<div>Sunil, et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Consider this advice dating from 1998 from Paul Wolfowitz (often called a "neo-con"), one of the architects of the Bush administration Middle East policy, advice that does not recommend sending US troops to Baghdad, but in "helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam" via, in part, creating a "liberated zone in southern Iraq."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>From the "Project for a New American Century" web site:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm">http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqsep1898.htm</a></div>
<div>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching
U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam.<br></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Saddam's main strength -- his ability to control his people though extreme terror -- is also his greatest vulnerability. The overwhelming majority of people, including some of his closest associates, would like to be free of his grasp if only they could safely do so.
<br></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991. Establishing a safe protected zone in the South, where opposition to Saddam could rally and organize, would make it possible:
<br></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> For a provisional government of free Iraq to organize, begin to gain international recognition and begin to publicize a political program for the future of Iraq;</font>
</p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Provide a safe area to which Iraqi army units could rally in opposition to Saddam, leading to the liberation of more and more of the country and the unraveling of the regime.
</font></p></blockquote></div>
<div>----------------------------------------------------</div>
<div>I find this advice far more sensible (it appears Wolfowitz later abandoned his own advice about letting the Iraqi people liberate themselves?) than the policy we have acted on, trying to force democracy on a nation with so much ethnic/religious internal strife, a self fulfilling policy that has created a situation that fuels, not reduces, terrorism, and has made the US the enemy of many of the people in Iraq, who first greeted us as liberators.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regarding the oil motivation to invade Iraq, it can be understood in the context of a long term strategy to secure the oil reserves in the Middle East looking forward 50 years or further... Sure we could hope in the future to let the nations in the Middle East sell the oil willingly, using various strategies to maintain governments friendly to US interests. But the possibility of the Islamists in the Middle East, especially with an increasingly powerful anti-US Iran with its oil wealth, using oil as an economic weapon against the US, makes having a powerful military presence based in the Middle East, an attractive strategy. Of course Middle East oil fuels the economies of other allies, like Japan, economic partners that the US has a major economic interest in maintaining their access to Middle East oil, so assuring access to Middle East oil in our Iraq war strategy is not just for the US alone. Note that we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia, that was causing the Saudi ruling family major problems. Part of the strategy in our invasion of Iraq was/is to shift our military presence away from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, and of course to more encircle oil rich anti-US Iran, which we now have wedged between Afghanistan and Iraq:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Comment below from this web site: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of
U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners. </div>
<div>
<p>-----------------------------------</p></div>
<div>The permanent military bases the US is building in Iraq demonstrate that our intentions are not to turn Iraq over to an totally independent Iraq government, even if such a democratically elected government demanded the US remove all military personnel and US military hardware from its soil.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have yet to hear any explanation for the US construction of these military bases in Iraq that fully explains how the construction of these bases does not punch a hole in the theory that our main goals in Iraq are to establish a democracy and let the Iraqi people run their own country in the long term.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/6/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Sunil Ramalingam</b> <<a href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">sunilramalingam@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Phil,<br><br>Sometimes your leaps leave me amazed, and this is one of those times. I<br>didn't see anything in Roger's post that comes close to being anti-Semitic,
<br>and yet there you are with a pretty wild accusation.<br><br>I think this war is in large part about controlling access to oil. I don't<br>think 'it's all about the Jews. And I think someone should be able to make<br>
the first statement without being accused of the second.<br><br>When you do that you take away the ability to have an honest discussion<br>about the war. Instead of discussing the issue that was actually raised,<br>now we're off having a different discussion about an unrelated subject.
<br><br>Sunil<br><br><br>>From: "Phil Nisbet" <<a href="mailto:pcnisbet1@hotmail.com">pcnisbet1@hotmail.com</a>><br>>To: <a href="mailto:rhayes@turbonet.com">rhayes@turbonet.com</a><br>>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">
vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: LMT reporting US losses<br>>Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:06:07 -0800<br>><br>>Roger H<br>><br>>So, from your particular slant here, its perfectly OK that the radicals of
<br>>the Islamic world decides to target people and countries for death and<br>>extermination?<br>><br>>Your notions here remind me of the America First movement of the 1930's.<br>>In particular it reminds me of Charles Lindberg's speeches of that era. So
<br>>when do I get to hear the other shoe drop, that same plaint that Lindberg<br>>used, "Its all about those darn Jews"?<br>><br>>Phil Nisbet<br>><br>><br>>>From: roger hayes <<a href="mailto:rhayes@turbonet.com">
rhayes@turbonet.com</a>><br>>>To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>>Subject: [Vision2020] Re: LMT reporting US losses<br>>>Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:21:20 -0800<br>>>
<br>>>><br>>><br>>>Ted, the media is suffering from the same mentality as the American<br>>>public, cognitive dissonance. This means even though the truth is staring<br>>>us in the face, we would prefer not to know, or see, what's really going
<br>>>on. As death, whether American, or Iraqi becomes all too common, we will<br>>>relegate that news further from the forefront of our consciousness, and<br>>>hence the front page of our papers.<br>>>For all of our patriotic chest thumping, the recent waves of indignation
<br>>>about the cartooning of Mohammed and the resulting claim that Islam is<br>>>trying to take over the world, the deaths are for, and about, oil. We<br>>>need it, and they have it. This is the truth people don't want to know.
<br>>>But even our corporate oil President in his State of the<br>>>Union Address said, "we are addicted to oil." I sense that he feels safe<br>>>in at last stating the truth about the war. He knows we will hear truth,
<br>>>but we will do nothing about it.<br>>>Soon we will have to begin rating our SUVs and monster trucks in miles<br>>>per human life rather than miles per gallon. Even that will be acceptable<br>>>I fear.
<br>>><br>>>Roger Hayes<br>>>Moscow<br>>><br>>><br>>>>All:<br>>>><br>>>>I was amazed and dismayed to read the Friday, Feb. 3, 2006 edition of<br>>>>the<br>
>>>Lewiston Morning Tribune, given the choices made regarding what deserves<br>>>>front page focus, and what does not. Four articles dominated the front<br>>>>page: one on wolves delisting, Bush seeking 120 billion more for wars,
<br>>>>Orofino teenagers, and something about a Lapwai man and Pres-to-Logs...<br>>>><br>>>>Then I was astonished to read on the left hand lower corner of page 3 a<br>>>>small article, with a tiny headline, notifying us that 5 more US
<br>>>>soldiers<br>>>>had died in combat in Iraq in the past week.<br>>>><br>>>>I know that many Iraq war supporters think the US media focuses too much<br>>>>on<br>>>>the negative news from Iraq, but does putting notice of the deaths in
<br>>>>the<br>>>>past week of 5 US soldiers, who gave their lives to defend us, deserve<br>>>>nothing more than a tiny article with a tiny headline in the left hand<br>>>>lower<br>>>>corner of page 3?
<br>>>><br>>>>Have we become that callous to the horror of the war in Iraq, to the<br>>>>ultimate sacrifices of our soldiers when they die in combat, that<br>>>>Pres-to-Logs are a more important subject?
<br>>>><br>>>>Or did the Tribune make a decision that the deaths of US soldiers in<br>>>>Iraq<br>>>>are not the proper subject to best sell their newspaper at this time?<br>>>>Has
<br>>>>coverage of the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq become so easily accepted<br>>>>that<br>>>>they are not deemed newsworthy enough to be featured on the front page?<br>>>><br>>>>Am I wrong to suggest something is amiss here in the Tribune's coverage?
<br>>>>What am I overlooking or overemphasizing?<br>>>><br>>>>Ted Moffett<br>>>>-------------- next part --------------<br>>>>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>>>>URL:
<a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060204/">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060204/</a><br>>>>4b7c2f63/attachment-0001.htm<br>>>><br>>>>------------------------------
<br>>><br>>>_____________________________________________________<br>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the<br>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br>>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br>><br>>_________________________________________________________________
<br>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!<br>><a href="http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/">http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
</a><br>><br>>_____________________________________________________<br>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the<br>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. <a href="http://www.fsr.net">
http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br><br><br>_____________________________________________________
<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<br></blockquote></div><br>