A Response

A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:

Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.

We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.

In the News 3/4/08 and Beyond

"Venezuela and Ecuador sent troops to the Colombian border on Sunday in response to Colombia’s military raid on a rebel encampment in the jungle about a mile inside Ecuador. Colombian forces killed 21 guerrillas belonging to ... FARC, Colombia’s largest rebel group." In an announcement from the White House, President Bush announces his support for Columbia.
So the scenario develops:
1. Venezuela sends a substantial armed force into Columbia "to secure its own borders."
2. U.S. advisors currently in Columbia caught up in the fight.
3. Venezuela cuts off oil to U.S.
4. U.S. sends aircraft in support of U.S. advisors and Columbian forces. President Bush declares NAFTA Treaty authorizes use of force
5. U.S. states threat to Panama Canal requires significant increase in U.S. ground forces in South America. Shortage of available troops necessitates President Bush federalizing all ROTC (college and high school) and graduating all military academy cadets. Civil Air patrol is also federalized and provided with F-100 Super Sabre jets being recovered and reassembled in various locations throughout South Korea. All training and command responsibilities given to Blackwater in multibillion dollar contract.
6. All illegal entries into U.S. from Mexico cease as Halibuton begins massive hiring for no-bid contracts for U.S. troop support facilities to be built along the Amazon River in Brazil. Congress begins inquiry asking "Brazil?" A Haliburton subsidiary admits an undocumented agreement to use the removed lumber in construction of Bush's Presidential Library and Cheney's Great Pyramid.
7. Bush orders surprise flanking attack by US forces on Venezuela from Brazil along the Amazon citing already existing facilities built by Haliburton.
8. In a press conference, President Bush says that the C.I.A. had failed to inform him of the existence of heavy jungle along the Amazon but says forces will surge on with an expected arrival at the Venezuelan border within the year. The President declines further comment citing the need for secrecy to insure surprise.
9. In a move said to be necessary to protect U.S. civilian population, the president orders the internment of all Legal Aid attorneys of Hispanic ancestry. "Sesame Street" writers arrested in alleged plot to promote terrorist activities using Spanish alphabet codes.
10. U.S. Congress abdicates. Bush declaration of his Dynasty by Divine Right supported by Republican right wing, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and United Fruit Board of Directors.
11. In a move said by Viceroy Cheney necessary to protect rear echelons of U.S. forces fighting in Columbia, the U.S. invades Canada. The Japanese surrender documents signed following World War II are cited as authority for the invasion. Haliburton begins construction in Canada of eight NFL stadiums for troop moral.
12. All hostilities end abruptly as China calls in all U.S. debt.

U.S. Air Force Buildup in Iraq

According to an Associated Press report of July 15, 2007 as presented on Military.com: "BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - Away from the headlines and debate over the 'surge' in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces."

This raises a few questions.
1. Is the buildup part of a contingency for operations against Iran?
2. Is the buildup part of a strategic alternative for operations in Iraq necessitated by insufficient ground forces as is apparently the circumstance in Afghanistan?
3. If such a strategic alternative, how is it reconciled with the counter-insurgency imperatives of the Petraeus approach?
4. As stated by U.S. Air Force officers in the A.P. report, the Air Force expects to stay in Iraq to support Iraqi forces after any withdrawal of U.S. forces. If so, we can expect such U.S. installations to be protected by U.S. ground forces in the manner of DaNang Air Base, Vietnam 1965. Will the level of forces required for active installation security, support of Air Force operations, border interdiction, counter al-Qaeda initiatives, advisor support and training for Iraqi units, at a minimum, allow for any significant reduction of U.S. ground forces within the next five years?
5. With U.S. forces then removed from the primary responsibility of suppressing sectarian violence into these "limited" roles, will there be a significant reduction in U.S. casualties?

My view: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. It cannot be reconciled. 4. No. 5. No.