Signs Of Erosion In Iraq & Our Own Military

Al-Maliki Support Eroding in Iraq

Not only are we witnessing numerous scandals involving our own military, the breakdown of authority over Iraqi forces by the Iraqi government, the mobilization of sectarian militia and protesters at the beck and call of sectarian clerics, now we are seeing the faith, credibility and confidence in Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki eroding away.

The Bush gang keeps citing the improvements and the momentum of the al-Maliki government as the basis for recent troop surges and the staunch defense of the Bush Doctrine to remain in Iraq despite the call for withdrawal. But, as has been the case since the call for the AUMF that prompted Bush to invade and occupy Iraq, we have been lied to on a consistent basis. Recent hearings before Congress has revealed that military commanders have been co-opted into this "culture of deceit" and campaigns of controlling what information reaches Congress and the People of the United States.

Similar to the situation involving Alberto Gonzales, president Bush is sticking to his guns and stating full support for al-Maliki. But Bush also stuck to his guns for Rice, Meier, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, all of whom have been among the worst officials of the executive branch we have ever had.

A broad range of prominent Iraqi lawmakers say they have lost confidence in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to reconcile the country's warring factions. A leading Kurdish lawmaker said al-Maliki should resign.

Legislators from several parties told USA TODAY that al-Maliki lacks the support in parliament to push through laws, such as a plan to distribute oil revenues, that could reduce tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq's parliament has failed to pass major legislation since a U.S.-led security plan began on Feb. 14.

"He is a weak prime minister," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator who supported al-Maliki until recently. "This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of doing the job. They should resign."

The loss of support came as Democrats agreed Monday on legislation that would force U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1. President Bush, who said he would veto the bill, has argued that Iraq's government needs more time to calm sectarian violence.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Baghdad last week that the U.S. military commitment is not "open ended" and will be re-evaluated in late summer based in part on whether parliament has made progress. Al-Maliki seems unable to broker deals among the fractious alliance of Kurds and Shiites who supported his appointment last May, said Qasim Dawood, a member of al-Maliki's coalition.

"The present government is not competent," said Dawood, a Shiite legislator. "It's more or less paralyzed, inactive. I doubt very much that this government can continue in power much longer."

A political adviser to al-Maliki, whose term ends in 2010, said that the prime minister has no power to pass laws by himself. "We can only ask, push, the (parliament) to approve," Sadiq al-Rikabi said.

Al-Rikabi said there is no viable alternative to al-Maliki as prime minister. "Suppose he resigns," al-Rikabi said. "Then what is the solution?"

The Bush administration "has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

U.S. Command Shortens Life of ‘Long War’ as a Reference

It also appears the the leadership within the DOD and the Pentagon are experiencing some erosion in terms of the commitment they are willing to make to the "never ending war" in Iraq and on terrorism. It is clear that military measures are not the right tool or resource for tracking down and bringing terrorist criminals to justice. Nor are they the right tool for spreading democracy, and our military leaders are ALL beginning to take notice. The wearing away of the propaganda use of the "long war" offered by Bush and company is just the first sign that the Bush Doctrine, the Bush administration, and the "war on terror" are failures.

When the Bush administration has sought to explain its strategy for fighting terrorism, it has often said the United States is involved in a “long war” against Islamic extremists.

The phrase was coined by Gen. John P. Abizaid before he retired as head of the Central Command. It was intended to signal to the American public that the country was involved in a lengthy struggle that went well beyond the war in Iraq and was political as well as military.

It would be a test of wills against “Islamofascism,” as President Bush once put it. It would also be a historic challenge that spanned generations much like the battles against Communism.

As it turned out, however, the long war turned out to be surprisingly short-lived, at least at the command that pioneered the term. After taking over last month as the head of Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon quietly retired the phrase.

Military officials said that cultural advisers at the command had become concerned that the concept of a long war alienated Middle East audiences by suggesting that the United States would keep a large number of forces in the region indefinitely.

Admiral Fallon was also said to have been unenthusiastic about the phrase. He has stressed the importance of focusing on the difficult situation in Iraq and in achieving results as soon as possible. The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

The change “is a product of our ongoing effort to use language that describes the conflict for our Western audience while understanding the cultural implications of how that language is construed in the Middle East,” Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, a spokesman for the command, said in an e-mail message. “The idea that we are going to be involved in a ‘Long War,’ at the current level of operations, is not likely and unhelpful.”

“We remain committed to our friends and allies in the region and to countering Al Qaeda-inspired extremism where it manifests itself, but one of our goals is to lessen our presence over time. We didn’t feel that the term ‘Long War’ captured this nuance,” he added.

Afghan Torture Claim Prompts Calls for Canada Defense Chief Resignation

It also appears, based on this report and the withdrawal of coalition forces by other nations, and the almost universal back door condemnations of the US approach to terrorism, detention and the treatment of those in US custody or under US control.

But a culture of deceit, abuse and scandal seems to be the only thing the Bush administration can offer. It is apparent that the contamination brought into Iraq is also being brought to Afghanistan. This culture is being mimicked by the Iraqis and Afghanis in many ways, including the treatment of captives, the indiscriminate use of torture and military might on intelligence suspects, is eroding any hope of success in either place.

Additionally, we are being taken to task on our abuse of human rights, due process and our hypocrisy. It is shameful that our trusted neighbors and allies are forced to take us to task instead of being able to approach us and seek a balanced solution to the problems they see as relevant and important. The disgrace of our actions is now being felt by leaders in other nations because they, too, are caught in the ethical trap that we have created over there.

We seem to be spreading the contamination of evil all over the world.

Thirty terror suspects were tortured by Afghan security forces after being being transferred from Canadian custody, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported Monday. The detainees gave accounts of being beaten, electrocuted, starved, and left in freezing temperatures while detained in Kandahar province jails. The report prompted calls for the resignation of Canadian Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor by Canadian opposition members from the New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, and Bloc Québécois. Opposition MPs also called for an end to the prison transfers and for a public inquiry to be held. O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper maintain that Canadian troops did nothing wrong but pledged to investigate the allegations.

In February the Canadian government ordered an official inquiry into reported detainee abuse in Afghanistan. The probe began following a civilian complaint filed by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, whose research uncovered a pattern of suspicious injuries on three detainees captured last April and later released. In 2005, Chief of Defense Staff Gen. Rick Hillier signed the Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement authorizing the transfers; Attaran said the agreement did not give Canada the power to inspect detainees after their transfers, thus allowing broad latitude for torture to occur.