Reuters: A Look Back After 4 Years Of Iraq Invasion

Found a Reuters clip online at YouTube where Paul Chapman looks back at some of the key moments of the past four years in Iraq. Notably uncontroversial in the speech, very unbiased. Except for one thing: when exactly did everyone begin to call the ordeal an "invasion"? Now that I've noticed it, every bit of news I read refers to the last four years as the "invasion of Iraq", or the "U.S.-led invasion".

4 Years In Iraq And Going Weak

Today, Tuesday 20th March marks the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War. All over the world, people have been celebrating the anniversary, albeit with very little festive mood. Surprisingly enough, there weren't any balloons, confetti or even cake... (I apologize for the sarcastic tone...)

In the United States, thousands marched to the Pentagon over the weekend, some calling for withdrawal from Iraq, some for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, some even for closing down the Pentagon. In Los Angeles, some 6,000 people rallied with flag-draped coffins through the streets of Hollywood. Bush warned the American people of "dire consequences" in Iraq were the U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq prematurely. With his approval rating nearing his personal low, Bush called for patience, more time for 30,000 extra troops for his plan on Iraq, mainly to stabilize Baghdad. Several counter demonstrations in support of the war also took place in the States.

"It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating." Bush remarked in his speech. Nevermind the fact that having a substantial slice of the American infantry tied down in a relentless battlefield has decreased America's rapid deployment readiness to bare bones. There's only so much that the Navy and the Air Force can do in the instance of a crisis breaking out somewhere in the world right now (think Iran, North Korea, etc...).

The latest polls are showing that only 32% of the American public think the war in Iraq is going well, while 63% oppose the war. (Wait, what? 32% of Americans think things are fine and dandy in Iraq? Have these people been living under a rock for the last 4 years?) Another poll showed that four out of five Iraqis have little or no trust in U.S. led forces. So why are the troops still there, "protecting" people who don't even trust them?

How did the Iraqis celebrate the anniversary? By hanging Saddam Hussein's former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan for crimes against humanity and with a few more car bombs and clashes with insurgents.

And let's not forget the rest of the world. In Spain, an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets, denouncing Bush for war crimes. Demonstrations took place in Madrid, Seville, Cadiz and Granada. In Istanbul, Turkey, more than 3,000 took part in protests, carrying placards saying "Bush Go Home" (?) and "We Are All Iraqis". Demonstrations also place, among other places, in Athens, Copenhagen, Rome, Helsinki, Sydney and Melbourne.

Oh, and as a final note, a study has found that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the globe seven-fold...

So, anyone for four more years of the same? I didn't think so...

Sources:
BBC NEWS Americas Protesters march against Iraq war
Saddam VP hanged on 4th anniversary of invasion - Yahoo! News
Iraq 101: The Iraq Effect - The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism

Running Out Of Troops, The Army Is Ordering Injured Troops To Iraq

It's bad enough that American troops returning home injured face neglect and horrid conditions at Walter Reed, now the U.S. Army is ordering injured troops to deploy to Iraq with their unit. Does the Bush Administration really support the troops, or are they merely an expendable resource?

A unit of the Army's 3rd Division stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, is slated to be deployed to Iraq this as we speak, serving their third tour in a steady stream. Of the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade, 75 soldiers have been previously deemed unfit to deploy, yet are now being deployed regardless.

The injuries of the soldiers to be redeployed root from injuries sustained during previous combat tours, training accidents and fatigue. Some have back injuries which makes it impossible for them to carry full gear or move effectively while under fire. Some can't wear protective armor due to its weight, while others have difficulty operating weapons.

The true scandal here is not the actual deployment of there injured troops, but the fact that there 75 soldiers were ushered into a meeting with an army surgeon on February 15th, and saw their medical profiles systematically downgraded to deem them fit to deploy. Even soldiers with degenerative back problems which root from injuries sustained on the last tour and are at a great risk of reinjury if sent to a war zone were told to pack and prepare to deploy.

(Author's note: I feel for there soldiers because two days ago I was exempted from mandatory military service in Finland due to back problems. I've had this problem for years, yet 2 years ago I entered the service only to reinjure my back and was unable to perform training exercises, nor could I carry gear on my back. I was heavily medicated which impaired my ability to fire a weapon and my ability to operate in the field. I was discharged for 2 years after 45 days of service, and was now deemed unfit to serve in times of peace.)

Sending these troops to a war zone is a great risk to themselves and to those they serve with. The Bush Administration's wars are stretching to U.S. Military to bare bones, putting their lives at unnecessary risk, merely to satisfy a political need. This has gone too far. Soldiers are one most important resources the United States has, and right now they are being treated like dirt. The men and women in uniform have made America the superpower it is today, not the politicians. Instead of spending billions to send more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to fix the Administration's policy catastrophies, how's about spending some money to ensure these soldiers fair treatment and care, as well as the respect they deserve?

Source:
The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq | Salon News
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/

Bush Announces New Aid To Latin America - What About America?

Just days prior to his five-nation tour of Latin America, US President George W Bush announced that the United States will expand U.S. aid for education, health care and housing in the region. His "message is simple: the United States has not forgotten its neighbours to the south." Bush said that "the working poor of Latin America need change and the United States is committed to that change."

If you've been following the news in the past weeks, these issues have truly been in the news lately. Not concerning Latin America, but in the United States.

A great percentage of the American public want change in the American health care system, many wishing for universal health care. Medicare and Medicaid saw their budgets cut for the 2008 fiscal year. Wounded soldiers returning from overseas duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have been ill-treated, poorly compensated for injuries suffered in the line of duty protecting the nation and patriotically following the Bush Administration's agenda in Iraq. The poor received a break from the Democrat-led Congress in the form of higher minimum wage, which sceptics say will possibly lead to more layoffs and unemployment, as small businesses see their profits fall. The American education system needs more funding to educate to future of the United States to the best of their abilities. All this while the United States spends some $100 million every 12 hours in Iraq. (Newsweek) On top of it all, the surge on Baghdad isn't producing results, but rather more American casualties (9 US soldiers killed today in Baghdad).

At the very least the Bush Administration and the republicans are showing a humanitarian side, although one could argue that this is mainly concerning the legacy of the dwindling Administration, as it seems almost certain the next Administration will be led by the Democrats.

One would think that issues at home would be more important in securing America's stance in the world's eyes in the coming years, as the current administration's foreign policies have significantly increased the anti-American sentiment all over the world.

Bush's trip to Latin America comes at a time when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is stirring up more anti-American sentiment in the region. So is Bush's announcement and trip to Latin America merely a PR stunt, trying to keep key allies favourable to the U.S.? Do keep in mind that many of these nations Bush plans to visit are oil-producing nations, as well as hosts to many American corporations and vital economic partners.

PR, legacy, oil, money and such aside, the aid to Latin America, although a relatively noble thing for the world's wealthiest nation (a gesture which should be taken for granted), the announcement comes at a time when there are numerous other problems at home and in other parts of the world where the United States continues to battle. I am not saying the US should shun it's neighbours to the south, but rather also, in addition to extending a helping hand to those less prosperous in other countries, the United States should shift its primary aid focus on its own people, making the lifes of those who the President represents easier and more align with the image of American prosperity. Keep in mind that this is the man who the rest of the world considers America's representative. What he does, people think this is the mood and beliefs of the entire nation. There's still a long time until November 2008...

Source:
VOA News - Bush Announces New Aid for Latin America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-05-voa51.cfm

UK: We're Pulling Out Troops From Iraq; But Don't Worry, We're Sending In Prince Harry

The same day that British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced the 'withdrawal' of 1,600 British troops from the southern Iraqi city of Basra, the deployment of Prince Harry's regiment, the Blues and Royals (apt name...) is said to be 'almost certain'.

If deployed, Prince Harry, or Troop Commander Wales as he is known to his colleagues, will be in charge of an 11 man reconnaissance team equipped with 4 light armoured Scimitar tanks. So not exactly a desk job to keep him out of harms way, but rather to throw him right in the middle of it...

The last time that a senior Royal Family member has seen military action was in 1982, when Prince Andrew, Harry's uncle, was a helicopter pilot in the Falklands conflict. When's the last time any member of congress or the White House administration picked up a gun and headed of to war, and not speaking figuratively? We are talking about the grandson of the Queen of England here... When's the last time a child or grandchild of a US President head off to war?

The United Kingdom has some 7,100 troops in the southern part of Iraq, and is hoping to cut that number down to 5,500 'within the next few months', with an additional 500 hopefully called home by the end of the summer. The UK military presence in Iraq will continue into 2008, 'for as long as [they're] wanted and have a job to do.'

Although the number of British forces to be withdrawn seems small, one must remember that initially the UK sent in some 45,000 soldiers in April 2003, and has gradually lowered the number of UK forces in Iraq.

So, on one had you have the UK, who, to some extent, is succeeding in its mission in securing Basra (again, to a degree), withdrawing troops and relinquishing control of the area to the Iraqis. On the other hand you have the US, who still maintain a force of some 132,000 soldiers in Iraq, and are now sending in an additional 21,500 troops, all the while (atleast seemingly) failing in their mission. It seems that the methods of operating in Iraq between the US and the UK are complete opposites. Lessons to be learned here, perhaps?

I'm not implying that the American troops are not pulling their weight in Iraq or are otherwise doing a lousy job. Those 132,000 US troops are doing the best they can under the circumstances, and probably could do a better job, if their job wasn't hampered by political mishandlings and other such burdens, both from the American generals and politicians in Iraq and Washington, and the Iraqi powers in charge over there. Someone in charge needs to get a clue, and fast. Sure, Baghdad is a whole different ballgame compared to Basra, but apparently things aren't working out too well in the capital...

On a final note, let's theorize about the deployment of Prince Harry to Iraq, and let's try to look at the pessimistic aspects of what could happen to him over there. Let's say he dies or is wounded in the line of duty by a) the insurgents, b) an accident c) friendly-fire:
a) an IED blows up his Scimitar tank and him with it. What would the British reaction in relation to the war in Iraq be? I could see it three ways. One, the remaining troops are withdrawn hastily, due to immense uproar back in the UK over the war. Two, the British parliament sends in hundreds, if not thousands, of extra troops to finally eradicate all insurgency in the south. Three, the nation mourns but the soldiers in Iraq stay the course and finish the job.
b) same as part three of the above
c) US war planes shot up a regiment of British soldiers travelling in Scimitar tanks in 2003, killing one soldier. What if it happened again? How would the cooperation between the UK and the US change if it happened to Prince Harry's regiment? Would the UK immediately pull all its troops from Iraq? Politically, it's hard to say, but you know how the British public would react to it...

In any case, worst-case scenario for southern Iraq is that the presence of a very valuable target in Basra could bring more insurgent attacks on the city, undermining the efforts and results the British have undergone in recent months in trying to bring peace to the area. Let's hope for the best. Not just for England and Prince Harry, but also for the peaceful civilians of Basra...

Sources:
BBC NEWS UK Prince Harry 'to be sent to Iraq'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6383747.stm
BBC NEWS Politics Blair announces Iraq troops cut
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6380933.stm