama must find a way to fully engage all Americans in supporting and advocating for all those who've served -- regardless of how they feel about the war. America's foreign policy cannot succeed without these heroes, and their return home won't succeed without us.

Crossposted at www.IAVA.org.

Michael Brenner: Obama at West Point

2009-12-01T21:04:37Z

Dishonesty in Washington at high levels has become like poverty in India. Just when you think you've seen the very bottom, you discover yet a lower level of degradation. After the Bush years of outright lies and systematic deception, we now have Obama plumbing new depths as he tortures the very language itself. 1984 here we are. Escalation is withdrawal; establishing a protectorate wherein the United States runs the government behind a nominal Afghan façade is "not nation-building;" a facsimile of a British style native state under the Raj is transmuted into self-determination.

Then there is the troubling choice of the West Point Military Academy as venue for this historic address. There is only one place for the President of the United States to speak to the citizenry on a matter of war and peace -- it is the White House. It is -- along with the Congress -- the cynosure of our collective political identity, the repository of our democratic compact. We, as citizens, are all there -- equal members of the republic. Choosing a military venue adds nothing in terms of legitimacy, of dedication to the country, of the supposed conviction of the words being spoken. The trappings of physical might, as opposed to the symbols of authority, are more suitable to tin pot tyrants and megalomaniac emperors.

"As your Commander-in-Chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service." Obama owes that to the American people as their president -- beyond whatever he owes the troops.

Our soldiers are to be honored -- as we do in every war we fight. We should always remember, though, that they are citizen-soldiers. Every one of them -- cadet, NCO, four star general or volunteer GI -- is above all a citizen. That is their one overriding and enduring identity in the tragic drama that is war. There is no greater glory; there is no greater status. An American army is of the people, by the people, for the people. Nothing less, nothing more. True, these days the 'by' must be qualified. What these volunteers are called upon to do is exceptional since it is not shared by all of their fellow Americans. That unfortunate truth, though, does not reduce the primacy of what being a citizen soldier is and what that means. Sad to say, this core principle of our country has eluded Mr. Obama.

As for the speech itself, there is no point is dissecting further this exercise in sophistry. If Americans are so disengaged from reality and so credulous that they're ready to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, that war is peace, that the very essence of America is at stake in the Hindu Kush, then no commentary can change things. Still, for the sake of the record -- even if purely historical -- allow me to make a few points that perhaps have wider relevance.

The belief that we calibrate a war in an intricate, multi-layered situation such as that in Afghanistan and Pakistan is pure self-delusion. Unhappily, this hubris is widespread in Washington policy circles. Faith says that we can fine-tune interventions. Send in 'X' number of troops for 'X' number of months, re-jigger the military/civilian teams, manipulate the native politicians, then do a reassessment and adjust the modalities.

The real world simply doesn't permit experimental occupations. There are dynamics that deny us those luxuries. Dynamics at home, dynamics in the military, dynamics in country 'A,' dynamics in the region, etc. As one cynical commentator sourly remarked: "I sometimes think that when adolescents addicted to computer games grow up they become counter-insurgency experts." That caricature is unfair to a corps of able and dedicated persons who have taken on onerous responsibilities. Still, it is no more inaccurate than postulating an ability to calibrate -- and recalibrate -- strategy/tactics for controlling the affairs of places like Afghanistan and Pakistan (not to speak of Iraq where we are being tossed out by a government on intimate terms with Tehran).

Obama is high on the intoxicating conceit that he can talk himself into anything and out of anything. His one strong conviction is that he is smarter, and superior all around, to us lesser mortals. At West Point, he sought not only to delude the American people but also to delude friends and foes alike that they should listen only to that part of the message directed at them. They are not so stupid.

Any course on foreign policy and diplomacy in a respectable university highlights the dangers of addressing multiple audiences at once. The messages interfere with each other. Yet the New York Times of Nov. 26 ran a long story on how the White House was planning to try and do exactly that. Leaking their clever scheme in advance seemed based on the idea that only Americans with high security clearances have access to the NYT during Thanksgiving week. Time for the White House to get off the Marrakech Express.

How does a great nation with hallowed democratic institutions reach this nadir of public discourse? A meaningful answer requires plumbing the depths of an increasingly atomized society and frivolous political culture. There, we will find the underlying causes. The more proximate, necessary cause clearly is 9/11. We never have recovered our bearings from that trauma. To illuminate the point, let's consider two historical 'might have beens.'

One, if the FBI had been minimally competent, the plot would have been nipped in the bud. Reports from senior agents in two states that non-citizens from the Middle East were taking flying lessons and uninterested in take-off or landing were ignored by the numbskulls at headquarters in Washington. Had they had their heads screwed on, no dramatic attacks, no horror, no American craving for vengeance. Let's be honest with ourselves. It is that thirst for retribution that is crucial to understanding Afghanistan (I & II) as well as Iraq, Somalia, etc. I find it inconceivable that we otherwise would have mustered the audacious will or so numbed our brains so as to launch those adventures. I believe that logic would have held even though al-Qaeda would have had considerably greater coherence and capability than do the scattered bands in the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands today.

Two, if General Franks had nabbed Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora instead of contemplating his early retirement and fat book contract, our hunger for justice would have been appeased. Osama's corpse would have sufficed. Again, the remnants of his organization likely would have retained greater capacity than they have now, but our lust for vengeance and desire for absolute security would have been dulled.

Those are the vagaries of history. Our responsibility is to resist being made hostage to them.

Muntadhar Al-Zeidi, Iraqi Shoe-Thrower, Has Shoe Thrown At Him (VIDEO)

2009-12-01T14:29:39Z

PARIS (Associated Press) — The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush in Baghdad last year had a taste of his own medicine Tuesday when he nearly got beaned by a shoe thrower at a news conference in Paris.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi ducked and the shoe hit the wall behind him.

"He stole my technique," al-Zeidi later quipped.

The identity of the new shoe-thrower – and his motivation – weren't immediately clear, but he appeared to be an Iraqi. It was not known if the intruder was a journalist or just pretended to be one to attend the news conference at a center for foreign reporters.

Whatever his motive, the confrontation didn't stop there.

Al-Zeidi's brother, Maithan, chased the attacker in the audience and – what else? – pelted him with a shoe as he left the room.

Muntadhar al-Zeidi, a TV reporter, became a hero to many opponents of the Iraq war when he hurled his shoes at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in December 2008 while shouting: "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq." Al-Zeidi was quickly wrestled to the ground by security guards, then imprisoned for nine months before being released in September.

The Paris news conference was held so he could talk about his experiences.

WATCH:

Belleruth Naparstek: More Troops, More Rotations, More PTSD: Will Positive Psychology Save Our Soldiers?

2009-12-01T09:07:59Z

Recently the Department of Defense decided to introduce Positive Psychology to our
active military in Iraq and Afghanistan, in
hopes of reducing the incidence of PTSD.

Positive Psychology focuses on things like authenticity, productivity,
creativity, altruism, gratitude and connection with community, instead of
targeting symptoms and pathology. The idea is to build on strengths.

So you do things like write down 3 things that went well each day and try to
assess why. You identify and ponder personal strengths and see how they can
contribute to the Whole. Exercises like these are worthwhile for corporate team
building and personal growth.

But do they have the mojo to counter the profound soul loss, despair,
terror, grief, fury and deep disorientation that comes from the horrors of
combat? That’s a leap. I don’t see how. War assaults
identity, sense of safety and reason. In asymmetric war, where civilians
may or may not be the enemy, it undermines the mores and ethics that formed us
by creating impossible choices.

The gains from positive self-talk and reframing negative perceptions are
bound to fragment along with that first terrifying IED blast that blows up a
friend’s legs and all sense of justice along with it.

So, yes, there’s research showing this approach has been good for middle
school kids and teenagers suffering from iffy self-esteem, adolescent angst and
hormonal doldrums. It’s reduced depression in a self-selected study of
online volunteers. But as far as I know, it’s not been shown to make a
dent on posttraumatic stress, especially the soul-killing kind that comes from
the horrors of combat.

PTSD sits in the primitive, survival-based structures of the brain and
nervous system. Even deep-dish talk therapy barely touches it, because
it's the wrong chunk o' brain involved. PTSD is the result of perceived
threat to life and limb, so we're on the turf of the reptilian brain stem and
mid-brain. It deals in perception, sensation, images, emotion and muscular
reactivity. That’s why guided imagery and hypnosis can reach it. So can certain
kinds of acupoint tapping and body work. But talking and thinking?
Not so much. And by definition, Positive Psychology is Talking
& Thinking, Lite. It’s designed that way.

When I discussed the whys of this choice with a Pentagon official who was
present at the meetings where the decision was made to use Positive Psychology,
it was explained to me that PP was not seen as something to treat PTSD
sufferers. Rather they hoped this would be a skill set troops could learn
pre-deployment, in hopes of increasing their resiliency and thus mitigate the
likelihood of acquiring PTSD later.

Now, $120 million is a hefty price tag for an intervention with no specific
track record for either a military population or for PTSD prevention -
especially one that doesn't get up close and personal to those critical
primitive brain structures. Indeed, this method barely air-kisses the
neocortex.

The V.A., on the other hand, has been pretty risk averse, getting behind
only a few things at the official level: Prolonged Exposure Therapy and a
few related protocols grounded in cognitive behavioral technique. (PET is based
on learning theory, where overblown survival responses are extinguished through
sheer repetition in a safe setting.)

These techniques are often effective when completed, but (1) they’re labor
intensive; (2) it’s hard to avoid dropouts, because of the initial distress
they create in the first few sessions; (3) they require 8-12 weeks with a
specially trained therapist – rare in many parts of the country; (4) they’re
met with reluctance by many V.A. therapists, who find it unnecessarily harsh on
the patient; and (5) they’re avoided by most service people, because it’s
counseling, after all.

Yet this is what the pre-Shinseki V.A. has been pressing staff and patients
to use. Even EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization & Reprocessing), which has
been well researched and which gets pretty decent results for a substantial
number of traumatized people, (and often without the distress catalyzed by
PET), did not make the very short list of officially endorsed therapies at the
V.A.

This is not to say, by the way, that front line V.A. practitioners aren’t
doing inventive, effective, creative new work, because they are – all over the
place. They’re a font of new wisdom and methodology. But their work is not
officially endorsed and it’s therefore inconsistent and scattered.

My fear is that the DoD, which is doing its best to break out of the mold,
even if with a less than ideal choice, will get blowback from trying the
Feckless New and run screaming back to the Feckless Old. And the V.A.
will see what’s going on over there and feel justified in its caution.

That would be a shame. There are a lot of effective, portable,
user-friendly, self-administered, uncomplicated, inexpensive protocols going
on, thanks to those clinical pioneers at the V.A., as well as at Walter Reed
and Bethesda Naval Hospital.
They’re using biofeedback, guided imagery, Healing Touch, meditation, hypnosis
and several EMDR-like acupoint tapping protocols.

Let's hope someone who decides these things is paying attention and is not
easily discouraged. The right methods exist. There’s even some
research on them. We can use what we know right now to cobble together some
effective treatment combinations, even as we’re learning how to do it all better,
faster, simpler.

And if I’m wrong about Positive Psychology and it turns out that it does
manage to inoculate our troops against getting PTSD, I’ll be very surprised,
but genuinely thrilled.

Rep. Hinchey: Bush Administration 'Intentionally Let bin Laden Get Away' In Order To Justify Iraq War

2009-11-30T19:28:21Z

On Monday afternoon, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) told MSNBC host David Shuster that the Bush administration "intentionally let bin Laden get away" in order to justify the Iraq war.

Hinchey is from a historically Republican district (though it includes Democrat-heavy in places like Woodstock and Ithaca) and his statement seemed to shock Shuster.

"Look what happened. Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan. How we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away. How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al Qaeda."

Hinchey alleged that bin Laden was let go because "the previous administration... knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."

Shuster, incredulous, pushed back: "You really believe that?"

"Oh, there's no question about that because the leader of the military operation in the United States called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda because there was a sense that they didn't want to capture him."

Shuster began talking over Hinchey: "You can accuse them of malfeasance, you can accuse them of dropping the ball, of having an awful plan, and all of them would be justified, but to suggest that they would deliberately let, deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away so they could justify the war in Iraq... That will strike a lot of people as crazy."

Hinchey leaned back and smiled wrily. "I don't think it'll strike a lot of people as crazy. I think it'll strike a lot of people as very accurate."

He continued to explain his reasoning, but MSNBC ended his segment. Watch the video below:

In 2007, Hinchey was on the Colbert Report's "Better Know a District" in which Colbert told him "you are known as a man who does not take any guff."

Meet the congressman below:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Better Know a District - New York's 22nd - Maurice Hinchey

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

U.S. Speedskating

Nick Mills: Afghanistan And Pottery Barn

2009-11-30T17:46:21Z

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell claims he never used the term "Pottery Barn rule" in his cautionary remarks about going to war in Iraq. Powell says he told President Bush, "...once you break [Iraq], you are going to own it, and we're going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us. And it's going to suck up a good 40 to 50 percent of the Army for years." (What's more, it turns out that Pottery Barn does not have a "you-break-it-you-own-it" policy.)

Powell's warning may now be applied to Afghanistan, which was already a broken nation when we arrived in late 2001 but of which we quickly assumed ownership. The big questions now, it seems to me, are, what does that ownership mean in terms of our obligation to Afghanistan? Are we stuck with it ad infinitum? What does our warranty cover? We still have a lot of troops in Iraq, and now Afghanistan is going to "suck up" another large percentage of our fighting forces. We would do well to ask, Is it worth it?

For one thing, the Afghan people have a serious aversion to foreign ownership. While they were almost universally grateful to us for giving the boot to the Taliban (who, by the way, were largely the creation of another foreign power, the Pakistanis, and bankrolled by still another, Osama bin Laden), now the rank-and-file Afghan despises our army of occupation. "Didn't you learn anything from the Soviet Union's experience?" they ask. The Soviet army of occupation was actually less an alien presence than the Western armies, made up as it was of thousands of Muslim conscripts from the neighboring 'stans.

The American army has even less kinship with the Afghans. Virtually every communication between our troops and the people they are supposed to be defending has to be filtered through a translator, often of doubtful ability and even loyalty. That lesson was illustrated by a recent PBS Frontline documentary. As American forces moved into an Afghan village with a mandate to befriend the population and interact with them, all the residents moved out, under orders from the Taliban. The U.S. troops were left to befriend a vacant market village. Their frustration was visible as an officer tried to question, through an interpreter, a group of Afghan men, asking over and over "Where are the Taliban?" and, getting no answers, lost his temper. The American soldier was sincere, he was earnest, but he had no understanding of the people he claimed to be helping, and their culture and traditions were impenetrable to him. In their eyes he was a hopeless fool, not worth talking to in any language.

There is also the question of the Afghans' own commitment. The training of the Afghan National Army, and especially of the police, has lagged far behind the expectations of our planners - who understand the Afghans about as well as the soldier did. The ANA soldiers don't really like fighting against other Afghans, and that is who the Taliban are, largely; their officers siphon off half their pay; and they are hedging their bets on who is going to be the eventual winner in Afghanistan. Once the Western armies leave - and we will, sooner or later - the Taliban's top targets will then be the ANA soldiers. And a job on the police force is simply an opportunity for enrichment through bribes, protection rackets and extortion.

Finally, there is President Hamid Karzai. As one "old Afghan hand" noted recently, the very fact that Karzai was elected (a word whose meaning was pretzeled in the August poll) makes him illegitimate in the eyes of many Afghans. There is simply no tradition of elected leaders in Afghanistan. If you are strong, you lead. If you are less strong, you follow. And Karzai seems to have shown the world conclusively over the past eight years he simply doesn't have the strength to lead the Afghans, a historically fractious bunch who are tougher than two-dollar steaks.

As I noted in a recent debate at Boston University, the great conundrum of our efforts in Afghanistan is, the more we try to fight for the Afghans, the more we seem to fight against them. There are ways to help the Afghans, but occupying their country with an army isn't one of them.

Harry Shearer: Was The Surge Just A Fig Leaf?

2009-11-30T16:57:53Z

As the stage is being set for an “AfPak Surge,” it might be time to take a look at Surge 1.0, in the now-forgotten war (the one we barged into when we forgot the Afghan War, which we’re now remembering), the one in Iraq. What we’ve been told incessantly, especially by Republicans, is that “the surge worked.” What exactly does that mean?

Let’s look at it for a moment with a cynical eye, the one possessed by politicians and satirists alike. The surge encompassed a rapid infusion of American troops, simultaneously accompanied by a short-term program of paying off Sunni insurgents to switch sides. What was supposed to happen was that the job of paying off the Sunnis would eventually transfer to the Shiite government, which would enroll the former insurgents in the national army and police. Meanwhile, peace would ensue, and we could withdraw.

What we’ve known for some time is that the Iraqi government wasn’t keeping up its end of the deal, that is, it was refusing to integrate the Sunnis into national forces. Now comes a report from the Sunday Times of London (owned by Rupert Murdoch) that says the southern city of Basra, famously cleaned up by a government surge last year, is now experiencing the return of militia members, who spent the intervening months chilling in Iran. The result: targeted killings of people, like translators, who worked with the British (who centered their operations in Basra).

So what was the real purpose of the surge, the real success? To act as a convenient fig leaf to cover our withdrawal of troops, perhaps? And leaving the following administration to reap the political splashback if renewed chaos ensues?

Would that be the real nature of the plan President Obama is announcing this week, Surgeleaf 2.0?

Read more: Basra, The Surge, Afghanistan, Iraq, World News

Supreme Court Rules Against ACLU In Case Of Detainee Abuse Photos

2009-11-30T11:13:10Z

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeals court ruling ordering the disclosure of photographs of detainees being abused by their U.S. captors.

In doing so Monday, the high court cited a recent change in federal law that allows the pictures to be withheld.

Chilcot Inquiry: Tony Blair Says Lord Goldsmith Was Not Bullied Into Declaring Iraq Invasion Legal

2009-11-30T10:38:33Z

Tony Blair has denied a claim that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, was "bullied" into declaring that the invasion was legal.

Czech Republic: Iraq Planned Rocket Attack On Radio Free Europe

2009-11-30T09:25:31Z

PRAGUE — Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime planned to use an anti-tank rocket to attack the U.S.-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Prague, the Czech Republic's counterintelligence service said Monday.

Iraqi spies posing as diplomats were supposed to have carried out the attack, from a window of an apartment building near the radio's location in downtown Prague, the Czech Security Information Service, or BIS, said in a statement.

Mysterious 'Saddam Channel' Hits Iraq TV

2009-11-29T12:18:50Z

BAGHDAD — Turning on their TVs during the long holiday weekend, Iraqis were greeted by a familiar if unexpected face from their brutal past: Saddam Hussein.

The late Iraqi dictator is lauded on a mysterious satellite channel that began broadcasting on the Islamic calendar's anniversary of his 2006 execution.

Saddam Was Telling Truth In Missing Gulf War Pilot

2009-11-29T08:49:25Z

WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein was telling the truth, this time. The United States just didn't believe him.

So it took the most powerful military in the world 18 years to find the remains of the only U.S. Navy pilot shot down in an aerial battle in the 1991 Gulf War.

Norm Stamper: Lieberman's Right on Fort Hood

2009-11-26T16:04:19Z

I have a hard time looking at or listening to Joe Lieberman.

I know this is my problem. If I agreed with the man's politics, I'd likely view his smirking mien, his habit of droning and whining, even that occasional Alfred E. Newman grin with something resembling affection. But Lieberman's behavior from after the 2000 presidential campaign to the present is riddled with hypocrisy, and defiance of his own much-vaunted "conscience." In 2006, for example, he advocated a "MediChoice" system that would "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national health-insurance pool like...members of Congress have." What is that, if not a public option? So bitter is Lieberman at Democrats, and disrespectful of the American people, that when campaigning for John McCain he actually declared Sarah Palin fit to be president.

Yet, when it comes to the Fort Hood slayings, Joe Lieberman is spot on.

The murderous outburst of Major Nidal Hasan was an unambiguous act of terrorism. It's appropriate and necessary for Lieberman as chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee (please deal with that, Harry Reid) to find out why this particular terrorist was tolerated within the ranks of the U.S. Army. Hasan had for some time exchanged e-mails with the extremist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, prescribed violent medicine for "infidels," and been found guilty by his peers and superiors of poor judgment and incompetence. And, possibly, mental illness.

Consider this simple Dashboard definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Whether Major Hasan was in need of the very services he was trained by his employer (us) to provide, or simply had his eye on avoiding service in Iraq there can be little doubt about his motive to hurt and frighten for political purpose.

Violent criminals are often driven by multiple motives: to exact revenge, rub out one's competition, gain notoriety, send a message of dominance (all motives, incidentally, of narco-terrorists).

We'll learn more about Major Hasan in the coming weeks and months, but it's entirely possible he killed (1) to avenge the religiously offensive treatment he claims to have suffered at the hands of the military; (2) to promote a radical religious agenda; (3) to keep himself from being shipped off to the Middle East, whether as a political statement or an act of cowardice. What difference does it make? His implicit goal was to harm and intimidate in furtherance of a political agenda.

And so what if that agenda was more personal than political? Think of a suicide bomber whose motive is not so much in service to Allah but rather to prove himself to his family, or to gain sympathy from a love interest who's spurned his advances. Think of a homegrown murderer whose anger at his boss or coworkers leads to mass killings. The ultimate goal, twisted and nuanced as it may be, is to call attention to perceived workplace injustices, in part by scaring the hell out of people.

"Political aims" need not be confined to broad or grand domestic or international or religious themes. Indeed, we're taught to think global, act local as a form of pragmatic politics. Violence aimed at perceived workplace inequities is terrorism, a label I'd also stretch to fit the act of a murderous husband who opens fire at his estranged partner's downtown law firm. Likewise, more transparently, the killing of an abortion doctor.

Lieberman is right to question how Major Nidal Hasan's threats, reflecting a radical and violent interpretation of the Qur'an, were tolerated for years by the Army, and perhaps by the FBI. He's right to demand answers to why the copious collection of dots in this case were never connected.

Iraqi Elections Unlikely To Happen By Constitutional Deadline

2009-11-26T15:29:31Z

Even with an agreement, the election is now unlikely to occur by a constitutional deadline in January; it could slip into February, or beyond. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki warned on Thursday that any further delay in holding the vote would put the country "at grave risk."

Steve Clemons: Thankful That Obama Has Helped Make Dissent And Debate Patriotic And Safe Again

2009-11-26T13:29:45Z

Arianna Huffington asked me (and a sizable gaggle of her other pals) to write something up for Thanksgiving. What am I thankful for? What moves me on Thanksgiving?

My significant other lets me know regularly how lucky we are to have our health, a couple of nice homes, jobs that pay reasonably well, friends and dogs who love us, family that we seem closer to each year, and causes that we are passionate about.

But he tells me this because I'm not often thinking about how great or not things are close to home. I know that there are many on the jobless rolls right now -- and I think about them a lot. I know there are folks losing their homes and it really frustrates me to read in contrast about Wall Street's recent huge rebound. I know there are lonely people -- with no connections to their communities, families, and without friends. I know a lot of sick people with marginal or no health care.

I can't stop thinking about these down trends from the American good life -- and I worry about the macro challenges facing the country, our political system, and our new and fascinating President.

I am grateful that we have Barack Obama in the White House -- because he has changed the face of the nation - and altered forever the horizon of what is possible for Americans who don't have the Anglo-Saxon cosmetic veneer that every U.S. president before Barack Obama possessed.

I also am grateful for Obama's invitation for debate and fair-minded criticism. His decision to bring in policy practitioners who have divergent views from one another, his embrace of heterodoxy, and the manner in which these conflicts come right up to his desk reflect a profound self-confidence in our young president.

Obama's embrace of debate and political diversity can be both strength and weakness -- but in the long run, it's better to have debate than not in a time when the world is at a major punctuation point in history and when things tomorrow will be quite different than they were yesterday.

There are many things I'm not happy about.

I'm not happy about the policy choices of Obama's economic team that have produced a Wall street bailout while banks still dither in their loans and small businesses still find an economic noose around their necks as they try to secure financing. I don't like how the administration has underperformed on job creation. I'm not happy that the tens of thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers in the Armed Forces and National Reserve still have to live a lie as they put themselves on the line for the security and welfare of all Americans of every brand and stripe. The failure of the administration to secure a strategic leap out of the mess the Bush administration left in the Middle East and with Iran, Israel/Palestine, and Afghanistan is very worrisome.

But what a change in a few years.

It's "safe" again to pose uncomfortable questions to the president of the United States and his team. It is actually "patriotic". Barack Obama embraces this patriotism of those who challenge him and dissent from his core policy positions and decisions. This is a stunning difference with the political world America has left behind.

Former Senator Chuck Hagel, who has become the co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board and who was awarded two Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam, is someone who during the George W. Bush administration had his patriotism questioned. Vice President Cheney blasted Hagel for asking key questions about the solvency of thinking about the Iraq War and challenged his loyalty to President Bush, the Republican Party, and the nation.

This was outrageous -- and indicated how deeply a climate of fear and vindictiveness had taken hold in and poisoned Washington as legislators on all sides of an issue fought over the course of public policy.

That is over. There are ferocious debates today over health care, climate change, education policy, the budget and America's long term fiscal position, over Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran, China, and economic policy.

But these debates are raging in a climate in which it is OK and safe to engage in civil debate.

In the Bush years, the efforts at thought control were so severe that spear-carriers like Tom DeLay sought to get those of a different political make-up fired from private sector jobs. Former Oklahoma Congressman Dave McCurdy, now head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, was one of DeLay's targets. Funders cut off think tanks that opposed the Iraq War. Hate mail campaigns were launched against those who expressed views independent of the Bush/Cheney machine.

I have a lot of criticism that I direct at the Obama White House -- but I try to be civil and fair-minded, inspired by the President and how his team mostly operates (the Greg Craig situation being a major and disappointing exception).

But this White House embraces differences, rivals, and debate. This is extraordinarily important, and of all things this Thanksgiving -- I'm thankful that challenging the government's course and trying to put better ideas on the table are unabashedly patriotic again.

Have a good, old fashioned policy debate with someone you don't necessarily see eye to eye with this weekend -- and feel good about it. Shake hands when it's over, and agree to disagree if things end up that way.

That is what we have back again -- and that's something to celebrate.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note'

Read more HuffPost Thanksgiving coverage and commentary

Obama Calls 10 US Service Members On Thanksgiving (PHOTO)

2009-11-26T12:50:25Z

WASHINGTON -- On his first Thanksgiving in the White House, President Barack Obama has telephoned 10 U.S. servicemen and women stationed in war zones to thank them for their service.

The White House says Obama called two service members each in the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marines and the Coast Guard. The service members are stationed in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arabian Gulf.

Obama was enjoying a quiet holiday at the White House with family and friends. The president next Tuesday is expected to announce a new battle plan for Afghanistan, including an increase in U.S. forces.

The White House released a photo of Obama making the calls:

Christopher Meyer, Ex-UK Envoy: US Focused On Iraq Hours After 9/11

2009-11-26T12:03:04Z

LONDON — Tony Blair could have delayed the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ensured better plans were in place for its chaotic aftermath by taking a tougher stance with President George W. Bush, Britain's ex-ambassador to Washington said Thursday.

Christopher Meyer, Blair's U.S. envoy from 1997-2003, told a panel investigating the Iraq war that Blair failed to use his influence with Bush to stall the frantic rush to invasion.

Jon Soltz: Thanks... Again And Again And Again

2009-11-26T08:22:36Z

This Thanksgiving, the thing that will stick the most with me is while watching football, we'll surely see the thanks to and from the troops videos just before commercial breaks. You know, the ones that have a young Army Sergeant in Iraq saying hi to his wife and kids, and another where a public figure thanks the troops for their service. This is the eighth year in a row we'll see these videos here at home.

At the same time, I can't help but think that some young grunt is watching these videos for maybe the fourth or fifth time from a TV that the USO set up in the warzone. And, while he'll strap on his rifle and go whenever called, part of him is thinking "How many more Thanksgivings am I going to have to watch these videos from over here? If you want to thank me, let me eat some turkey at home. Let me see my girlfriend and parents and friends for more than just short stints at home. Don't you have someone who can rotate in here for me so I can stop doing these tours for a while?"

Thanks to President Obama, some troops will see a bit of relief. By ending the Stop Loss policy, and supporting giving troops "dwell time" (as much time at home as deployed), our troops will get rest.

But, unfortunately, given the op-tempo of the wars we're in, added to rumors that we'll be sending an increase of troops to Afghanistan, there are no guarantees that troops might not see their sixth or even seventh Thanksgiving at war over the course of the next several years.

As Spencer Ackerman correctly notes, the reported decision to increase of troops to Afghanistan means our force will once again be at a breaking point. Now, we'll have to wait to see how President Obama addresses this point, but without a speedier withdrawal from Iraq, or a concerted efforts to grow the size of the Armed Forces at a more rapid pace than we've seen, we're going to be left with very few troops in the bank, so to speak. That means sending the same troops back out there again and again and again as soon as their dwell time is up.

Don't get me wrong, troops appreciate all the thank you messages, and getting a piece of home while watching football in the USO tent is maybe the absolute best feeling in the world when you're in Iraq or Afghanistan. But at a certain point, for those there for yet another holiday, the thanks start to ring a bit more hollow.

So this Thanksgiving, when you see those videos during the game, take a moment to think about that young grunt watching these videos from war yet again, and others like him. Put yourself in his boots. Carry that feeling with you through the rest of the year, and let it affect how you view all the news from the warzone, and decisions we make about the wars here at home.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

YouTube: Iraq Government Launches Online Channel (VIDEOS)

2009-11-25T15:36:49Z

*See video below*

The Iraqi government has launched an official channel on YouTube, the video sharing site, in an effort to better "share its message" with people in Iraq and beyond.

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki introduced the official channel, which can be here and is listed under the username "Iraqigov", in video posted November 24, 2009.

According to the Independent, the government's YouTube outreach effort was unveiled at the tail end of Google CEO Eric Schmidt's visit to Baghdad.

The Prime Minister says in his introduction to the government YouTube channel,

The world has not seen what the Iraqi government has been able to achieve in regard to security, economy, politics and building a federal democratic system. [...] The government sees in this video technology an opportunity to show our achievements.

Eric Schmidt created a video welcoming the Iraqi government to YouTube and praising the government's dedication to openness and modernization (see the video below). Schmidt says in the YouTube post,

It's great that the Iraqi govt is introducing the Iraqigov YouTube channel so that we'll discover even more what's great about Iraq, this new country that's being built, the resurgence of a new society, and the amazing things they have in store for all of us.

Schmidt also recently announced that Google would be digitizing artifacts from Iraq's national museum.

WATCH:

WATCH:

Follow HuffPostTech On Facebook And Twitter!

Zainab Salbi: Seeing Iraq In Light Of What Happened In Rwanda, Bosnia, And Herzegovina

2009-11-25T12:57:08Z

Fifteen years ago, two countries that had witnessed the most horrible genocides in the last decade of the 20th century ended their wars: Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda. Through my work with Women for Women International, I have been working in and visiting these countries for years. This year, I got the chance to visit both of them just before I went to my home country, Iraq, another country in which Women for Women International operates and that is trying to define peace and its future.

My visit to Rwanda left me inspired, Bosnia left me sad, and Iraq left me depressed. I found common links between the three, as well as significant differences. Looking back on this journey, I wonder if our global community of nations will ever learn from each other's mistakes or if we are doomed to continue in perpetuity, repeating the mistakes already committed by our peers. At a time when the U.S. role in Iraq is being redefined and Iraqis set off down the path of autonomy, the moment is ripe for all stakeholders to review the experience of Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina, with eyes toward essential lessons we can take from their history of conflict and rebuilding.

There are few essential differences between Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Rwanda publicly remembers and remedies; to date, Bosnia has not. I'll tell you what I mean. One cannot traverse Rwanda without a constant and clear reminder of the genocide and of the healing process the country is still undergoing. You see this in the Gacaca courts (a community justice system of publicly accounting for genocide crimes), the anniversary commemorations of the genocide and memorials that both tell the history of what happened and serve as a reminder that we must not allow such a thing to happen again.

None of that exists in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One gets the sense that there is a motivated forgetting, with buildings that once housed concentration and rape camps converted into hotels and the Sarajevo tunnel that was the only entry and exit during the siege all but destroyed. The siege of Sarajevo was the second-longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern war. There is no sense that the story has been told or that history shall preserve it. There is no public acknowledgment of the horrible atrocities that occurred, and it is only remembered by its survivors, what they witnessed of killing, raping, or burning of their homes. Beyond that, there is no telling of the story in a public, historical or memorial way.

The Rwandese, however, insist that they must take full responsibility to rebuild their country as individual citizens; no one will do it for them. The Rwandese refer to this as their dignity, and it is reflected at the national level, through a philosophy that domestic capacity must be strengthened, so that the reliance on foreign assistance can be weaned. Such vision literally transformed the country from a place that had witnessed the worst acts of inhumanity in 1994 to one of Africa's top success stories.

There is no such vision, united leadership or the sense of individual responsibility for public memory in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is quite literally a country divided--the Dayton Peace Accords divided the state into two legal entities; it has dual legal systems, educational systems, economic systems, and a rotating system of leadership. The country is left frozen in time in its sorrow, pain, and corruption, more stuck in poverty than ever before and still divided by many of the same ideas that led to the outbreak of war in 1992. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina may have ended, but the country is still broken. The international community negotiated the end of fighting but did not create peace. The world has failed to remember Bosnia and Herzegovina, after we promised never to forget.

So, what of Iraq? I visited the country immediately after I left Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I was saddened to see many similarities between the two. Today in Iraq there is no public acknowledgment of our tragedy, no public telling of our history of conflict. The Shi'a still feel that other Iraqis don't understand the injustice they faced during Saddam Hussein's time. The Kurds are secluded in their own enclave. The Sunnis are left angry and confused at their loss of power and have no interest in the histories of the Kurds or the Shi'a; they too want acknowledgement of the injustices they endured during Saddam. There is neither process for nor interest in a public reconciliation, a telling of truths and facing of facts or documentation of history. Without this prerequisite for peace, I can only wonder what future there can be for us.

In Iraq, as it was during my days working in Bosnia and Herzegovina right after the war ended, I am broken-hearted to hear so many objections for focus on the poorest of the poor. Both Iraqi and Foreign programs give insufficient value and focus to the poorest of the poor, choosing instead to build up a dying middle class. I am flummoxed by how the poor are so ignored, a strategy that leaves extremist religious and tribal leaders in a more popular position without much competition, leaving him much political power that I am not sure many want.

While in Iraq, I couldn't help but be reminded of a Talmudic saying that says "we see things as we are, we don't see things as they are." The Iraqi government, at the national and provincial levels, mainly represents the educated middle class, a class prosperous in the 1970s and 80s, but dwindling since the 90s. Of course, focusing on the middle class is an important measure in rebuilding Iraq, but doing so without focusing equally on the poor, their needs and their socioeconomic and political vulnerability is irresponsible and short-sighted.

An example: On a recent trip to Diwaniya, a local official told me that the Iraqi government is taking public officials for a three week vacation in China. I understand the Iraqi government, which pays its parliamentarians lucrative salaries, desires to invest in rebuilding the capacity of the middle class through exposure and training. What I find it hard to understand is why this is being done with no parallel approach that addresses the immediate and dire needs of the poor.

I am also worried that Iraq is missing critical opportunities to rebuild a decimated economy. Throughout the world, countless opportunities and advances abound in industry and sustainable agriculture--fundamental building blocks of a national economy--but Iraq is slow to take advantage of the trend, and to a certain extent refuses to engage in new and organic farming techniques that can help restore the soil of the country.

But these are characteristics of a new nation challenged by its past and trying to find itself in the future. With all of this, I do understand the limitations of the Iraqi society and government in many ways. After all, this is a country that was completely closed of to any part of the world up to 7 years ago. Things like international news, internet and cell phone only took place seven years ago. However, as for the international community, I do not understand the apparent continuation of a foreign policy doctrine in Iraq that features the same mistakes we should have learned from over the past seven years. The UK is predominantly focusing on higher education in a country where a more pressing problem is that there is no primary and secondary education going on in a sustainable and functioning level. In a survey that Women for Women International conducted in 2008, we learned that 76% of poor and marginalized women are not sending their daughters to school. If we are to rebuild a nation, then primary and secondary school for all girls and boys in the country should be goal number one, while still reasonably investing the building of higher education.

Much of the US policy on development is also focused on the middle class, a class that does need to be rebuilt and maintained of course, but not at the price of ignoring the poor who are the majority of the population and who are very vulnerable to the economic solutions that may be presented by fundamentalist groups. A U.S. official told me that Americans are living "Ground Hog Day" in Iraq, waking up each day with the same conditions and the same mistakes. I am concerned that no lessons seem to be learned, resulting in stalled development. The political will has not been shown yet in terms of investing in the poorest of the poor on the level of willingness to invest in the middle class of Iraq.

Change in Iraq will not succeed without national ownership and leadership. A history of conflict and relative seclusion is not an excuse for Iraqi corruption, lack of vision and sectarian discord. Similarly, great wealth and might does not grant international community an excuse for repeated mistakes and reluctance to own them publicly and correct them moving forward. If the objective is really to stabilize the country, then peace must be comprehensive and inclusive. Peace is not about the end of fighting, rather, it is about the building of a nation, its economy, its institutions and the people's rights and autonomy. There is an Iraqi responsibility to Iraq and there is an international and American responsibility to Iraq; the two are not mutually exclusive and they must be addressed if we are to really have stability in the country.

As an Iraqi, I am sad to see the lack of political will or desire to gather all sectors with the purpose of rebuilding the country, learning from peer countries like Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We can rebuild the country. We can restore agriculture, we can restore the greenbelt around Baghdad and eliminate the sand storms. We can get the electricity back, we can get children back to school. We CAN live in peace if we have the willingness, the determination, and the sense of dignity and purpose that one needs to rebuild a country.