August 27

The jihad all-stars
By MAUREEN DOWD


"We decided to conquer an Arab country and drive the Muslim fanatics
so crazy that they’d storm in, and then we’d kill them all? That’s the
latest Bush rationale for going into Iraq?"


WASHINGTON - Yep, we’ve got ’em right where we want ’em.

We’ve brought the fight to their turf, they’re swarming into Iraq and
blowing up our troops and other Westerners every day, and that’s just
where we want to be.

Our exhausted and frustrated soldiers are in a hideously difficult
environment they’re not familiar with, dealing with a culture America
only dimly understands, where our desperation for any intelligence has
reduced us to recruiting Saddam’s old spies, whom we didn’t trust in
the first place, and where we are so strapped that soldiers may have
to start serving back-to-back yearlong overseas tours.

We don’t know exactly which of our ghostly Arab enemies are which, how
many there are, who’s plotting with whom, what weapons they have, how
they’re getting into Iraq, where they’re hiding, or who’s financing
and organizing them.

And we certainly don’t understand the violent internecine religious
battles we’ve set in motion: At first the Shiites were with us, and
the Sunnis in the center of the country were giving us all the
trouble. Now a new generation of radical Shiites is rising up and
assassinating other Shiites aligned with us; they view us as the enemy
and our quest as a chance to establish an Islamist state, which Rummy
says won’t be tolerated.

In Tuesday’s macabre milestone, the number of US soldiers who have
died since the war now exceeds the number who died during the war.

But Republicans suggest that Iraq’s turning into a terrorist magnet
could be convenient -- one-stop shopping against terrorism. As Rush
Limbaugh observed, “We don’t have to go anywhere to find them! They’ve
fielded a Jihad All-Star team.”

The strutting, omniscient Bush administration would never address the
possibility that our seizure of Iraq has left us more vulnerable to
terrorists. So it is doing what it did during the war, when Centcom
briefings routinely began with the iteration: “Coalition forces are on
plan,” “We remain on plan,” “Our plan is working.”

Even though the Middle East has become a phantasmagoria of evil
spirits, and even though some Bush officials must be muttering to
themselves that they should have listened to the weenies at State and
nags at the CIA, Team Bush is sticking to its mantra that everything
is going according to plan.

As Condoleezza Rice put it on Monday, the war to defend the homeland
“must be fought on the offense.”

Speaking to the American Legion on Tuesday, Bush discreetly ignored
his administration’s chaotic occupation plan and declaimed, “No nation
can be neutral in the struggle between civilization and chaos.”

Echoing remarks by other officials, implying that it’s better to have
one big moment of truth and fight our enemies on their turf rather
than ours, Bush said: “Our military is confronting terrorists in Iraq
and Afghanistan and in other places so our people will not have to
confront terrorist violence in New York or St. Louis or Los Angeles.”

So that’s the latest rationale for going into Iraq? We wanted an
Armageddon with our enemies, so we decided to conquer an Arab country
and drive the Muslim fanatics so crazy with their jihad mentality that
they’d flip out and storm in, and then we’d kill them all?

Terrorism is not, as the President seems to suggest, a finite thing.

Asked at a recent Pentagon town hall meeting how he envisioned the end
state for the war on terror, Rumsfeld replied, “I guess the end state
in the shortest response would be to not be terrorized.”

By doing their high-risk, audacious sociological and political
makeover in Iraq, Bush officials and neocons hoped they could drain
the terrorist swamp in the long run. But in the short run, they have
created new terrorist-breeding swamps full of angry young Arabs who
see America the same way Muslims saw Westerners during the Crusades:
as Christian expansionist imperialists motivated by piety and greed.

Just because the unholy alliance of Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters
and Islamic terrorists has turned Iraq into a scary shooting gallery
for our troops doesn’t mean Americans at home are any safer. Since
when did terrorists see terror as an either-or proposition?

“Bring ’em on” sounded like a tinny, reckless boast the first time the
President said it. It doesn’t sound any better when Bush says it
louder with a chorus.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:33:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
wrote:

July 27:
From Testimony as Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz, and Director, Office of Management and Budget, Joshua
Bolten before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee 27 July

..
SEN. BIDEN: How much will you be requesting for the remainder of the
year, if any, from the United States Congress to fund that need?

MR. BOLTEN: We don't anticipate requesting anything additional for the
balance of this year.

August 27
Bush may ask Congress for extra Iraq funding earlier than expected
by ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

(08-27) 13:55 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Bush administration may ask Congress next month for a few billion
more dollars for Iraq reconstruction, officials said Wednesday, only a
few weeks after the Pentagon said extra money would not be needed at
least until the new budget year begins in October.

The possible early infusion of fresh cash is an indication of the
urgency felt by L. Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator of Iraq,
and others in the administration to make faster progress in Iraq.
The administration has been saying for weeks that it expects to
request billions in emergency funding for Iraq during the 2004 budget
year, but until now it had insisted enough money was available through
September to pay for civic projects like repairing utilities and
schools.

In fact, as recently as Aug. 4 the Pentagon had estimated that $4
billion of the $62.6 billion in emergency funding it received in April
would be left over when the budget year ends Sept. 30.

The United States is spending about $3.9 billion a month on military
operations in Iraq, and that does not count funds used by Bremer's
Coalition Provisional Authority to rebuild the wartorn country.

The U.S. military has about 140,000 troops in Iraq and is expected to
maintain that level for the foreseeable future. Some in Congress are
even calling for more troops, which would add costs.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan told reporters Wednesday it was
too early to say for sure how much extra money would be needed to
cover costs in Iraq -- or when it would be requested.
"We don't have the numbers at this point, and until we have
responsible numbers we're not going to go to Congress," she said,
speaking at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, also declined to
discuss timing or amounts.

"We are working with Ambassador Bremer to meet his requirements and
have not finalized on any amounts," he said.

Some in Congress are critical of the administration for not offering
an estimate of how much the Iraq occupation and reconstruction effort
will cost next year. The Pentagon says it depends on several
variables, including international contributions and the extent of
Iraqi oil revenues.

Bremer told The Washington Post on Tuesday that it would take years
and "several tens of billions" of dollars from outside Iraq to get the
country functioning again. Bush said Tuesday it would take a
"substantial commitment of time and resources," but he offered no
figures.

Burning money in Iraq [excerpts from]
by David Lazarus
Friday, August 29, 2003
..

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its estimates yet
again this week and announced that the federal budget deficit will
soar to a record $480 billion next year, reaching $1.4 trillion over
the coming decade. [..] These new estimates don't include the rising
cost of the war in Iraq, which, if factored into the mix, would push
the 2004 deficit well beyond $500 billion.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has estimated that the "burn rate"
-- his words -- [..] is currently running $3.9 billion a month, or
nearly $48 billion a year.

That's a highly conservative figure. It doesn't include the cost of
replacing damaged vehicles and equipment, or the cost of munitions
used in daily skirmishes. Some experts say the annual war cost is
actually closer to $60 billion.

[..M]ost Americans believe they're taxed heavily enough already. We
aren't being asked to pay an additional war-in-Iraq tax for just that
reason. Instead, we expect the government to do the best it can with
what we give it. That's the idea, anyway.

The Bush administration, which has cut taxes three times in the past
three years, is determined to spend whatever it deems necessary in the
"war on terrorism" even as it systematically slashes the government's
revenue.

"In the last two and half years, this nation has acted decisively to
confront great challenges," President Bush said the other day while
raising money for his re-election. "I came to the office of president
of the United States to solve problems, instead of passing them on to
future presidents and future generations."

He was referring to problems like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden,
wherever they are. Bush apparently doesn't see a budget deficit
lasting until at least 2012 as a problem for future presidents and
future generations.

Moreover, he seems blissfully unaware that if his tax cuts are made
permanent -- a goal he has sworn to achieve -- the cumulative deficit
over the next decade will balloon to almost $3 trillion. The $400
billion Congress plans to spend overhauling Medicare over the same
period would push the total even higher.

[..] At the same time, though, the White House is spending like a
sailor on shore leave. Paul Bremer, the administration's man in
occupied Iraq, was asked in a recent interview how much it will cost
to rebuild the country.

"It's probably well above $50 billion, $60 billion, maybe $100
billion," he answered. Then, as if that didn't sound wishy-washy
enough, he added, "It's a lot of money."

Bremer flew back to Washington this week to ask the White House for a
few billion more to tide him over until a larger budget bill can be
introduced this fall.

For his part, Bush said he'd help out by cutting annual raises for
more than 1 million federal employees -- a move that will free up
billions for Iraq but impact the spending power of Americans on the
home front.

We could have more teachers, or firefighters, or police officers or
nurses. Instead we have an open-ended commitment to policing and
reconstructing a Mideast nation that may or may not have posed a
threat down the road.

And we'll put off paying the cost for many years, leaving a mountain
of debt and obligations for our children to somehow tackle -- the
president's self-congratulatory remarks notwithstanding.

Kind of makes California's troubles seem quaint by comparison.

President George W. Bush received his first national security
briefing at the Governor's Mansion in Austin, Texas. It was conducted
by Brigadier General Thomas C. Bradley, Army Staff Liaison to the
National Security Council, and David L. McKittrick, Deputy Assistant
to the Director of the CIA. An anonymous Security Council staff member
leaked a transcript of the briefing to the press.

Bradley: Good morning, Mr. President-elect. Congratulations on your
victory.

Bush: Thanks. That's a nice suit. How come you don't wear a uniform.
Are you really a general?

Bradley: I wear my uniform when I'm working at the Pentagon. Now,
would you like to get started?

Bush: Yeah, I guess. How long is this gonna take?

McKittrick: Mr. President-elect, these briefings usually only take
15-20 minutes, depending on world events. Somewhat longer if you have
questions or require further detail.

Bush: Okay.

Bradley: Beginning with the Middle East, as you may know, Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Barak . . .

Bush: He's a Jew, right?

Bradley: One would assume so. Now . . .

Bush: I bet he voted for Pat Buchanan.

Bradley: Sir, Mr. Barak has resigned as a result of the continuing
violence between the Palestinians and the Israeli security forces.

Bush: I hear those Palestrians are A-rabs without any oil. That must
be real hard on them. I mean, an A-rab without oil is, I guess, just a
shepherd or a terrorist or something. I feel compassion for them.

Bradley: Yes, sir. In any event, the situation is extremely volatile
because most of the casualties are Palestinian youth -- children
really -- who assault the Israeli soldiers with rocks.

Bush: Rocks? Well, hey, this is easy. Why don't we just get rid of the
rocks? The Israelite army could just go in there and pick them up and
haul them away for making gravel or paving roads or something. The
Jews could probably even make a buck or two on that deal.

McKittrick: Sir, Palestine is a rocky desert. Removing all the rocks
from Palestine would be like removing all the idiots from Texas.

Bush: Excuse me? What did you say? What's your name again, mister?

McKittrick: John Doe.

Bush: Well, Mr. Doe, we'll see how long your career lasts in my
administration.

Bradley: Sir, in any case, you can't remove the rocks from Palestine.

Bush: Where's Uncle Dick?

Bradley: Sir?

Bush: Dick Cheney. He should be here. He knows what to do about all
this detail stuff.

Bradley: Sir, I believe he's in Washington supervising the transition.

Bush: Transition?

Bradley: Changing the government, sir. Replacing the Democratic
officeholders in the Executive Branch. Preparing for your
administration in Washington.

Bush: I have to move to Washington? I just bought a ranch. A big one,
too.

McKittrick: Perhaps we could move on to events in Europe.

Bush: That's better. I like Europe.

McKittrick: Have you traveled extensively there?

Bush: I didn't say I'd been there. I said I like the Europese. You
know, a lot of Americans came here from Europe. My own family used to
be a part of Europe. I'm not sure which.

McKittrick: Yes, sir, I can imagine. Mr. President-elect, the European
Union is becoming more of a reality and changing the nature of our
responsibilities and influence there. The Europeans want to establish
their own 60,000 man security force, and that raises questions about
the future viability of NATO.

Bush: I don't get it.

McKittrick: Get what, sir? Europe? NATO? Where did I lose you?

Bush: Don't be a smart aleck. My dad used to run the FBI, you know. Or
the CIA. Who are you with? He ran that too.

Bradley: Sir, what he's saying . . .

Bush: I know what he's saying. The Europese want to redo the continent
into one big country. With ONE army. That's stupid! If it's all one
army, who are you going to attack? Answer me that.

McKittrick: Mr. President-elect, I believe that's enough for one day.
I think you're right; we'll give these pesky details to Vice
President-elect Cheney, and you can get back to the ranch. Thank you
for your time and attention.

Bush: Oh sure, this is fun. Maybe when I'm president we can have these
briefings once a year.

Bradley: Yes, sir. Good day, sir.

Bush: Yeah, bye. Oh, hey, listen. I wasn't talking about ALL the
rocks. Just the ones that are throwin' size. I'm not stupid, you know.

McKittrick: God help us all.

Bush: What was that??

McKittrick: Nothing Sir, have a good Day

Rumsfeld Nov 14, 2002 - use of force will CERTAINLY not last more
than five months in Iraq:

"The Gulf war lasted five days. I can't tell you if the use of force
in Iraq today would last five days or five weeks or five months. But
it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Rumsfeld Aug 25, 2003 -- after using force for more than five months
in Iraq:

"Now was—did we—was it possible to anticipate that the battles would
take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up
north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those
folks, because they blended into the countryside and they're still
fighting their war?"

Good question, Rumsfeld. Was it possible to anticipate, that
these folks would blend into the countryside and continue fighting?

Who could have anticipated that?
------------------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld Feb 20, 2002 -- after using force for four and a half month
in Afghanistan:

"The dilemma that the country is facing right now, Afghanistan, is
what should they do about their security situation. They have got
Taliban and al Qaeda milling around, that have blended into the
countryside, into the villages, across the borders and are ready to
come back in the event they feel they have the opportunity."