A Christmas Letter from Cindy Sheehan

[kaiser soze]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122506Z.shtml

Today is the 21st birthday of my youngest child, Janey. It is the third birthday that she has "celebrated" since her oldest sibling, Casey, was killed in Iraq. My other son, Andy, turned 21 the year Casey was killed. Carly, my oldest daughter, turned 24 the year after Casey was killed ... the same age he was when BushCo sent him to die in their oil war for profit. In the one letter that Casey was writing three days before he was killed in the ambush that took the lives of six other soldiers, he expressed regret that he wouldn't be home for Janey's high school graduation that June. Little did we know that he would be home, buried in his "final resting place," forever.
U.S. troop deaths exceed 9/11 deaths (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061226/D8M8AVJG0.html)

Bring our troops home now!!!

[QueenAdrock]

Cindy Sheehan? Uh-oh, expect the Republicans to start snarling and foaming at the mouth...though she did bash on Hilary too, so I don't see why they're that pissed off.

I was talking to my friend who was a fuel truck driver in Iraq for a year and got home just this summer. Oh, the things I heard. He's a Mormon and was a Republican...before he was sent off. The favoritism and lack of productivity made him kinda jaded towards the war effort. Which surprised me, because I never would have thought the stuff coming out of his mouth would EVER be uttered.

[kaiser soze]

What is one of the most disturbing pieces of this war is that the soldiers are led to believe they are not supported by those who do not support the war. The right-wing media (ie: Rush Limpballs) and others make it sound like we are rabid haters of them and are waiting with stones in hand for their return.

This is not the case, we believe in our national security and believe sending our sons and daughters off to an endless and quite apparent unnecessary war only weakens our national security and as we have discovered the integrity of our foreign policy.

Thousands of innocent lives and billions of dollars have been lost in light of the protests of millions of the worlds citizens and nations before this invasion.

The best way to support the troops is to NOT put them in harms way....or worse stirring up a hornets nest or as we have seen in Iraq creating thousands of new hornets.

Can a conservative please chime in and tell me....What Have we truly accomplished?

[QueenAdrock]

Agreed. Somehow being for this pointless bloodbath and watching American soldiers die on a daily basis and still wanting them over there = supporting the troops, whereas protesting against the war and wanting our men and women home alive and well = hating the troops. I have NEVER gotten that mentality nor will I ever.

Support our troops, bring 'em home alive and healthy yo.

[The Notorious LOL]

Its funny how they keep talking about taking a "new direction" in Iraq, and when people go "okay cool what is it?" they go "it'll be a new direction!" and dont actually answer the question.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, they pretty much just want their poll numbers to go up by saying something they know the public wants to hear.

"Abortions for none!"
BOOOOO
"Abortions for all!"
BOOOOO
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
YAAAYY

[Whatitis]

others make it sound like we are rabid haters of them and are waiting with stones in hand for their return.

Does Vietnam ring a bell?

[Tone Capone]

Agreed. Somehow being for this pointless bloodbath and watching American soldiers die on a daily basis and still wanting them over there = supporting the troops, whereas protesting against the war and wanting our men and women home alive and well = hating the troops. I have NEVER gotten that mentality nor will I ever.

Support our troops, bring 'em home alive and healthy yo.


(y)

[Schmeltz]

Your troops are going to be over there for years. Don't kid yourself. There's simply no way to extract them now before they've made good on all the damage they've caused to that country. You pull them out now and we'll all watch Iraq plunge into the officiality of civil war and the whole world will spit after they say the word "America" for the next hundred years.

It hasn't even started to get bad for the troops yet. They're lying in the bed the American people made.

[QueenAdrock]

It hasn't even started to get bad for the troops yet. They're lying in the bed the American people made.

Last I checked, it was the Senate who declared to go to war. I wouldn't classify them as the "American people."

You pull them out now and we'll all watch Iraq plunge into the officiality of civil war and the whole world will spit after they say the word "America" for the next hundred years.

The word "now" can just be deleted. We pull them out ANY time, and we'll watch Iraq plunge into civil war and people will be mad at America. I don't see a miracle happening in Iraq, us taking actual control and fixing what has happened over there. There's gotta be a time when you realize that we've fucked up and failure in the country is an inevitability. It's better to get out now and save some lives than do it later, have the same result, and lose MORE lives. I'd love more than anything for stability and prosperity in Iraq, but I'm also a realist. And in reality, we don't have a new magical strategy that pulls our heads from our asses, nor will we ever. The window for changing strategy effectively has long since passed. It's time to cut our losses.

[Tone Capone]

The reality is that we are stuck there and will probably always be there :( (n)

[Schmeltz]

It's time to cut our losses.


Really? Is it? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians)

[Auton]

yeah, definitely not a fan of the war, but... cindy sheehan is a moron psychopath.

[QueenAdrock]

Really? Is it? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_detained_iranians)

Do you honestly think we're going to actually win there? I don't think so, so it's better to get out sooner than later. There may be battle victories, but we're going to lose the war. I don't want it to be that way, but it's just how it's gonna be.

[Schmeltz]

Even Henry Kissinger doesn't believe a military victory is possible. But if you're more content with greater and greater Iranian influence over Iraq (and by extension all its oil reserves) than with the prolonged presence of American troops there, then I suggest you haven't thought about this as deeply as you might have. It's nice to think that all the troops could just come on home and Iraq could be written off as a bad idea, but that's simply not possible. The long-term consequences of this war are going to be extremely significant and it would be foolish to extract the forces that constitute the only means of shaping or influencing the situation even somewhat productively. As someone else here said one time, pulling them out now will only mean further losses in time and money to send them back.

You know what's interesting is how the Somali civil war is playing out, with Ethiopia directly intervening in order to secure its own regional interests and prop up the side they'd obviously rather see in charge. Suppose Iran followed that precedent in an Iraq empty of US troops and unable to mount any serious challenge to the Iranian forces? I doubt they'd be interested in supporting any UN- or otherwise internationally-sanctioned or accepted Iraqi government. It's kind of a worst-case scenario, but can the USA - or indeed the rest of the world - afford for something like this to happen?

The war might be unwinnable from the American standpoint, but the stakes are too high to end it now simply for the sake of keeping the troops alive. The loss of more American soldiers is not the least palatable option on the table. A civil war raging on top of the world's second-largest oil reserves, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Revolutionary Guards actively promoting the fundamentalist Shiite side, is way worse. Even if the war is already lost, it simply doesn't make sense to assert that leaving sooner is better than doing everything possible to avert a potentially devastating worst-case scenario. It sucks, but as you said, that's just how it's got to be.

[sam i am]

Your troops are going to be over there for years. Don't kid yourself. There's simply no way to extract them now before they've made good on all the damage they've caused to that country. You pull them out now and we'll all watch Iraq plunge into the officiality of civil war and the whole world will spit after they say the word "America" for the next hundred years.

It hasn't even started to get bad for the troops yet. They're lying in the bed the American people made.

Excellent point.

It WILL get worse before it gets better, I agree.

Whether the ends justify the means is the open question yet to be answered...

[sam i am]

Even Henry Kissinger doesn't believe a military victory is possible. But if you're more content with greater and greater Iranian influence over Iraq (and by extension all its oil reserves) than with the prolonged presence of American troops there, then I suggest you haven't thought about this as deeply as you might have. It's nice to think that all the troops could just come on home and Iraq could be written off as a bad idea, but that's simply not possible. The long-term consequences of this war are going to be extremely significant and it would be foolish to extract the forces that constitute the only means of shaping or influencing the situation even somewhat productively. As someone else here said one time, pulling them out now will only mean further losses in time and money to send them back.

You know what's interesting is how the Somali civil war is playing out, with Ethiopia directly intervening in order to secure its own regional interests and prop up the side they'd obviously rather see in charge. Suppose Iran followed that precedent in an Iraq empty of US troops and unable to mount any serious challenge to the Iranian forces? I doubt they'd be interested in supporting any UN- or otherwise internationally-sanctioned or accepted Iraqi government. It's kind of a worst-case scenario, but can the USA - or indeed the rest of the world - afford for something like this to happen?

The war might be unwinnable from the American standpoint, but the stakes are too high to end it now simply for the sake of keeping the troops alive. The loss of more American soldiers is not the least palatable option on the table. A civil war raging on top of the world's second-largest oil reserves, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Revolutionary Guards actively promoting the fundamentalist Shiite side, is way worse. Even if the war is already lost, it simply doesn't make sense to assert that leaving sooner is better than doing everything possible to avert a potentially devastating worst-case scenario. It sucks, but as you said, that's just how it's got to be.

Fantatstic post.

EXCEPT....

Just to stir the conversation, are you really so sure that Ahmadinejad is really in control as much as he is perceived to be? Did you note the protests by some students when he convened the "Holocaust" summit a few weeks back? What if the clerics decide he's pushed too far and depose him? What about the inherent weaknesses of the Iranian economy and the rampant unemployment there?

There's plenty of reasons to think that Iran's too preoccupied with it's own problems to be able to launch assaults outside it's borders.

Additionally, little noted, was the recent Saudi pledge to protect the Sunni minority in Iraq. Can't imagine that the Iranians want to war with the (vast) majority Sunnis in the Middle East any time soon.

Anyhow, more to discuss....

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, I guess it would be quite foolish of the Iranians to perform any large-scale deployments of their own forces onto Iraqi territory, regardless of any internal problems they might be confronting. But I don't see why they wouldn't take any and every opportunity to promote the Shiite side of the conflict as much (though as covertly) as possible - with weaponry, funding, and small-scale coordination by little cells of military advisors.

The Saudis are all bark and no bite; they've been bit players, militarily, in every conflict in the region since their country was created. For all their military expenditure they were dependent on the US to secure their borders for years and it's tough to imagine them mounting a serious challenge to Iran, which has the largest and most modern army in the region after Israel. And speaking of which, if there was going to be a serious response to increased Iranian involvement in Iraq, I bet it would come from Tel Aviv. And wouldn't that be a disaster of truly epic proportions.

[sam i am]

^^^^
Nicely stated.

I guess we're (maybe) looking at a "proxy" war similar to the Spanish Civil War, then.

Perhaps the Saudis (and other Sunni nations?) provide arms, training, etc. to the Iraqi Sunnis and the Iranians exhaust themselves trying to keep up by doing the same with the Iraqi Shiites? The query comes up of what will happen to the Iranian economy by trying to expend mass amounts on a (non-weaponizable:rolleyes: ) nuclear program while also funding not only the Iraqi Shiites but also Hezbollah in Lebanon....

Hmmm....many threads to ponder in the ongoing chess game....

[Schmeltz]

I guess we're (maybe) looking at a "proxy" war similar to the Spanish Civil War, then.


Neither the conduct nor result of that conflict gives much ground for hope, then.


Perhaps the Saudis (and other Sunni nations?) provide arms, training, etc. to the Iraqi Sunnis and the Iranians exhaust themselves trying to keep up by doing the same with the Iraqi Shiites? The query comes up of what will happen


Nothing good. Countless Iraqis die while Iran slips further away from what stability it possesses, and from Jordan to Pakistan you've got one huge belt of chaos, warfare, anarchy, and death. If the Cold War taught us anything it's that proxy wars are a bad idea, for those who fight them and those who fund them.

[sam i am]

However, proxy wars DO tend to clarify the matter at hand and often end with a clear(er) winner and loser in an ongoing internecine struggle.

I'm thinking of the (deleterious) effect on Spain of eventually having a "winner" in the Civil War (i.e., Franco) and then not participating in WWII on the Axis side, despite implorations from Hitler and Mussolini to do so.

Perhaps Iraq can end up that way....in the "extremist radical" camp, yet realpolitik enough to not go the way of the truly radical sects like Bin-Laden, etc.

Again, just some thoughts on possible outcomes and the chances of the aforementioned actually occurring, but interesting to discuss nonetheless.

[Schmeltz]

Perhaps Iraq can end up that way....in the "extremist radical" camp, yet realpolitik enough to not go the way of the truly radical sects like Bin-Laden, etc.


You mean maybe Iraq can end up exactly how it was under Saddam Hussein?

Then what the hell would the whole point have been?

[Ali]

You mean maybe Iraq can end up exactly how it was under Saddam Hussein?

Then what the hell would the whole point have been?To replace an unfriendly dictator (which you placed in the first place) with a friendly one, silly.

Some very interesting points you make, Schmeltz. It seems that the US and UK have done Iran's dirty work for them and now all they have to do is wait for the Occupiers to leave. Which won't be any time soon. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6223923.stm?ls)

Iran and Iraq have been at each others throats for decades. Of COURSE Iran's going to take the opportunity of a weakened Sunni presence in Iraq to gain influence there. They'd be stupid not to. Surely somebody in the Pentagon must have realised this would happen? Surely.

3,000 US deaths, 1,000 Iraqi civilian deaths per month and no prospect of peace and stability in the region in the foreseeable future.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[sam i am]

Ali,

What about my point above about the inherent weaknesses in the Iranian economy (universally acknowledged) and the plausibility of either Ahmadinejad overreaching and being deposed from office, either by the radical clerics or a student movement?

Or....

Do you think he is so entrenched that he is untouchable domestically and able to perform "at-will" on the international scene, especially vis a vis Iraq and Lebanon?

[Schmeltz]

What about my point above about the inherent weaknesses in the Iranian economy (universally acknowledged) and the plausibility of either Ahmadinejad overreaching and being deposed from office, either by the radical clerics or a student movement?


As the recent Iranian elections demonstrated, Ahmadinejad has little to fear from either the reformist student movement (which has been deliberately crippled through the ouster of many intellectuals from their positions and which seems to carry little political clout anyway) or from radicals. The strongest opposition to Ahmadinejad comes from moderate conservatives, who were amply rewarded by voters displeased with his hard-line position. I think it likely that Ahmadinejad will take the results of that election to heart and moderate his international policies and positions accordingly, and I think it equally unlikely that unrest in Iran will reach a point where a direct revolt or coup against the government is orchestrated. Ahmadinejad is more likely to be voted out of power in the next election if he continues to alienate himself from the electorate. And none of this, it seems to me, will stop Iran from seeking to influence the disastrous situation in Iraq in whatever way it can.

[sam i am]

I agree that a coup is unlikely.

Ahmadinejad will (eventually) be voted out.

As for influence, of course they're going to exert it. Whether it's realistic that it can make significant differences in the eventual outcomes is the query.

[Schmeltz]

Yeah, you're probably right - if 130 000 American troops can hardly keep the security situation under control, a few Iranian commandos probably won't be able to make much difference.

[sam i am]

Interesting the recent "arrest" (or would "interdiction" be a better term?) of some Iranians in Iraq.

Surprise, surprise....Iranians in Iraq.

Anyhow, I'm still of the (admittedly guarded) opinion that Ahmadinejad is weaker than he lets on and is treading lightly to avoid being deposed.

The plot thickens....