Iraq: Five Years Later

Five years ago, the United States invaded Iraq. I remember living in Japan and witnessing the beginnings of a war that I knew would be tragic. I prayed that we would not start a preemptive war against a nation that was no direct threat to our own. My prayers were not answered and the bloodshed and destruction began. I watched President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney full of bluster talk about how we would be greeted as liberators. I knew that things would be bad and unfortunately I was right. Of course living overseas, I had the uncomfortable experience of the anti-American backlash in the face of our naked aggression. "Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?" people would ask me. I would feebly explain that the U.S. government believed that they had weapons of mass destruction. Some Japanese would then ask if it wasn't true that we had been keeping Iraq bottled up with strict sanctions and no-fly zones. I would answer that it was true. They asked me if I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. "Maybe", I answered, but I knew there couldn't be many. Inspectors had searched and searched the country and we had destroyed the few remnants after the Gulf War. But the hardest questions came from my students. "Why does America like war so much?" they would ask. My answers to them were unconvincing. "Why does America want to kill all the Muslims?" they would ask. I told them that it wasn’t true but they did not all believe me. A few even voiced some sympathy with Al-Qaeda. It was a difficult position for an American charged with putting a positive face on America, the English-speaking, and in a broader sense, the Western world and its culture. I did what I could and talked about how I disagreed with the actions of my government. But in a democracy, I told them, that is ok. In fact it is a duty to oppose the government when you disagree with its policies. I tried hard to convey this to a simple rural people who like many people everywhere tend to think that all the people in a country support it's government and all its actions.
I knew many people in the U.S. who strongly supported the war and were ready to "Kick Sadam's ass." But I knew enough of the history and culture of the region (which I had studied quite extensively in college and on my own) to know that things were going to become a mess. The British faced a committed insurgency in the 1920s and had to withdraw. The county was a patchwork of Kurd, Shia, and Sunni with some other groups thrown in for even more complication. The Kurds had enjoyed defacto independence - why would they want to be part of an Arab Shia led nation that might only drag them down and steel some of their wealth? What of Kurdish irredentism? There are a lot of Kurds who live in Turkey. Would Turkey get involved to fight against Kurdish terrorists/freedom-fighters (depending on one's view)? As it turned out they did and they probably will again. The Shia are the majority and would naturally gravitate toward friendly relations with Iran (which has happened). The U.S. would not approve and have to fight that. The Sunnis who are a minority in Iraq were favored and ruled the nation through Sadam's brutal regime. They would want to fight to remain in control. Of course the Shia would fight them back. Let's not forge the Shia who rose up against Sadam following the Gulf War with the strong encouragement and promise of support by President George H. W. Bush and were crushed by Sadam's forces. They weren't going to be happy with the U.S. Let us not forget that in the 1980's the Regan administration sold weapons to Iran (who was at war with Iraq) while selling intelligence to Sadam in (what seemed to be) an obvious effort to keep the two nations fighting each other so that Iran would be occupied and Iraq wouldn't attack Israel. Why would anyone in that country trust Americans? Then what did we find out once we invaded - there were no weapons of mass destruction. So the stated purpose of the war was changed. We were there to stop Iraq's connection with Al-Qaeda. A ridiculous claim. A secularist megalomaniac like Sadam had no use for religious extremist terrorists inside his own county, especially when they were regularly making statements denouncing his surprisingly tolerant religious freedom policies. (For example he gave money to some Christian churches.) So the purpose of the war was changed to spreading democracy in the Middle East. That didn’t work so well. Sure elections were held, but is the government functioning? It is divided along ethnic and religious lines and is not working together. So then one of many terrorist groups operating in Iraq decided to become an Al-Qaeda franchise. By pledging loyalty to Osama Bin Ladin. These were not the people who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001; these were other Arabs who wanted the immoral support of the top Al Qaeda extremist. The purpose of the war, then stated by the White House to stamp out Al Qaeda in Iraq - an organization that existed only because the U.S. invaded Iraq! Eventually, they were on the run - in the so called "Sunni awakening" in Al Anbar province in western Iraq. Why were the Sunni fighting fellow Sunni, in this case local tribes vs. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Ostensibly because they were tired of all the collateral damage and the U.S. counter attacks. But of course they had been fighting the U.S. too - but money talks and it talked them into opposing Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were happy to take money and weapons from the U.S. government. At the same time we were and are supplying money and weapons to the Shia government in Baghdad. I cannot stress this enough. We have supplied weapons and arms to the local Sunnis in Al Anbar. At the same time we gave money and weapons to their main opposition the Shia dominated central government in Baghdad. You think Iraq is a civil war now - wait until this one plays itself out. Not to mention the Kurds and the Kurdistan Worker's Party which carries out terrorist attacks in Turkey. This war is a mess and there is nothing to do but walk away. There are no good options. The U.S must cut its losses and have "victory with honor" or "Iraqization of the war", "strategic withdrawal" whatever euphuism once wants to use. Whatever we call it, the U.S needs to get out of Iraq. Five bloody, destructive and costly years later, the situation is a mess and I fear there is worse to come no matter what we do. I suggest we get out of the way before we get caught in the middle of a real full-scale civil war and before we become entangled in the spillover into Iran and Turkey.
My wife and I are currently watching "Vietnam: A Television History" the excellent PBS documentary from PBS. I am struck by the parallels to that conflict and the one we are involved in Iraq. That conflict was a mess to start with - we leaned no lessons from the French defeats, tried to impose a domino theory of global communism on a conflict that many there saw as an anti-colonial fight, and were drawn into spill over conflict in Laos and Cambodia. It was a mess, millions died as a result and America's image and potential to do good in the world was diminished. We should see the parallels for what they are and end this current conflict as quickly and carefully as possible.
At the same time, I honor the service of the American soldiers, sailors and marines who have had to endure the very worst in life. They are doing what they see as their patriotic duty and their service is exemplary. It is because of their dedication to America that makes their sacrifice to a vain cause all the more tragic. I wish them all the best and keep them in my thoughts and prayers as I also do with the people of Iraq.

Obama's Speech "A More Perfect Union"

Barack Obama gave an excellent speech today explaining his experience with race and putting his relationship with Rev. Wright into context. It was an excellent speech that again shows why this man is in a unique position to bring this country together.

Destructive Religious Rhetoric and Politics

By now everyone has heard the inflammatory statement's that Barack Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright made concerning America's responsibility in events that led up to 9/11 as well as his remarks against a white-dominated government who tried to keep African Americans down. Read more here. The Reverend may have had a case for some of his points, but they were made in a dogmatic and divisive way. But what was his ultimate point? That the U.S. government had made poor foreign policy decisions and that the U.S. had oppressed African Americans for years. Honestly, when rephrased, much of what he said is obviously true. The problem was the in the angry tone and dogmatic nature of the statements that turned a point worthy of discussion into something that sounded angry and destructive.
But let us compare those statements to John McCain's spiritual advisers. Read more here. John Hagee who railed against Catholicism. Rather than referring to it as a branch of Christianity to which he disagreed, he called it "a cult" and "the great whore." Not helpful. More destructive divisive rhetoric. Even more disturbing, was what McCain spiritual advisor Rod Parsley had to say. He has written: "I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." Read the story here. Not only is this bigoted, and destructive but it shows a complete disregard for historical accuracy and common sense.

I am tired of religious "leaders" who try to drag us into such hateful thinking and policies. I'm tired of the partisan nature of this country and religious leaders who try to steer us in a direction based upon one or two narrow issues. In my own Catholic church, I have been disappointed by a priest who couldn't stop telling worshipers how much he admired George W. Bush because he is a man who was not afraid to pray and admit it in public. This during the closing months of 2004 when we were getting ready to vote for President. My first thought was that Osama Bin Ladin wasn't afraid to pray publicly either, but it was more about the content of those prayers than the prayers themselves that was either noteworthy or despicable. Attending a friend's wedding at another Catholic church, a time which should be focused on the joy of the union being consecrated and celebrated, we were "treated" to an anti-Protestant tirade. Something I have NEVER experienced before in a Catholic church. It was depressing. I was glad to finally hear a message of inter-religious unity and common cause at the National Shrine of St. Francis here in San Francisco. That gave me hope again that I could find a comfortable place inside organised religion. The other aforementioned examples made me depressed and disappointed.
When I grew up, politics was mentioned as important in the church, but were were told to exercise our own judgement, pray for guidance and remember one's intentions when selecting one's leaders. I certainly wish the Reverends Wright, Hagee, and Parsely would be giving us more of that message than the ones that they did. And what about that part about turning the other cheek, and loving one's enemies? I seem to remember that being of somewhat importance in Christianity.... ...maybe it's time we all remembered that!

Hillary Clinton Must Reject and Denounce Geraldine Ferraro's Extremely Divisive Comments

Former 1984 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro who was working for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has on a number of recent occasions made outrageous comments about Barack Obama suggesting that it is only because of his race that he has been successful thus far. I could write on and on about how terrible these comments are, and how Hillary Clinton has surrounded herself with mean spirited people who seem more intent on winning the next primary than the future of the Democratic party or that of America, but Keith Olbermann has already said it best in his latest special comment:

Obama Wins Mississippi

Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the latest Democratic contest in Mississippi. It is harder and harder to imagine a scenario where HRC wins the nomination. The math is definitely in Obama's favor!

Obama Wins in Wyoming

Barack Obama Won yet another contest - this time in the state of Wyoming. He has won 29 of 43 contests, and is leading in the popular vote as well as in the number of delegates. I think it's obvious that Hillary Clinton has little chance of overtaking him and winning the nomination. She can only attack him and make it harder for the Democrats to win in November. She wants to have it both ways - saying that he's not ready to be President and yet hoping that he will accept a Vice Presidential slot so she can gain his enthusiastic supporters and well organized team. It won't work. He will be the nominee, God willing.

One Charity Helping Americans Without Adequate Health Coverage

I recently saw a report on 60 minutes about a charitable organization - Remote Area Medical that is providing free health care services for thousands of Americans who either have no insurance or are underinsured. It was stunning to see what the state of health care is in the wealthiest nation on Earth. I strongly encourage everyone to read or watch the report here and then to donate to this wonderful organization here.



This just reminds me of how awful our system of caring for people is in the U.S. We have a for-profit system that leaves people suffering while those on top make millions of dollars. The right perpetuates the myth that any tampering would lower the quality of healthcare. Even if that was true, it doesn't matter how good the care is if very few can ever take advantage of it.

This report also shows how even people who are insured are suffering because of high deductibles. I'm sorry but that is why I like Obama's plan to lower insurance costs over HRC's mandates.

In any case, no matter where you stand politically, I encourage people to learn more about and generously support this very noble endeavor.

Obama Must Win

Barack Obama narrowly lost to HRC on Tuesday March 4 in Rhode Island, Ohio and the Texas Primary, He won in Vermont and looks like he will have won in the Texas caucus when the votes are finally counted. HRC will end up gaining only a handful of delegates. Obama still leads by over a hundred delegates. HRC needs to win by huge margins all or most of the remaining states, count on Michigan and Florida being seated at the convention in her favor, and then hoping that the super delegates will mostly jump to her side - all of this to give her a narrow victory over Obama. The math is heavily against her.
I am so disgusted by her campaign. I am really upset that I am so upset. I was very happy with the entire field of Democratic candidates last year - and despite my very early support for Obama campaign - not in the way a fellow rival campaign should make me upset but in the way that Bush, Rove and the cheep dirty Republican political machine has run recently. I realized that I was supporting , I liked what I saw in all the other candidates. All wanted our troops out of Iraq, wanted to provide health care to all Americans and would have been a huge improvement over the disastrous Bush administration. But as time went on, I became more and more upset by the HRC campaign. We need Obama not just because he is a visionary and an inspiring leader who works for bipartisanship, but because he wants to end this sort of politics. America has been poisoned and polarized by many years of the politics of hate and fear. Bush's presidency was defined by this approach. But the Clintons and their opponents did more than their share of this sort of dirty dishonest politics during the last years of Bill Clinton's administration. The Clintons were always shifty but they did seem to do thier best to bring out the worst in their opponents. America is tired of a politics that triumphs in the face of defeating their opponents yet does nothing to solve the real myriad of problems that Americans face. HRC would be a continuation of this politics-as-usual. That is why we need Obama. The math is on his side. HRC can only succeed in providing material for John McCain. Her type of politics is a large part of what is wrong with America. That is why OBAMA MUST WIN!