[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

U.S. is studying military strike options on Iran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:16 pm    Post subject: James A. Lyons Jr., a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was command Reply with quote

James A. Lyons Jr., a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet wrote:

Iran: It's About Time
September 06, 2007
The Washington Times
James A. Lyons Jr.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070906/COMMENTARY/109060017/1012

It's about time. The Bush administration has finally decided to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a global terrorist group. My only question: What took them so long?

In fact, if diplomatically feasible, the entire corrupt Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini regime should be designated a global terrorist group. Since 1984, Iran has been on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. After all, with all the hard evidence we now have on Iran's complicity in providing all forms of warmaking material, including sophisticated IEDs (improvised bombs), training of Islamic foreign terrorists including Hezbollah who are used as proxies to fight our forces in Iraq, we should not stop at the IRGC.

But it's a start. The IRGC with its Quds Force has been linked to the growing flow of explosives and other arms to Shi'ite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also provides support to Shi'ite allies such as Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and facilitates the trafficking of heroin from Afghanistan to Western Europe and the United States. A corrupt organization, the IRGC is heavily involved in basically every major commercial industry in Iran. Many of the front companies procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards.

Economic sanctions on Iran have generally been ineffective. Designating the IRGC a terrorist group would have a major impact on restricting or seriously disrupting the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network as well as on foreign companies conducting business with the Guards. They will increase the risks for countries that have ignored the existing sanctions against Iran.

And yet, though the U.S. focuses on imposing serious economic sanctions on Iran, and the U.S. Treasury Department spends considerable effort locating Iranian assets to freeze, the World Bank (of which the United States is a main sponsor: we contributed $950 million in 2006 and $940 million in 2007, with $950 million scheduled for 2008) continues providing substantial developmental funds to Iran. This is lunacy.

Why the World Bank provides any development funds at all to a designated state sponsor of terrorism — in particular a country awash in petrodollars — is a question to which the White House, the Congress and the American people should demand an answer.

After all, Iran exports 2.6 million barrels of oil per day. Its oil export revenue has almost doubled between 2003 and 2005, from $23.7 billion to $46.6 billion. In 2006, revenues grew to $50 billion. No wonder it was able to quickly provide $100 million to Hezbollah after its 2006 conflict with Israel. Even though Iran publicly funds Hezbollah and Hamas, and openly defies United Nations Security Council resolutions, the World Bank's board continues to approve more funds for Iran.

It is interesting to note that the World Bank continued funding Iran even during noted neocon Paul Wolfowitz's stormy tenure as the Bank's head. In fact, the World Bank is scheduled to provide development funding of more than $870 million to Iran through 2010. Talk about ridiculous.

But there's more: The World Bank is part of the U.N. but for reasons unknown is not seemingly bound by U.N. Security Council resolutions. This is a serious flaw and must be remedied. The World Bank cannot remain oblivious to Security Council resolutions. The European members of the board of directors need to join with the United States in forcing bylaw changes in the World Bank.

Indeed, if economic sanctions are ever to work in forcing Iran to comply with U.N. resolutions, all U.N. organizations, including the World Bank, must operate on the same page.

While I believe it is doubtful economic sanctions will work against Iran, designating the IRGC a terrorist organization opens the possibility of sanctions with teeth as well as potential military options against key IRGC infrastructure facilities. It is one way to start putting Iran on the defensive.

James A. Lyons Jr., a retired U.S. Navy admiral, was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (the world's largest single military command), senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations and a former deputy chief of naval operations, where he was principal adviser on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cyrus Jan,

I can relate....



To: Najmedin Meshkati,

I don't know if this will help, but if you had designed a more ergonomic handgun, you would not be responsible for the decisions of those using it.

A weapon, like any tool, is determined by it's usage as to whether it has been implemented ethically.

One can use a handgun to keep the peace, regain the peace, or break the peace. That it may be more efficiant in it's capabilities is inconsequential to where responsibility lies.

You think you have it tough, my granddad had a large part to play in developing the very first atomic bomb. Thus it is a "family thing" to see this legacy resolved for the betterment of mankind.

My advice as a parent is this, talk to your son. Help him understand why it may be that the things you've contributed to may be used to remove some very bad people that have turned Iran into a pariah nation. That because they have chosen to break the peace, your part to play in the liberation of your country will not be something to be ashamed about when it happens, for the responsibility for that ( and all it entails) sir, rests right upon the mullahs pointy little heads.

Regards,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Professor Najmedin Meshkati Clarification Reply with quote

Dear Oppie,
Thank you for your excellent comments in previous post and I agree with you. Please review Professor Meshkati General response and clarification below.
Regards,
Cyrus

Professor Najmedin Meshkati General Response and Clarification - wrote:

I am very impressed by the number and quality of comments re my interview. However, I am dismayed by the misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and mis-translation of my comments and the true nature of my work (esp in some websites which have translated my comments into Persian/Farsi). This is intended to set the record straight.

The text of the interview which is posted on the:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/america/2007/09/scientist_fears_iranus_war.html


CORRECTLY says “For decades Najmedin Meshkati proudly designed advanced technologies for America, including support for the B-2 stealth bomber.” It does NOT say that I have been an aircraft designer. I am NOT an aerospace engineer and I don’t have any expertise in aircraft design, I am NOT a weapon or a bomber designer. Period. My scholarly and teaching efforts are on human-machine systems integration (such mental workload measurement) has been drawn upon, and my graduate students have worked on the B2 cockpit design. Period.

My area of expertise is in the interdisciplinary field of “Human Factors”, which is a rather new field (almost 50 years old) and my scholarly work and practice for the last 25 years deals with human-machine systems integration in complex technological systems. In other terms, my interdisciplinary research, for the last 25 years, has been concerned primarily with the risk reduction and reliability enhancement of complex and large-scale technological systems, which include such systems as nuclear power and chemical processing plants and aviation systems.

A characteristic common to these high-risk systems is that the effects of human error in these systems are often neither observable nor reversible; therefore, error recovery is either too late or impossible. Potential catastrophic breakdowns of these systems, which often are characterized as ‘low probability, high consequence’, pose serious threats for workers in the plant, the local public, and possibly the neighboring region and parts of the whole country [e.g., in the case of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (which I visited in 1997) accident in 1986, radiation fallout and thousands of radiation sickness in Ukraine and Belarus]. For the foreseeable future, despite increasing levels of computerization and automation, human operators will remain in charge of the day-to-day controlling and monitoring of these systems. Thus, the safe and efficient operation of these technological systems is a function of the interactions among their human (i.e., personnel and organizational) and engineered/technological subsystems.

This is the area of my research and I am pleased to report that this field – human factors and ergonomics -- is now being used in many industries to reduce human error and the resulting accidents. One (and again ONE) area of application of human factors engineering is in the deign of cockpit of all types of aircrafts: commercial aviation, Boeing passenger planes (and control rooms of nuclear plants and refineries).

As we talk in my classes, YOUR lives and well-being, literally from the cradle, and sorry to say, “grave”, are at the mercy of this field – human factors and ergonomics. For instance, according to a study by the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Heath System (November, 1999), preventable medical errors in the United States each year result in “up to 98,000 deaths and $29 Billion added cost.” An accident often is called ‘an error with sad consequences’ and human error has been identified as one of primary causes of (technological) systems’ accidents, such as “crew failure” that has been identified by Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company, as the root-cause of 65.4% of all world-wide jet transport accidents since the dawn of commercial jet operations in 1959.

In fact, I am proud that I received this year's (2007) Human Factors and Ergonomic Society's (HFES) (www.hfes.org) prestigious Oliver Keith Hansen Outreach Award, for my "scholarly efforts on human factors of complex, large-scale technological systems...(and) efforts to enhance public awareness of critical human factors issues...." and being recognized for “significant activities that broaden awareness of the existence of the human factors/ergonomics profession and the benefits it brings to humankind.”

I hope that the above explanation set the record straight, help all who think of me as an “aircraft designer” and a bomber maker, to change their perception and understand the true nature of my work and, more importantly, the VITAL contribution of the filed of human factors and ergonomic. This could be the only “silver lining” of this cloud of confusion, misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Thank you for your attention.

Najmedin Meshkati
September 5, 2007


Last edited by cyrus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:52 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

In families some subjects everyone knows, but don't or won't talk about with those of years too tender to have to worry themselves, yet the not knowing lends the formation of doubt in young minds.

Overcome by lots of research, in my case.


Ba Sepaas,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: CNN Video Petraeus: Troops withdrawals by year's end Reply with quote

CNN wrote:
CNN Video Petraeus: Troops withdrawals by year's end

Souce: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/iraq.petraeus/index.html#cnnSTCVideo




Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, reports on progress to Congress on Monday.

Gen. David Petraeus wrote:



Petraeus talks of troop withdrawal
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070910/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AsBbtLihcdryi8iVKoSmqums0NUE

WASHINGTON - Gen. David Petraeus told Congress on Monday he envisions the withdrawal of roughly 30,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by next summer, beginning with a Marine contingent later this month.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed Cyrus! This is just the fellow we've been looking for! We desperately need someone to do a quick egonomic adaptation of our Minuteman Nuclear Missiles to allow seating for up to five pissed off preachers per for our Earth / Sol garbage run.

We did a launch with a test subject ( a real formerly live, decrepit and partially decayed mullah) , but I must report duck tape failure at T+ 5:12 , test subject reentered atmosphere after separation from booster nuke, and impacted in the middle of the Vatican courtyard where the pope takes his daily constitutional.

"Who's been burning the Bacon and tossing it onto my walkway?" he was reprted as asking, just as a dozen unleashed hounds from hell ( on loan) rounded the corner.

Major Diplomatic incident averted as "Bacon" then fed to the guard dogs.


Gotta love it. Never a dull moment in the struggle for democracy.

( MMMmmm, now this might just get me a fatwa issued for my head, Salman Rushdi, move on over and let rover take over....I actually bite.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:52 am    Post subject: Cognitive Dissonance Reply with quote

Cognitive Dissonance

Did the State Department Hear what General Petraeus Said About Iran?


September 11, 2007
National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTQyNjE0MmRlZTk2YTk3OTM1N2RiYmUwN2RiYzUwMmM=


The much-anticipated testimony of a most impressive man, General David Petraeus, underscores a fact that is essential but much overlooked. No matter how adept and heroic our military is — and, as their commander observed, they are “very likely, the most professional force in our nation’s history” — the purpose of a military in a constitutional democracy such as ours is to effect policy, not create it.

Crafting policy is the business of our elected civilian leaders. Thus it was counterintuitive to hear Ryan C. Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, frame of our policy only after General Petraeus’s report of progress to achieve it. The counterintuitive, moreover, quickly lapsed into the contradictory. Ambassador Crocker averred:

[I]t is possible for the United States to see its goals realized in Iraq[.]… A secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable. In my judgment, the cumulative trajectory of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep.

Today is the sixth anniversary — if it is appropriate to mark an atrocity with that word — of the 9/11 attacks. It is a good day to remember that the challenge to which we finally rose in the aftermath of that dark day was the protection of American national security. That goal was understood at the time as crushing terrorists and — this is the important part — the regimes that support them.

Having deposed Saddam Hussein’s regime, forging a stable Iraq — one that is an ally rather than an antagonist in the ongoing war — is clearly a part of that. The question whether a democratic Iraq is either likely or necessary to our security is a controversy for another day. More worth our attention on this anniversary, as we consider the terror regimes, Iran in particular, that continue to facilitate radical Islam in Iraq and beyond, is Amb. Crocker’s vision of an “Iraq at peace with its neighbors.”

He contends the diplomatic trajectory is modestly upwards. In what sense? Iraq’s neighbors prominently include Iran and Syria. What follows is all of what General Petraeus had to say about them before Amb. Crocker provided his rosy trajectory. The words are Gen. Petraeus’s:



We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.


Foreign and home-grown terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists, and criminals all push the ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran fuel that violence.


In the ensuing months, our forces and our Iraqi counterparts have focused on improving security, especially in Baghdad and the areas around it, wresting sanctuaries from al Qaeda control, and disrupting the efforts of the Iranian-supported militia extremists.


In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran, and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the International Zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.


The recommendations I provided were informed by operational and strategic considerations. The operational considerations include recognition that … success against Al Qaeda-Iraq and Iranian-supported militia extremists requires conventional forces as well as special operations forces[.]


[O]n a less encouraging note, none of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern.


[Our] assessment is supported by the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report on the implications of a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Summarizing it in an unclassified fashion, it concludes that a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including … exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.

So where Amb. Crocker sees an upward diplomatic trajectory, Gen. Petraeus finds it “increasingly apparent” that Iran, with all the mayhem it has already made, is trying to turn its Shiite proxies into another Hezbollah, something he now has a “greater concern” about than he did earlier this year.

The dissonance is familiar by now, but dizzying nonetheless.

Gen. Petraeus, nobody’s tool and nobody’s fool, laid out the Iranian challenge bluntly. He didn’t lay out an Iranian policy — not in his job description. That’s what they are supposed to do over at Amb. Crocker’s shop. At Foggy Bottom, however, there is no policy to speak of except to say, regardless of the evidence, that things are getting better.

Things are getting worse.

Gen. Petraeus succinctly told his congressional inquisitors: “We cannot win Iraq solely in Iraq.” He’s right, of course. And we surely cannot win the greater war against radical Islam in Iraq.

The war can’t be won absent dealing with Tehran. Six years after 9/11, six years after President Bush’s bold admonition to state sponsors of terror, it’s worth asking, yet again: How do we plan to do that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Please allow me to utterly destroy the above author's premis that State is ill informed, or simply ignoring the problem.

I listened and watched the hearings on C-span, and I can tell you for a fact that the author has deliberately misrepresented and ommitted critical testimony by Amb. Ryan Crocker.

I urge all to take the time to watch and judge for yourselves.

Then write to this author's editor and tell him to pull this spin artist's head out of the back of beyond, maybe then he'll actually see the light.

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


Reports Iranian arms reaching Taliban worry U.S.
Tue. 11 Sep 2007
By Sayed Salahuddin

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12376

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States is concerned over reports that Iranian-made weapons are crossing the Afghan border and reaching Islamist Taliban insurgents, a top U.S. diplomat said on Tuesday.

Iran supported Afghan groups fighting the Taliban in the 1990s and played a crucial role in helping to topple the Taliban's Sunni government, ousted by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion, by supporting their Mujahideen foes.

The Shiite Islamic Republic has repeatedly in the past denied accusations by U.S. officials that it is arming the resurgent Taliban, who are largely active in southern and eastern areas close to the border with Pakistan.

"We are concerned by reports, which we consider to be reliable, of Iranian explosively formed projectiles and other kinds of military equipment coming from Iran across the border and coming into the hands of the Taliban," U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told reporters on a visit to Kabul.

He did not elaborate.

The Taliban, like the Iranian government, have rejected U.S. reports that they are acquiring Iranian arms, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai has hailed relations with Iran as good.

Iran was among the Islamic countries and Western powers that provided arms and funds to some Afghan factions during the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and explosives experts are still clearing Iranian-made landmines laid during the 1990s.

Violence has surged in Afghanistan in the past 19 months, the bloodiest period since the Taliban's ouster.

Washington is leading international efforts to isolate Iran over its disputed nuclear program and accuses it of fomenting instability in Iraq.

The West says Iran is trying covertly to develop nuclear weapons, while Iran says its nuclear program is for electricity generation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

U.S. ambassador says Iran will be winner if U.S. abandons Iraq
Mon. 10 Sep 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 (Xinhua)


http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12369

-- U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said on Monday that Iran would be a winner if the United States abandons Iraq or drastically curtail U.S. efforts on Iraq.

"I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our efforts will bring failure, and the consequences of such a failure must be clearly understood by us all," Crocker said while testifying to the Congress.

Iran would be a winner if Iraq falls into chaos or civil war, which will mean massive human suffering well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq's borders, Crocker said.

"In such an environment, the gains made against Al Qaida and other extremist groups could easily evaporate, and they could establish strongholds to be used as safe havens for regional and international operations," Crocker said.

The United States has accused Iran of supporting insurgents inside Iraq to fight against the U.S.-led multinational troops. Iran has denied the charges.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To all Activistchat members:


Ambassador Crocker's Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq
Joint Hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services
Washington, DC
September 10, 2007

Excerpt:


Quote:
Syria's role has been more problematic. On one hand, Syria has hosted a meeting of the border security working group and interdicted some foreign terrorists in transit to Iraq. On the other hand, suicide-bombers continue to cross the border from Syria to murder Iraqi civilians.

Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state. In doing so, the Iranian government seems to ignore the risks that an unstable Iraq carries for its own interests.



It should be self evident to anyone who wishes to read the full text here:

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/

..That the author of "Cognitive Dissonance" never bothered to read beyond the quote he cited from the very same testimony.


Quote:

[I]t is possible for the United States to see its goals realized in Iraq[.]… A secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable. In my judgment, the cumulative trajectory of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep.



Here I wish to caution those who may reach judgement via incomplete, biased, or simply inane, spun out, deliberately false reporting done for political gain.

The only premis that the author got right in my estimation was this:

Quote:
The war can’t be won absent dealing with Tehran. Six years after 9/11, six years after President Bush’s bold admonition to state sponsors of terror, it’s worth asking, yet again: How do we plan to do that?


Yet he arrived at it for the wrong reasons.....or aparently fabricated a method of reasoning to present this "given". He obviously hasn't any clue what is being done about it other than a surface understanding at an amature level.

The boy obviously needs a serious education.

I shall endeavor to give him one.

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally, I will post Ambassador Crocker's closing remarks, as a coup de grace on the author of "Cognitive Dissonance" . The author, Andrew C. McCarthy , is aparently brain dead w/ an intellectual flat line reading on research activity, and it may simply be compationate to put his remarks and credibility out of its misery.


Quote:
I cannot guarantee success in Iraq. I do believe, as I have described, that it is attainable. I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our efforts will bring failure, and the consequences of such a failure must be clearly understood. An Iraq that falls into chaos or civil war will mean massive human suffering - well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq's borders. It could well invite the intervention of regional states, all of which see their future connected to Iraq's in some fundamental way. Undoubtedly, Iran would be a winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory. The Iranian President has already announced that Iran will fill any vacuum in Iraq. In such an environment, the gains made against al-Qa'ida and other extremists groups could easily evaporate and they could establish strongholds to be used as safe havens for regional and international operations. Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse.Every strategy requires recalibration as time goes on. This is particularly true in an environment like Iraq where change is a daily or hourly occurrence. As chief of mission in Iraq, I am constantly assessing our efforts and seeking to ensure that they are coordinated with and complementary to the efforts of our military. I believe that, thanks to the support of Congress, we have an appropriate civilian posture in Iraq. Over the coming year, we will continue to increase our civilian efforts outside of Baghdad and the international zone. This presence has allowed us to focus on capacity building, especially in the provinces - units which are likely to grow in influence as more power devolves from Baghdad. The number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams has grown from ten to 25 this year. In support of these goals, we will be asking Congress for additional economic assistance including additional quick response funds for capacity building. We will also seek support for two significant proposals that hold the prospect of creating permanent jobs for thousands of Iraqis. One would be the establishment of an "Iraqi-American Enterprise Fund," modeled on our successful funds in Poland and elsewhere in Central Europe. Such a fund could make equity investments in new and revamped f m s based in Iraq. The second would be a large-scale operations and maintenance facility based on our Highway Trust Fund. On a cost-sharing basis, such a fund would train Iraqis to budget for and maintain important public sector infrastructure (power plants, dams, roads). Over time, the cost-sharing would phase down and out, leaving behind well-trained professionals and instilling the habits of preventative maintenance.

We will continue our efforts to assist Iraqis in the pursuit of national reconciliation, while recognizing that progress on this front may come in many forms and must ultimately be done by Iraqis themselves. We will seek additional ways to neutralize regional interference and enhance regional and international support. And we will help Iraqis consolidate the positive developments at local levels and connect them with the national government. Finally, I expect we will invest much effort in developing the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq, which is an investment in the future of both countries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

Please allow me to utterly destroy the above author's premis that State is ill informed, or simply ignoring the problem.

I listened and watched the hearings on C-span, and I can tell you for a fact that the author has deliberately misrepresented and ommitted critical testimony by Amb. Ryan Crocker.

I urge all to take the time to watch and judge for yourselves.

Then write to this author's editor and tell him to pull this spin artist's head out of the back of beyond, maybe then he'll actually see the light.


Due to the facts that I don't know the author and I did not watch the hearings on C-span therefore I am not in position to respond to you regarding the article.
Based on the following Rules and test cases both Bush Admin and Democrats .... failed us..... As long as the Islamist regime in Iran is in power we will not see peace and stability in the region ... So far we have not seen a clear US policy based on Secularism and Free Society that we can support it or reject it ....

ActivistChat wrote:
Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.
9- Separation Of Oil and State, Separation Of Blood Oil and Human Rights, Separation Of Blood Oil and Free Society, Separation Of Blood Oil and Secular Democracy and Stop Global Warming.



My current focus is on the following petition:



Petition 50: Nuclear Safety Warning in Iran – Accidents and Radiological Disaster In Progress
Sign the Petition -
View Current Signatures


http://www.petitiononline.com/achat50/petition.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Last edited by cyrus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I was just giving you a heads up I was going to provide some food for thought...no need to comment if you haven't the time.

On the subjects that concern you, there is ample evidence the US is proceeding in 1-8 above as you wish, and as is correct.

#9 I just don't know about, simply because I am not totally up on the definition of "Blood oil", ...who's oil? ...who's blood? etc. etc.

Since oil greases the wheels of civilization, it is inherently tied in with many nation's national security...and global peace and security in the sence that having civilization come to a screeching halt is in no one's interest.

That said, it is entirely possible war would be the result of any nation seeking to cut off supply.

Thus you see the US and other nations navies in the gulf region making sure those with pointy little heads don't get ideas.

regards,

EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Cyrus,


On the subjects that concern you, there is ample evidence the US is proceeding in 1-8 above as you wish, and as is correct.



Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you, hope you are right. In past 7 years we have not seen solid policy or any evidence by Bush Admin to support 1-8 ....
Please educate us with evidence and actions by Bush Admin officials or Senators when they are moving in the progressive direction of 1-8, Secularism (Key American Founding Fathers Vision) is the key to many problems that we are facing.
Hoping both Parties to wakeup before it becomes too late, we expect good actions and great results after so many bad mistakes and so much waste .

AP wrote:

Low approval persists for Bush, Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_congress_ap_poll_8
WASHINGTON - Only a third of the public is satisfied with the job President Bush is doing and even fewer are pleased with Congress, according to a poll by The Associated Press and Ipsos released Thursday.

The above Low approval rating for both President Bush and Congress is very bad ... they have to ask the questions from themselves what have they done wrong that the 75% of American people don't trust the government ...
ActivistChat wrote:
Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.



Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Instead of a comprehensive history of US foreign policy, Cyrus, which would take me a long time to post all the references, speeches, legislation, and executive orders over the last ...say...6 years or so....and I could go back 60 or more....I'll post this, and you'll understand why I think it's important for folks to take the time to watch the hearings.



Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for the opportunity to address Congress this week. I have considered it a privilege and an honor to serve in Iraq at a time when so much is at stake for our country and the people of the region - and when so many Americans of the highest caliber in our military and civilian services are doing the same. I know that a heavy responsibility weighs on my shoulders to provide the country with my best, most honest assessment of the situation in Iraq and the implications for the United States.

Americans, in this chamber and beyond, are looking for more than an update on the latest events. They want to know the answers to some key questions. Are our objectives realistic? Is it possible that Iraq will become a united, stable country with a democratic government operating under the rule of law? What is the trajectory – is Iraq, on the whole, moving in the right direction? Can we expect more and under what time frame? Are there alternative courses of action for our country which are superior?

These are sensible questions to be asked by a nation investing in and sacrificing for another country and people. In asking these questions, however, we must not lose sight of the vital interests the United States has in a successful outcome in Iraq.

My intention today is to give you an assessment of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq. In doing so, I will not minimize the enormity of the challenges faced by Iraqis, nor the complexity of the situation. Yet at the same time, I intend to demonstrate that it is possible for the United States to see its goals realized in Iraq and that Iraqis are capable of tackling and addressing the problems confronting them today. A secure, stable democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable. In my judgment, the cumulative trajectory of political, economic, and diplomatic developments in Iraq is upwards, although the slope of that line is not steep. The process will not be quick, it will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment. There will be no single moment at which we can claim victory; any turning point will likely only be recognized in retrospect.

This is a sober assessment, but it should not be a disheartening one. I have found it helpful, during my time in Iraq to reflect on our own history. At many points in the early years, our survival as a nation was questionable. Our efforts to build the institutions of government were not always successful in the first instance. And tough issues - such as slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights, and state rights - were resolved only after acrimonious debate and sometimes violence.

Iraq is experiencing a revolution - not just regime change. It is only by understanding this that we can appreciate what is happening in Iraq and what Iraqis have achieved, as well as maintain a sense of realism about the challenges that remain.

Context
Evaluating where Iraqis are today only makes sense in the context of where they have been. Any Iraqi under 40 years old - and that is the overwhelming majority of the population - would have known nothing but the rule of the Ba'ath party before liberation four and a half years ago. Those 35 years were filled with crimes against humanity on every scale. Saddam Hussein ruled without any mercy, not hesitating to use lethal force and torture against even those in his inner circle. His genocidal campaign against the Kurds and savagery toward southern Shi'a are well known. But he also used violence and intimidation as tools in the complete deconstruction of Iraqi society. No organization or institution survived that was not linked in some way to regime protection. He created a pervasive climate of fear in which even family members were afraid to talk to one another.

This is the legacy that Iraqis had as their history when Saddam's statue came down on April 9, 2003. No Nelson Mandela existed to emerge on the national political scene; anyone with his leadership talents would have not survived. A new Iraq had to be built almost literally from scratch, and the builders in most cases were themselves reduced to their most basic identity, ethnic or sectarian.

Much progress has been made, particularly in building an institutional framework where there was none before. But rather than being a period in which old animosities and suspicions were overcome, the past 18 months in particular have further strained Iraqi society. The sectarian violence of 2006 and early 2007 had its seeds in Saddam's social deconstruction and it had dire consequences for the people of Iraq as well as its politics. Extensive displacement and widespread sectarian killings by al-Qa'ida and other extremist groups have gnawed away at the already frayed fabric of Iraqi society and politics. It is no exaggeration to say that Iraq is - and will remain for some time - a traumatized society.

National Politics
It is against this backdrop that developments in Iraq must be seen. Iraqis are facing some of the most profound political, economic, and security challenges imaginable. They are not simply grappling with the issue of who rules Iraq – but they are asking what kind of country Iraq will be, how it will be governed, and how Iraqis will share power and resources among each other. The constitution approved in a referendum in 2005 answered some of these questions in theory, but much remains uncertain in both law and practice.

Some of the more promising political developments at the national level are neither measured in benchmarks nor visible to those far from Baghdad. For instance, there is a budding debate about federalism among Iraq's leaders and, importantly, within the Sunni community. Those living in place like al-Anbar and Salahaddin are beginning to realize how localities having more of a say in daily decision making will empower their communities. No longer is an all-powerful Baghdad seen as the panacea to Iraq's problems. This thinking is nascent, but it is ultimately critical to the evolution of a common vision among all Iraqi leaders.

Similarly, there is a palpable frustration in Baghdad over the sectarian system that was used to divide the spoils of the state in the last few years. Leaders from all communities openly acknowledge that a focus on sectarian gains has led to poor governance and served Iraqis badly. And many claim to be ready to make the sacrifices that will be needed to put government performance ahead of sectarian and ethnic concerns. Such ideas are no longer controversial, although their application will be.

Finally, we are seeing Iraqis come to terms with complex issues not by first providing a national framework, but instead by tackling immediate problems. One such example is how the central government has accepted over 1700 young men from the Abu Ghurayb area west of Baghdad, including former members of insurgent groups, to be part of the Iraqi security forces. Another is how the government, without much public fanfare, has contacted thousands of members of the former Iraqi army, offering them retirement, return to the military, or public sector employment. So without the proclamation of a general amnesty, we see amnesty being granted, and de-ba'athification reform in advance of national legislation. In both instances, the seeds of reconciliation are being planted.

Our country, however, has come to associate progress on national reconciliation as meaning the passage of key pieces of legislation. There is logic to this, as the legislation we are urging the Iraqis to produce does - in one way or another – have to do with the question of how to share power and resources among Iraq's many communities. This legislation also has to do with the vision of the future Iraqi state. The oil and revenues sharing laws, for instance, deal with deeper issues than simply whether Iraqis in oil producing areas are willing to share their wealth with other Iraqis. What is difficult about the oil laws is that they take Iraq another step down the road toward a federal system that all Iraqis have not yet embraced. But once again, we see that even in the absence of legislation there is practical action as the central government shares oil revenues through budget allocations on an equitable basis with Iraq's provinces.

In many respects, the debates currently occurring in Iraq are akin to those surrounding our civil rights movement or struggle over states rights. With de-ba'athification,

Iraqis are struggling to come to terms with a vicious past. They are trying to balance fear that the Ba'ath party would one day return to power with the recognition that many former members of the party are guilty of no crime and joined the organization not to repress others but for personal survival. With provincial powers, they are grappling with very serious questions about what the right balance between the center and the periphery is for Iraq. Some see the devolution of power to regions and provinces as being the best insurance against the rise of a future tyrannical figure in Baghdad. Others see Iraq, with its complex demographics, as in need of a strong central authority.

In short, we should not be surprised or dismayed that Iraqis have not fully resolved such issues. Rather, we should ask whether the way in which they are approaching such issues gives us a sense of their seriousness and ultimate capability to resolve Iraq's fundamental problems. Is the collective national leadership of Iraq ready to prioritize Iraq over sectarian and community interests? Can and will they come to agreement about what sort of Iraq they want?

I do believe that Iraq's leaders have the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we originally anticipated because of the environment and the gravity of the issues before them. Prime Minister al-Maliki and the other Iraqi leaders face enormous obstacles in their efforts to govern effectively. They approach the task with a deep sense of commitment and patriotism. An important part of this positive judgment was the effort made by the leaders this past summer. After weeks of preparatory work and many days of intensive meetings, Iraq's five most prominent national leaders from the three major communities issued a communiqué on August 26 that noted agreement on draft legislation dealing with de-ba'athification and provincial powers. This agreement by no means solves all of Iraq's problems. But the commitment of its leaders to work together on hard issues is encouraging.

Perhaps most significantly, these five Iraqi leaders together decided to publicly express their joint desire to develop a long term relationship with the United States. Despite their many differences in perspectives and experiences, they all agreed on language acknowledging the need for a continue presence by the multinational forces in Iraq and expressing gratitude for the sacrifices these forces have made for Iraqis.

Provincial and Local Politics
At the provincial level, political gains have been more pronounced, particularly in the north and west of Iraq where the security improvements have been in some places dramatic. In these areas, there is abundant evidence that the security gains have opened the door for meaningful politics.

In al-Anbar, the progress on the security side has been extraordinary. Six months ago, violence was rampant, our forces were under daily attack, and Iraqis were cowering from the intimidation of al-Qa'ida. But al-Qa'ida overplayed its hand in al-Anbar and Anbaris began to reject its excesses - be they beheading school children or cutting off peoples' fingers as punishment for smoking. Recognizing the Coalition could help eject al-Qa'ida, the tribes began to fight with us, not against us, and the landscape in al-Anbar is dramatically different as a result.

Tribal representatives are on the provincial council, which is now meeting regularly to find ways of restoring services, developing the economy, and executing a provincial budget. These leaders are looking for help to rebuild their cities and talking of attracting investment. Such scenes are also unfolding in parts of Diyala and Ninewa, where Iraqis have mobilized with the help of the Coalition and Iraqi security forces to evict al-Qa'ida from their communities. The world should note that when al-Qa'ida began implementing its twisted vision of the Caliphate in Iraq, Iraqis, from al-Anbar to Baghdad to Diyala', have ovemhelmingly rejected it.

Shi'a extremists are also facing rejection. Recent attacks by elements of the

Iranian backed Jaysh al-Mahdi on worshipers in the holy city of Karbala have provoked a backlash and triggered a call by Muqtada as-Sadr for Jaysh al-Mahdi to cease attacks against Iraqis and coalition forces.

A key challenge for Iraqis now is to link these positive developments in the provinces to the central government in Baghdad. Unlike our states, Iraqi provinces have little ability to generate funds through taxation, making them dependent on the central government for resources. The growing ability of the provinces to design and execute budgets and the readiness of the central government to resource them are success stories. On September 5, Iraq's senior federal leadership traveled to al-Anbar where they announced a 70% increase in the 2007 provincial capital budget as well as $50 million to compensate losses in the fight against al-Qa'ida. The support of the central government is also needed to maintain hard-won security in areas like al-Anbar through the rapid expansion of locally-generated police. The Government of Iraq has placed some 21,000 Anbaris on police roles.

Economics and Capacity Building
Iraq is starting to make some gains in the economy. Improving security is stimulating revival of markets, with the active participation of local communities. War damage is being cleared and buildings repaired, roads and sewers built and commerce energized.

The IMF estimates that economic growth will exceed six percent for 2007. Iraqi ministries and provincial councils have made substantial progress this year in utilizing Iraq's oil revenue for investment. The 2007 governmental budget allocated $10 billion (nearly one-third Iraq's expected oil export revenue) to capital investment. Over $3 billion was allocated to the provinces and the Kurdish Region for spending. The latest data show that spending units (national ministries and provincial councils) have proceeded to commit these funds at more than twice the rate of last year. Doing the best are the provincial authorities, in the process gaining experience with making plans and decisions, and running fair tenders. In so doing, they are stimulating local business development and providing employment. Over time we expect the experience with more responsive local authorities will change Iraqi attitudes towards their elected leaders, and of the provinces towards Baghdad.

At two conferences in Dubai in the last two weeks, hundreds of Iraqi businessmen met an equal number of foreign investors newly interested in acquiring shares of businesses in Iraq. An auction of cell phone spectrum conducted by Pricewaterhouse Coopers netted the Government a better-than-expected sum of $3.75 billion. The Minister of Finance plans to use the funds, along with all the country's oil revenue, to apply to its pressing investment and current expenditure needs.

Overall, however, the Iraqi economy is performing significantly under potential. Insecurity in the countryside raises transport costs and especially affects manufacturing and agriculture. Electricity supply has improved in many parts of the country, but is woefully inadequate in Baghdad. Many neighborhoods in the city receive two hours a day or less from the national grid, although power supplies for essential services such as water pumping stations or hospitals are much better. The Minister of Electricity said last week that it would take $25 billion through 2016 to meet demand requirements, but that by investing the $2 billion a year the Ministry is now receiving from the government's budget, as well as private investment in power generation, that goal could be met.

We are deploying our assistance funds to make a difference to ordinary Iraqis and to support our political objectives. Military units are using Commanders Emergency Response (CERP) funds to ensure that residents see a difference when neighborhood violence declines. USAID Community Stabilization Funds provide tens of thousands of jobs. With the recent apportionment of 2007 Supplemental funds, we are putting "Quick Response Funds" in the hands of our Provincial Reconstruction Team leaders to build communities and institutions in post-kinetic environments. Vocational training and microfinance programs are supporting nascent private businesses. And in Baghdad, we are increasing our engagement and capacity building efforts with ministries.

Regional and International Dynamics
There is expanding international and regional engagement with Iraq. In August, the UN Security Council, at Iraq's invitation, provided the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) with an expanded mandate through UNSCR 1770. The work of the International Compact with Iraq moves forward, jointly chaired by Iraq and the UN. Seventy-four countries pledged support for Iraq's economic reform efforts at a Ministerial Conference in May. The UN has reported progress in 75% of the 400 areas Iraq has identified for action. Later this month, the Iraqi Prime Minister and the UN Secretary General will chair a ministerial level meeting in New York to discuss further progress under the Compact and how UNSCR 1770 can be most effectively implemented.

Many of Iraq's neighbors recognize that they have a stake in the outcome of the current conflict in Iraq, and are engaging with Iraq in a constructive way. A neighbors' ministerial in May, also attended by the P-5 and the G-8, has been followed by meetings of working groups on security, border issues, and energy. An ambassadorial level meeting just took place in Baghdad, and another neighbors' ministerial will be held in Istanbul in October.

Against the backdrop of these new mechanisms, the business of being neighbors is quietly unfolding. For the first time in years, lraq is exporting oil through its neighbor, Turkey, as well as through the Gulf. Iraq and Kuwait are nearing conclusion on a commercial deal for Kuwait to supply its northern neighbor with critically needed diesel. Jordan recently issued a statement welcoming the recent leaders' communiqué and supporting Iraqi efforts at reconciliation. And Saudi Arabia is planning on opening an Embassy in Baghdad - its first since the fall of Saddam.

Syria's role has been more problematic. On one hand, Syria has hosted a meeting of the border security working group and interdicted some foreign terrorists in transit to Iraq. On the other hand, suicide-bombers continue to cross the border from Syria to murder Iraqi civilians.

Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state. In doing so, the Iranian government seems to ignore the risks that an unstable Iraq carries for its own interests.

Looking Ahead
2006 was a bad year in Iraq. The country came close to unraveling politically, economically, and in security terms. 2007 has brought improvement. Enormous challenges remain. Iraqis still struggle with fundamental questions about how to share power, accept their differences and overcome their past. The changes to our strategy last January -the surge - have helped change the dynamics in Iraq for the better. Our increased presence made besieged communities feel that they could defeat al-Qa'ida by working with us. Our population security measures have made it much harder for terrorists to conduct attacks. We have given Iraqis the time and space to reflect on what sort of country they want. Most Iraqis genuinely accept Iraq as a multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian society - it is the balance of power that has yet to be sorted out.

Whether Iraq reaches its potential is of course ultimately the product of Iraqi decisions. But the involvement and support of the United States will be hugely important in shaping a positive outcome. Our country has given a great deal in blood and treasure to stabilize the situation in Iraq and help Iraqis build institutions for a united, democratic country governed under the rule of law. Realizing this vision will take more time and patience on the part of the United States.

I cannot guarantee success in Iraq. I do believe, as I have described, that it is attainable. I am certain that abandoning or drastically curtailing our efforts will bring failure, and the consequences of such a failure must be clearly understood. An Iraq that falls into chaos or civil war will mean massive human suffering - well beyond what has already occurred within Iraq's borders. It could well invite the intervention of regional states, all of which see their future connected to Iraq's in some fundamental way. Undoubtedly, Iran would be a winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory. The Iranian President has already announced that Iran will fill any vacuum in Iraq. In such an environment, the gains made against al-Qa'ida and other extremists groups could easily evaporate and they could establish strongholds to be used as safe havens for regional and international operations. Our current course is hard. The alternatives are far worse.

Every strategy requires recalibration as time goes on. This is particularly true in an environment like Iraq where change is a daily or hourly occurrence. As chief of mission in Iraq, I am constantly assessing our efforts and seeking to ensure that they are coordinated with and complementary to the efforts of our military. I believe that, thanks to the support of Congress, we have an appropriate civilian posture in Iraq. Over the coming year, we will continue to increase our civilian efforts outside of Baghdad and the international zone. This presence has allowed us to focus on capacity building, especially in the provinces - units which are likely to grow in influence as more power devolves from Baghdad. The number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams has grown from ten to 25 this year. In support of these goals, we will be asking Congress for additional economic assistance including additional quick response funds for capacity building. We will also seek support for two significant proposals that hold the prospect of creating permanent jobs for thousands of Iraqis. One would be the establishment of an "Iraqi-American Enterprise Fund," modeled on our successful funds in Poland and elsewhere in Central Europe. Such a fund could make equity investments in new and revamped f m s based in Iraq. The second would be a large-scale operations and maintenance facility based on our Highway Trust Fund. On a cost-sharing basis, such a fund would train Iraqis to budget for and maintain important public sector infrastructure (power plants, dams, roads). Over time, the cost-sharing would phase down and out, leaving behind well-trained professionals and instilling the habits of preventative maintenance.

We will continue our efforts to assist Iraqis in the pursuit of national reconciliation, while recognizing that progress on this front may come in many forms and must ultimately be done by Iraqis themselves. We will seek additional ways to neutralize regional interference and enhance regional and international support. And we will help Iraqis consolidate the positive developments at local levels and connect them with the national government. Finally, I expect we will invest much effort in developing the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq, which is an investment in the future of both countries.


--------end---------


Would you consider the EU a valid model for a free society? And what would it look like today without all the US has done from WW2 on?....Japan?.....You don't see national Shinto as a state religion, as in WW2....

People themselves must choose the kind of free society that works under their traditions and cultural parameters, we can only provide the blueprints, and a helping hand getting there from here.

Fellow from Poland got injured, went into a coma during the Communist era, woke up 19 years later to a blooming, established democracy. Don't tell him you can't see the effect of US policy over the years, he flat won't understand why you can't see it.

Well Cyrus, some things just take their sweet time, and there's really nothing you can do to hurry it along....we're talking revolution of mindset.

This goes back to what I've said many times:

"If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are."

-EJ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27  Next
Page 23 of 27

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group