Here is my previous post, rewritten (twice), as it was submitted to the Wisconsin State Journal (we'll see if they do anything with it):

For the first time I may be ready to say that the Iraqi people are worse off than they were prior to the U.S.-led invasion, a poorly conceived, poorly executed attempt to make us safe from "terror", to avenge 9/11, to take out Hussein's imminently threatening WMDs and to "liberate" the Iraqi's.
There is still hope for that last one.

The thing that makes it so hard to take this position is the accompanying implication that they were "better off" under Hussein. That just runs against the grain for me. Until now (and maybe even still) I've been holding out hope that in the long run the people of Iraq will be better off, that they can have their version of self-rule and the old "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ideal. Now I'm beginning to wonder if there will be anybody left when we finish liberating them.

Now I read that "Nearly a third of the population of Iraq is in need of immediate emergency aid, according to a new report from Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs.

A "...report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI)" says that, among other things "70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% percent prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

"Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

"The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems."

Are we doing anything about any of this (other than being a principal cause I mean)?

We've spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars on this "operation" so far but very little on rebuilding or at least very ineffectively on rebuilding.

Why?

Whether or not we had any plan for the post-invasion Iraq, four years and four months in we have had sufficient time to come up with a plan. Haven't we? So either we have chosen not to address this situation or we have gone about it pathetically. Yes I know we have built a few power plants and turned them over to the Iraqis who have not done well with them. So? It's back on us then, isn't it?

There is an Army Corps of Engineers, there is, or so I've heard, a dearth of jobs over there and a lot of unemployed potential workers. Time for some public works projects? I know that idea doesn't fit with the "neo-con" vision of Iraq as a "free market utopia" but perhaps there is no sentiment left for that. If they aren't ready to operate their power plants once they're built then I guess we need to do that for them until they are ready.

In any case don't we need to be doing better at rebuilding? If we were, would there be less resentment of our presence (over there) and more support for the "war effort" (over here)? I'm thinking yes.

For the first time I may be ready to say that the Iraqi people are worse off than they were prior to the U.S.-led invasion (a poorly conceived, poorly executed attempt to make us safe from "terror", to avenge 9/11, to take out Hussein's imminently threatening WMDs and to "liberate" the Iraqi's).

There is still hope for that last one.

The thing that makes it so hard to take this position is the accompanying implication that they were "better off" under Hussein. That just runs against the grain for me. Until now (and maybe even still) I've been holding out hope that in the long run the people of Iraq will be better off, that they can have their version of self-rule and the old "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ideal. Now I'm beginning to wonder who will be left to do so if it should ever somehow happen.

Now I read that "Nearly a third of the population of Iraq is in need of immediate emergency aid, according to a new report from Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs.
A "...report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI)" says that, among other things "70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% percent prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

"Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

"The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems."

Are we doing anything about any of this (other than being a principal cause I mean)?

We've spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars on this "operation" so far but either virtually none on this or a very little on this, very ineffectively.

Why?

Whether or not we had any plan for the post-invasion Iraq, four years and four months in we have had sufficient time to come up with a plan. Haven't we? So either we have chosen not to address this situation or we have gone about it pathetically.

There is an Army Corps of Engineers, there is, or so I've heard, a dearth of jobs over there and a lot of unemployed potential workers. Time for some public works projects? I know that idea doesn't fit with the "neo-con" vision of Iraq as a "free market utopia" but perhaps there is no sentiment left for that.

In any case shouldn't we be doing something? If we were, would there be less resentment of our presence (over there) and more support for the "war effort" (over here)?

What about it loyal Bushies?

Read the whole story from which I quoted if you like:

Third of Iraqis 'need urgent aid'
Nearly a third of the population of Iraq is in need of immediate emergency aid, according to a new report from Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs.
The report said the Iraqi government was failing to provide basic essentials such as water, sanitation, food, and shelter to up to eight million people.

It warned the continuing violence was masking a humanitarian crisis that had grown worse since the invasion in 2003.

It also found that four million Iraqis had been uprooted by the violence.

More than two million people have been displaced inside the country, while a further two million have fled to neighbouring countries, according to the report.

On Thursday, an international conference in Jordan pledged to help the refugees with their difficulties.

'Dire poverty'

The BBC's Nicholas Witchell in Baghdad says the report by the UK-based charity and the NGO Co-ordination Committee in Iraq (NCCI) makes alarming reading.

OXFAM/NCCI REPORT IN FULL
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The survey recognises that armed conflict is the greatest problem facing Iraqis, but finds a population "increasingly threatened by disease and malnutrition".

It suggests that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% percent prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems.

Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad - many of those are living in dire poverty
Jeremy Hobbs
Director of Oxfam International


"Basic services, ruined by years of war and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people," the director of Oxfam International, Jeremy Hobbs, said.

"Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty."

Mr Hobbs said that despite the violence, the Iraqi government and the international community could do more to meet people's needs.

"The Iraqi government must commit to helping Iraq's poorest citizens, including the internally displaced, by extending food parcel distribution and cash payments to the vulnerable," he said.

"Western donors must work through Iraqi and international aid organisations and develop more flexible systems to ensure these organisations operate effectively and efficiently."

Oxfam has not operated in Iraq since 2003 for security reasons.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6921617.stm

Published: 2007/07/30 00:02:42 GMT

© BBC MMVII

I wrote a letter to the editor again and as usual it was a rebuttal of someone else's. They haven't been getting printed lately so I'm posting it here:

Ed Swanson, in his letter of Tuesday, wonders why we don't all just shut up and let the military commanders run the war (he makes reference to Al-Qaida, but also Gen. Petraeus so he does see it as all one war). This is why: in America we purport to have government of, by and for the people (that's us). When a President takes us to war, for whatever reason, we the people do not cede our rights and are not absolved of our responsibilities to self govern. The President is an elected representative of us (that's all of us, not just one party or one interest group). The military is subject to civilian oversight. Their job is to fight the war, not to create policy. If we the people come to realize (slowly and painfully but finally) that this is not a war that we should be fighting then the military is to be recalled (and thanked) and stood down until the next time we "need" to go to war. As to the mess that we have created over there: now is the time to begin to address this. Our withdrawal plan needs to include reparations. While it would be fair to insist that the Bush team is responsible for fixing what they broke, realistically it's going to take some new blood and fresh ideas. And the sooner we start the better.

I have put my finger on what it is exactly that I don't like about religion, why I think religion is more harmful than helpful. It makes it harder for people to work together, not easier (like it would profess to do).

Huh?

The reason is that people become too convinced of the "rightness" of their position because (they are convinced) "God" wants it to be this way and not that other way so any dispute comes down to those other maniacs going against "God's will".

This gives one's position a false authority. Even if there is a "God" one group doesn't better "know" what "God's will" is than any other and what winds up happening is that the people forget to resolve the issue and spend all their time arguing about what "God" wants and none of it figuring out a compromise. Something that works, something that's practical and is grounded in what we know about humans and about the world and not what they knew hundreds (even thousands) of years ago.

Human nature is what it is, we're all pretty much the same when you think about it. We have basic needs and we go about seeking fulfillment of these needs and do what we can with what we have.

People that have a lot believe that God wants the world to be this way (God's will in action) so they feel no guilt about consuming a disproportionate share of the world's resources, after all, it's "God's will". Many of these people call themselves Christians and claim credit for all kinds of good things about this country, all the while missing the point of what Jesus was all about (sharing, looking out for each other, anti-capitalist stuff like that), so the notion that we're a "Christian nation" is obviously false, you can't be based on the teachings of Jesus and capitalism at the same time.

People that have little believe that they are oppressed and some somehow don't take it personally but just deal with (accept it as "God's will" I guess) but some see it as a denial of "God's will" and feel completely justified in committing murder and worse in "God's" name because of course they know "God's will" better than we do and since it is God's will, ah, you get it now, right?

And still others see that neither way is right and what "God" really wants is for all of us to get along and they're on the right track.

Now if they would just cease with the idea that it's about what "God" wants and explain their position from the perspective that it's what is best for humankind they might be able to convince enough people to make a real difference.. But as long as it's about whose idea of what "God" wants we're talking about we're never going to get anywhere because nobody will admit that their religion is wrong, or even can be wrong.
Disagree?

I sent off two items to the State Journal today, one short letter to the editor and a longer potential guest column. Each was a rebuttal to something in Tuesday's paper, David Brooks's syndicated column and a guest column by a Mr. Jerry Johnson.

Here's the short one:

It was a very informed, thoughtful piece by David Brooks that ran in Tuesday's WSJ. He did, in my opinion, an excellent job of laying out the options open to us as we seek to disentangle ourselves from Iraq. What he didn't mention was the monumental lesson that we need to learn from this disaster: no matter how tempting it might be to try we can't remake other countries in our own image. We have neither the power nor the authority. Please let's at least learn that.

Here's the longer one:

"Another War Politicized To Nation's Detriment" was the title of a column in Tuesday's WSJ. Interesting title. Here's a question to consider: what war has there ever been that wasn't "politicized"? The American Revolution? Wrong. How about the American Civil War? Please. World War Two? Well that one was close. While there was great sentiment in the U.S for staying out everything changed after Pearl Harbor. We were for the most part united until the job got done.

So why can't we "get behind" this war like we did that one? Well let's consider. We were told that Hussein's Iraq was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, sort of a new Pearl Harbor. But we know now that this was at worst a lie, at best merely false.

We were told that Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that he was an imminent threat and had to be "taken out" now. No time to wait for the U. N. to get on board, we have to go now! Well despite the claim by the Sec. of Defense that "we know where they (WMDs) are" this too was either a lie or merely false.

Instead of asking where did all the support go we should be apologizing to the people of Iraq for invading their country on false pretenses and asking what we can do to help. Then doing it without worrying about who gets the oil.

The author also spends much of the column painting a picture of George Bush as an apolitical leader of his country, outmaneuvered by a conniving congress and a corrupt U.N. Please. I understand that the author was a career military man and he is trained to follow orders and not to question authority but the rest of us are not blinded by such constraints. George Bush might not be the shrewdest political mind ever but do the names Karl Rove and Dick Cheney ring any bells? They have gotten so much political mileage out of this situation it causes one to wonder if that might not have been the real reason why they were so eager to rush us into this war.

"Recent polls indicate that 70 percent or more of Americans are against the Iraq War. If one talks to the soldiers that have served there and their families -- those who are most knowledgeable about the conditions in Iraq -- you would conclude they must make up the remaining 30 percent who support the president in this war."

Really. Aside from the "fuzzy math" of implying that our forces in Iraq and their families comprise thirty per cent of Americans (that would be upwards of 90 million people) is he self-deluded enough to believe that there are no dissenters among the ranks? Especially among the families?

"I have spoken to soldiers that have volunteered to serve five tours in Iraq. They have told me of the gratitude of the Iraqi people for the opportunities they now have."

Of this I have no doubt. Some soldiers have served five tours. They have seen Iraqi people who have expressed gratitude. But how many feel gratitude and how many see our soldiers as part of an occupying force?

Where has the support gone?

"The United States has shown the world that its military is unequalled."

Yes. That wasn't really in doubt.

"Due to the politicization of this war, however, out enemies will continue to perceive us as a nation divided and unwilling to withstand a prolonged fight."

Again yes. Divided because some still haven't admitted that this was a colossal mistake. Unwilling to withstand a prolonged fight that we never should have started.

Where has the support gone? Right where it belongs. On standby until something worthy of it presents itself.

I tried to provide a link to the David Brooks column but there appears to be no free one. He writes for the New York Times and if you go to their web page you can find it but you'll have to sign up for a pay service to be able to read it.



You can read Jerry Johnson's column here:
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/other/index.php?ntid=201571&ntpid=1