Kurds being sucker-punched again???

As an American, as a Muslim, and as a wife and mother of a Kurd...This war is affecting me more and more each day.

Recently, there were some beheadings that troubled me more than others...not really because of who was beheaded, but rather our media's and our administrations reaction to them...
While the beheading of Americans and of other westerners are top news stories...the beheading of members of one of our greatest allies in that region, the Kurdish Democratic Party, didn't even make the headlines.

I will explain to you why this bothers me so much. We suppossedly are trying to send out the message that we are trying to help establish, and guide the establishment of, a democatic government to that region. Well one of our most key allies in Iraq have been the Kurds, who supported us before, during, and after the Saddam regime. This support, dispite us several times not fulfilling promises to them. Are they suckers?

We have not stood by this ally, in my opinion, as much as we should. Instead, we use their cause and their misfortunes for our political advantage. For example, when the idea of a war with Iraq was first being propogated, our President and its administration had the audacity to use Saddam's gassing of the Kurds as a proof of the threat Saddam was to the world. Well, where was Bush Sr. and his administration when my husband's village was gassed, resulting in the deaths of his parents and his older brother? Sipping tea with Saddam in Baghdad no doubt...

And where is the current Bush administration when members of the KDP are being beheaded for no other reason than their standing up for democracy and their alliance with us? We are heading down a dangerous road right now, where turning back may not be an option. Is it really wise for us to alienate those who have supported us even after we have repeatedly sucker-punched them?

I have no doubt that ridding Iraq of Saddam was a good thing. He was the cause of my kids having no grandparents, so you see it is personal for me. But make no mistake, our administration had better own up to its mistakes in this war: going under false pretenses, not pulling out when we should have, not having a well-thought out and insightful policy on Iraq...If they don't, they will lose all allies, lose more troops, and sooner or later... the people of America will wise up and demand that the administration be held accountable with what history could record as a grave "political" blunder if policies do not change soon.

Terror Regimes (Boileryard Clarke)

Option Four

Even after the elections we maintain a presence in Iraq from which we interject ourselves into the Middle Eastern equation. A modified but active base is established and supported by the 35% reduction of foreign bases elsewhere in the world recently announced.

From this particular base military options are available to us, and there is a local area into which intelligence can be brought. Any actions that need to be taken on al Qaida or regimes that support it would be facilitated by it's proximity to them.

If the war is against al Qaida, as we say it is, doesn't it make sense to have a central location from which to strike at a moment's notice, established within the milieu of the Middle East itself?

The reasoning could go;

Afghanistan was more of a success than it is given credit for being. A constitutional convention was convened and a new constitution and electoral procedure is not only in place but looks to be progessing toward the declared send-off dates. Al Qaida and the Taliban are truly marginalized there and - in fact - the main security concern are the warlords still in place more than anything else.

If nothing else the action in Iraq removed a state that still considered itself at war with the United States and was in the process of training it's own terrorists, whether or not they were officially linked to al Qaida beyond the already documented non-aggression pact they shared. The removal of a government that had previously showed no qualms about using weapons to directly target civilians was a positive factor in the entire region, and the presence of American force and potential in this region can only act as a sobering factor on regimes that have supported terrorists in the past and regimes that have the potential for the Islamic bomb.

That this base may be a target of the anti-American jihadists is actually a benefit, as it actually makes the front line against terror thousands of miles away from American soil, and forces those who would do harm to America to focus on something that is near to them.

Why is this, or is this not, a viable outline?

Pax Americana (Nick)

The extent of our military might is so obvious a fact, that it need not be re-emphasized. America is often referred to us as "The American Empire" -a metaphor which deserves neither nationalistic embrace, nor rejection by denial. Rather, we are warranted to draw historical parallels with the fallen empires of past, and the Pax Americana of today.

America's current situation is most commonly paralleled to that of the Roman empire. However, the parallel is insufficient. The Roman empire was built by legions who slaughtered their way to world power. In the process, they suffered catastrophic defeats at the hands of the Gauls, Persians, Carthaginians, and numerous other Germanic tribes. The grand legions fell in clashes with rival dictators, and massive revolts the humiliated citizens of their occupations. The United States hasn't suffered comparable defeats since the Korean War. It also bears mentioning that the Legions owned their allegiance, not to Rome or the Emperor, but to their leaders and fellow troops. Thus, while Rome did dominate the world, it did so without the military superiority or discipline of the United States at present.

The other common parallel is that of the British Empire during the late 19th century. Unlike the Romans, the British had a relatively small army. Bismarck once joked that if the British army landed on the Baltic coast, he'd send the Berlin Police to arrest them. The British Empire was mostly sustained by their legendary navy. However, the huge mass of ships in the royal navy became increasingly obsolete. The Ironclad was introduced into the French Navy well before the British caught up. Even when the British introduced the revolutionary Dreadnought battleships, the superior industrial power of the Americans and Germans closed the gap of sea power within a blink of an eye.

Historically, the strength of the United States military is without parallel. Our military budget accounts for 50% of the overall international expenditures on defense. Within the annals of military history, the US is the only country to enjoy superiority in all spheres of warfare (land, sea, air, and space). No other country's military can compare to our technological sophistication. Not a single country can compete with the US's capability to move large forces within short periods of time to any part of the globe. In short, the legions of the United States have no match, and the gap between them and other militarize is only growing.

Perhaps the biggest military blunder in recent history was Vietnam. However, the damage of Vietnam is not comparable to that of Disraeli's regiments at Isandhlwana, or Augustus's legions in the Teutoburger Wald. In the end, its not the terminology of "Empire" that matters; rather its America's overwhelming military dominance. For now, no international coalition could be capable of blocking it, let alone willing to replace it. Our strength lies in our remarkably stable economy and political system, and our growing and extraordinarily productive workforce. The fact is that no president will call for a major reduction in defense spending in the next decade or deny that we must have the strongest military in the world, ready to exert its power at any point the world unilaterally.

The United States has much less choice in world affairs than the pacifists or foreign critics would like to believe. Despite the wishes of the French, no coalition is likely to form that will counter-weight US strength and restore a military balance similar to post-Napoleonic Europe. Contrary to the wishes of idealists, the UN has proven incapable of maintaining global order without the military, diplomatic, and financial support of the US. Lastly, if the pacifists had their way, and we became isolationists with a mediocre military -the result would be International anarchy, rampant totalitarianism, and mass-bloodshed -all of which is too horrifying to contemplate.

In the end, our real choice is to exercise our power foolishly or prudently, safely or dangerously. In the case of Iraq, we excercised our power foolishly and dangerously. Our military is a mighty machine, but even now is showing signs of fatigue and ware. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have ended a genocide in Sudan by now- which would have been an example of wise use of military force. However, we've over-stretched ourselves in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our European allies have shown complete denial and apathy towards the situation. If anything is clear regarding the future international order, its that Europe will continue to behave much as they did at the Munich Conference of 1938, and delude themselves into thinking that the temporary lack of war is peace. As for America, it rests in the hands of the people to elect a president who will continue to make the world safer. Judging from Bush's first term, he will not be that man.