Army: Looser rules could attract up to 600 new officers

I am BOTH opposed to the War in Iraq (and unlike Senator Kerry, I said so BEFORE we went in) AND an anti-Bush liberal. However:

-I wish I could see a clear way out of Iraq. I kind of agree with the "we broke it/we bought it" rule. If we left, the so-called sovereign popularly elected Iraqi government wouldn't last 15 minutes. Such a government is no government at all and is doubtless seen by many Iraqis as a Quisling outfit. The country is on theverge of civil war.

-If the GITMO detainees are criminals, then they should be CHARGED and TRIED as criminals. Indefinite detention is not a part of our criminal procedure. How they would have been treated by some other government is irrelevant to the analysis.

But actually, the al-Quaida detainees are neither criminals nor prisoners of war. They come closest to being pirates, persons who wage war without the protection of a regognized sovereign. In 19th century international law terms, they literally have no rights and are subject to summary execution. Rumsfeld was right on this point, though it took me a while to realize it.

Why is 19th century law relevant? Because the Administration returned us to a 19th century legal framework when it commenced its invasion of Iraq in violation of the U.N. Charter to which the U.S. is signatory. The Charter, and with it the U.N., is a dead letter.

Notice that I do not say here whether I think this action was correct or justified or not; for the purposes of this analysis, I merely state the legal situation as I see it.

 

Oh yes, lets get the UN involved. Much better than Gitmo will be the news that UN forces traded food and water for sex with Iraqi women the way they did in Africa.

Splendid. Thanks but no thanks.

 

I'd rather see UN forces exposed to conditions under which they opt for sex with Iraqi women before ours become that desperate.

On a more serious note, from this point on what exactly does the US get out of staying in Iraq? If we can sell the UN on taking over (more like "buy" since it will take an enormous amount of money) and the ultimate goal (stable and democratic Iraq) is the same, then why would the US want to continue to provide the overwhelmingly majority of the ground personnel?

The Left would have you think that it is for oil or some other nefarious motive but that is most certainly not the case. The Right may allude to vague notions such as "power and prestige of the U.S." or the "credibility" of the U.S. but that doesn't make sense either.

 

Re: Don't know what you are talking about

DTechBA,

I would like to make it clear that my comments concerning the Gitmo are a world apart from Sen. Durbin's outrageous remarks for which he has since apologized. I never likened the conditions at the Gitmo to a gulag or concentration camp. As a former Army officer I know that no matter the situation, our military's ethos and values would never permit such mistreatment of prisoners.

What I did say is that the detainees should be granted POW status. I didn't say that they met the criteria to be automatically accorded such status because clearly they don't. Yet, it is troubling that we have people in custody who were captured by the U.S. military in a war zone that aren't prisoners of war. The U.S. can regain the moral high ground and accord these detainees POW status but there will be a cost. This cost is far less than what we will pay as a nation if we relinquish our historic role as a defender of freedom and human rights everywhere.

If the detainees are criminals, the prosecute them in the appropriate court as Nosborne suggests. They were enemies caught in a war zone in civilian clothes, again, prosecute them as spies if that is applicable. If convicted, they would face the death penalty.

Nos is also right about the summary execution part but I think that the Al-Qaeda detainees are more like mercenaries than pirates (because the Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan) ... but the results (no POW status/no protection) are the same. Think back to combatants captured during the various Communist insurgency movements from the 1950s-1980s. When the hostilities ended, prisoners were returned to civilian life; in fact, their fate was often a key point during peace negotiations between the leaders of the insurgency and the national government. Unless you think that a) we are going to hold them indefinitely or b) we are going to execute them, these detainees will eventually return to civilian life somewhere.

Tom H.

 

'Scuse me...why, exactly, is oil "certainly not the case"?

 

I don't think that oil was and is the motivation because the U.S., even now that it effectively occupies Iraq, does not control enough of the world oil supply to have much of an effect on the price either way. If you think that the Bush Administration favors high oil prices (to help the U.S. oil companies and drillers- Republican supporters), then when Iraq starts exporting oil again (due to U.S. assistance) the prices will drop and the U.S. oil interests will be hurt.

On the other hand, if the Bush Admin favors low oil prices (to help U.S. big business- also Republican supporters), then due in large part to the intervention in Iraq there have been large increases in oil prices. These Bush supporters will have seen their profits shrink due to higher operating expenses and the inability to pass them on to the consumer. I don't see a clear connection between this U.S. intervention and oil other than if Iraq wasn't an oil producer it would not have been on the White House radar screen at all. (Like Zaire or Paraguay) The status quo, Saddam ruling Iraq with an iron fist, served our purpose with respect to oil. We had a UN oil embargo slapped on Saddam, permitting only small amounts of oil to be exported in exchange for food and medicine. If the price of oil had risen too fast, the embargo could have been modified to increase supply or the embargo could have become even more lax in its enforcement.

While I don't see oil or WMDs (c'mon, did anyone ever believe he had WMDs?) as the primary factor behind the intervention, I do think that there was some unrealistic plan to overthrow Saddam and create a new pro-Western/pro-capitalist Iraq that could serve as an American bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. The Administration pays lip service to and may in fact have been motivated by democracy to some degree. However, while they wanted to implement democratic elections, they weren't going to accept the election of an anti-U.S. government or a return of Saddam Hussein to power democratically.

The original plan for the post-Saddam era hasn't worked out nor has the the President laid out a new plan to the American public who support this venture with both manpower and tax dollars. Additionally, Congressional oversight of this whole mess has been woefully inadequate.

 

Your analysis is not quite cynical enough.

True, the cost of the invasion and occupation far exceeds the possible income from oil revenues. (The Administration told us before the invasion that oil revenues would pay for everything, but since anybody with a brain knew that was wildly optimistic, let it pass.)

However, the cost/benefit analysis reads differently. Here's why:

The COST of the invasion and occupation is born IN TOTO by the U.S. taxpayer. The PROFIT from the oil revenues will inure to benefit of the OIL COMPANIES.

In short, the Bush family connections will do very, very well out of this. And that's why we use force in Iraq and diplomacy in North Korea, where there is no potential oil profit to be made.

As a delightful side effect, the Cheney connection (Halliburton) also reaps incredible returns at taxpayer expense.

This Administration engages in corruption at a wholesale level in amounts so enormous as to begger the imagination. And they wrap it all in the flag.

Neat, hunh?

 

Biggest collection of untruths and conjecture....

I have ever read.

"Your analysis is not quite cynical enough.

True, the cost of the invasion and occupation far exceeds the possible income from oil revenues. (The Administration told us before the invasion that oil revenues would pay for everything, but since anybody with a brain knew that was wildly optimistic, let it pass.)

However, the cost/benefit analysis reads differently. Here's why:

The COST of the invasion and occupation is born IN TOTO by the U.S. taxpayer. The PROFIT from the oil revenues will inure to benefit of the OIL COMPANIES.

In short, the Bush family connections will do very, very well out of this. And that's why we use force in Iraq and diplomacy in North Korea, where there is no potential oil profit to be made.

As a delightful side effect, the Cheney connection (Halliburton) also reaps incredible returns at taxpayer expense.

This Administration engages in corruption at a wholesale level in amounts so enormous as to begger the imagination. And they wrap it all in the flag."

Lets tackle several of your points.

a. The oil companies do not own the oil in the ground of Iraq. They may buy it and convert it to fuel and make profit from selling the fuel but they could have done that without the cost of an invasion. If oil profits were the goal simply stop the sanctions and buy Iraqi oil.

b. Wholesale corruption at a wholesale level? That is a charge you should prove before you toss it out there. Heck, through my pension plan I own Halliburton stock so I must be a crook too.

c. North Korea and Iran are apples and oranges.