Lt. Gen. David Petraeus Amuses Foreign Fighters

Petraeus appears visibily shaken, out of his element, and insecure.

Foreign fighters are not impressed, and look at him as a vulnerable General.

Contrast the President's escalation plan with unit reports: The Pentagon, Joint Staff, and White House are not on the same sheet of music with Patraeus. The President's plan relies on assumptions which are not supported by unit-level readiness reports.

* * *

Ref: Real concern he's riding on an illusory wave of DoD propaganda. Bush appears to have promoted the man who's created the Iraqi ghost army:

We all know what really happened, the "national" army wasn't national at all; the combat forces weren't quite what the numbers suggested; insurgents had infiltrated almost all formations; the Ministry of Interior was riddled with Shi'a militia members and spies; the Iraqis weren't battling the insurgency, they were the insurgency.

. . .

The stand-up of Iraqi forces during 2005 and much of 2006 became a pure number's game: how many officers and how many battalions there were consistently was used as the body count to prove progress. Each acronym - . . . - suggested far more organization and capability than actually existed.

The article credits Petraeus with early training success but then we find out the Iraqis couldnt even muster 6 batallions for the operation to secure Baghdad. Some success.Ref:Posted by: sm | January 5, 2007 01:30 PM

[ Another view ]

* * *

Problem-Resource Mismatch

Examine the defensive commentary about Petraeus here; and compare it with the pre-invasion arguments: Strikingly similar -- The commentary is arrogant, assertive, not open to other views -- a very good sign that there are credible issues not being addressed, as they should be; and there are fundamental questions and problems which have been glossed over; and supported by the above critiques about the real status of the Iraqi military.

Petraeus appears to have taken credit for a success that was not real; then is rising on that illusory success as a basis to resolve a different problem. It appears the President has thrown the best qualified into an unsolvable situation with insufficient resources. With a disconnect like that, we might as well be in 2003 on the eve of the inavasion with high optimism, and no credible resources or leaders to solve the different problem.

* * *

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus may be an expert on insurgency, but he's not an expert on civil wars, or how to effectively work with an incompetent President.

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus claims to be a West Point graduate, which doesn't mean much in light of the reckless disregard for fact finding by one of his former supervisors: General Powell. Claiming to be a service Academy graduate doesn't mean Petraeus is the right man for the job, or that the problem is solvable.

If he was the right person, he would've been able to get the President's and COngress' joint ears. He didn't do that.

The President by choosing Petraeus admits he has no options other than throw more West Pointers in the Iraqi meat grinder. Not to worry, more a volunteering every day to join the long gray line.

West Point has rested on its laurels. Foreign fighters look at Petraeus as another target to remove from an unstable penestal. They'll wait to meke his job more difficult, letting the civil war consume then discredit Petraeus.

Petraeus has no experience managing a disaffected civilian American population that views Petraeus as having compromised his loyalty and duty to refue to obey illegal orders.

Unlike insurgencies where only combatants troubled the commanders, Petraeus has to contend with the rising US civilian opposition to the President, openly talking of revolution.

This disaster is likely to consume Petraeus, and discredit him. No need for foreign fighters to be concerned with his threats or plans: Petraeus faces a larger problem no insurgent can hope to match: The power of the US COnstution and We the People to hold Petraeus to account when the US Congress refuses to hold the President accountable.

The insurgency can see his limits: He may be able to inspire misinformed, manipulated Americans, but is meaningless in working with insurgents overshadowed by a larger civil war.

Tellingly, the best leadership the President can provide is a Flag officer who is noticeably insecure and lacks confidence: His background and experience are inadequate. The General knows he has a larger problem on his hand than he can manage.

It remains to be understood what reasons the Generals relied on when he was convinced by some that he was the right man for the job. He had the choice to resign or not accept the responsibility. It’s interesting that he’s accepting an assignment that is not consistent with his background or training.

* * *

It is meaningless and false hope for any American to point to West Point as a source of leadership. Although the legacy of Eisenhower. Patton, and Macarthur may provide some inspiration for some cadets, today’s world is different. Unlike Nazi Germany or the Communists in Russia, today’s greatest threat to work stability and order is not abroad from totalitarian dictators or abusive regimes, but at home.

West Pointers well know through military doctrine that civilian control of the military means obeying the civilian leadership. However, lost on West Pont Graduates has been the requirement to disobey illegal orders; or to take fully responsibility to implement the needed institutional safeguards to ensure civilian control does not turn into civilian abuse.

The fatal problem with the foreign fighters well know is that the US leadership is not longer legitimate, but is blindly supported by military officers despite the Geneva obligations to refuse to obey illegal orders.

* * *

Bush’s selection as the new US leader for counter insurgency operations in Iraq is a fatal admission that the strategy to date has been reckless. But it is too late. The situation is no longer one that Patreaus can manage.

America’s Flag Officers have proven inept, complicit with war crimes; or they have done the right thing and resigned, only voicing their disagreements privately to Congress, or in letters. All American Flag officers may legally use their officer rank in their official title during retirement and could be called back to active duty.

One day, America may see the return of the American civil war where one set of generals take up arms to defend the Constitution against another group intent on waging illegal warfare. Foreign fighters know there continues to be talk of a coup in the United States, and the American government is not solidly behind the troops. The problem is the troops are not solidly behind their oath of office or their Constitution.

* * *

Foreign fighters view Patraeus as a bit player. He isn’t the right many for the job because this isn’t a job that be completed. America waited too long to do the right thing and no longer has the power to solve a situation that has spun out of control.

The scales have tipped away from the American military commanders. Foreign fighters know that the US population no longer supports illegal warfare, regardless whether the President or Congress chooses in action, accountability, or illusory change.

Patraus is limited. With sustained combat losses, foreign fighters will further chip away at his already cracking confidence. Foreign fighters know America’s best generals are beatable. The President in choosing Patreaeus has emboldened the Iraqi insurgency and other foreign fighters: America is running out of options, time, and leadership.

* * *

Once Patreaus is directly confronted on the battlefield, and his counter-insurgency methods backfire, Congress will have to face the prospect of forcing the President to remove another General; or directly confronting the President for defective adjustments to a deteriorating situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Patreaus fails to comprehend the larger problem he faces isn’t an insurgency abroad, but the mounting opposition at home against his approaches which are incorrect, not working, and too late. Patreaus will have to decide whether he is going to resign, directly confront the Americans who openly oppose him, or whether he will support other Presidential efforts to target Americans.

The error is for Patreaus to compete with the Constitution, We the People, and the rule of law. He’s going to lose, foreign fighters know this, and are emboldened by his appointment.

Read more . . .

Transforming America

We the People need to provide the leadership: What will transform the American political and legal landscapes?

* * *

I was thinking about what Members of Congress were saying during the Iraq debate.

My thoughts:

GOP Positions in House Debate Are Disingenuous

Don't be fooled by the mushroom-cloud arguments the GOP is using. The President is privately meeting with advisors of what to do when troop escalation does not meet objective: Republicans are openly defending on the House floor a plan the President and NSC privately doubt will work, and expect to fail.

Notice the excuses the RNC House Members of using to get people to commit to something that is flawed: Same non-sense with terrorism, threats of a backlash.

Implicit RNC position, absurd momentum: "Bad things are going to happen if we don't keep doing bad things."

Ref Analysis of State of Union Speech on Troop Build-up.

Ref As of 2004, 1M Troops needed by 2008; troop build up in Iraq insufficient.

Ref Petraeus gets open support, but his assumptions are flawed: Iraq is not an insurgency, but a combined civil war-insurgency. This has never been planned for, much less articulate a strategy how combat troops will or will not resolve. Iraq is quicksand.

The error is to blindly follow Petreaus, especially when the President is privately planning for the failure of Petraeus and the escalation plan.

* * *

Recall the broad message of the ISG: It outlined options. This President ignored them, and is sticking with something that he doubts will work.

Look at the flawed argument. In simple terms, this is how the RNC is approaching the Iraq debate:

1. Ignore the doubts about the plan;

2. Assert bad things are avoided, without explaining why the bad things are likely or will be avoided.

3. Simply assert that the bad plan will avoid bad things, and get good things.

The GOP has essentially taken two desirable images -- disconnected from reality -- and arbitrarily placed them side by side arguing, "Because one is before the other, the first will lead to the second; and the second is an inevitable consequence of the first."

This is the same non-sense thinking the Administration used when arguing for war in Iraq. The same convoluted non-sense which created the mess, and inspired the voters to reject the mess is the same thinking this President is openly using to continue . . . [wait for it] with the mess.

Congress is pretending it is a credible institution that can check power. It cannot. It refuses to call the GOP non-sense what it is: Ridiculous, especially when the track record of the GOP is absurd.

___ There's been no respect for other plans outlined in the ISG;

___ The GOP is asserting, as it did on the eve of the Iraq invasion, that merely talking about a good thing will bring it about; and pretending that bad plans will avoid bad things simply by pretending that a plan cannot fail.

* * *

This is not leadership, competence, or accountability. It is recklessness disguised as something it is not.

The US government, especially the Congress, is not legitimate. It is a sham organization pretending that it is debating something, yet it's not saying what the President privately accepts: The President's plan will not work, and pretending that it will work is folly.

* * *

Emperor's New Clothes

A government which relies on folly to convince We the People and the world community to believe there is competent -- is foolish.

Foolish people, who pretend they are part of a responsive government but they are not, will continue doing foolish things.

This President, despite having no majority in Congress, plans to do what he keeps doing: Ignoring the law and prudence.

Foreign fighters take one message away from the American Congress "Debate": The imprudence will continue, and the only option -- other than Congress voluntarily ending or changing -- is for combat forces to impose grave and severe combat losses

The November 2006 is a ruse. The US Congress is not being responsive. It is talking about being responsive, but refusing to assert power. The only credible catalyst which may compel Congress to adjust -- as is required -- is sustained combat losses.

America’s momentum, as was the Japanese Empire in WWII, is illegal, unsustainable, but unwilling to adjust. Hitler and Napoleon learned the hard way. Members of Congress may have to learn the hard way again: If it you don't stop what is illegal and unsustainable, Congress is attached to the illegal, reckless consequences.

All 535 Members of Congress in the mind of foreign fighters and war crimes prosecutors:

- Complicit with war crimes;

- Unwilling to end what they have the power to end;

- Unwilling to assert power to prosecute the President;

- Unwilling to use their delegated powers to end what is illegal and unworkable.

* * *

Americans can debate all day long about the "big scary threats" overseas; or pretend that Putin is off his rocker or feeling sorry for having lost the Cold War.

No, the real problem in the US government, which refuses to stop this stupidity, and the refusal of free citizens to freely end what is imprudent, illegal, and reckless.

This can hardly be anything a Member of Congress can parade to American citizens, much less the world or battlefield opponents, as evidence of the superiority of democracy.

Rather, the absurd momentum shows the degree to which public loyalty to a reckless system on sheer volume, support, and momentum alone will drive people agreeing with tyranny to expand abuse.

The results are no different than the absurdity in Nazi Germany:

- People asserting their illegal activity was for a good thing;

- People expanding illegal, unlawful, reckless war in the name of power;

- People justifying abuse in the name of nation prestige and security;

- People freely joining the momentum out of fear of being harmed if they refused to oppose what was reckless abuse of power.

* * *

With this non-sense at the nation's highest levels, Americans cannot reasonably expect public policy to remain prudent, or that the national leadership will necessarily voluntarily assent to the basic form of prudence: The law.

Look in your corporate offices; consider the decisions of your leadership. When the leaders is rewarded for incompetence and folly, there is little prospect the needed oversight, review, and adjustment will occur as needed.

Rather, the mess will be left to those who are unable to rally the masses to their defense. The most noble will be destroyed in the name of compelling them to fit in with what is folly.

Americans should not be confused why the world opposes America: Americans refuse to consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Even in the wake of continuing combat losses and defeats, Americans assert they are committed to winning.

Problems can only be resolved through lawful means in court; or through open combat. Those are two of the major forums. Americans have chosen to pretend the latter will be avoided by avoiding the first; and have failed in both asserting both have proven America's superiority.

* * *

The thinking in America is absurd. Your leaders are buffoons. American citizens sent a message on November 2006, but the buffoons are doing more of the non-sense in the wake of Sept 2001: Being illogical.

Illogical people will continue doing stupid things. America has to decide how far you're willing to let this stupidity go. It is not stopping.

Wake-up: What is not stopped will continue; what continues, despite folly, will bring disaster. The prospect of disaster, when asserted as the reason to commit to something that is folly, will not avoid disaster, but bring more folly.

Americans have shown they are not rational people. Their delusion is their assertion they are the best, despite failing to consider what they are doing to contribute to what they hope to avoid.

The world does not view America as being rational, especially when it debates using non-sense arguments the President knows, or should know, are disconnected from reality.

Victory is not achieved by forcefully asserting non-sense; nor hoping that the undesired consequences will be avoided by asserting more non-sense.

America’s problem is that its leadership has failed, will not adjust, and despite combat losses and unwillingness to adjust, it hopes for something new.

America can dream and hope all it wants. The momentum is going in the wrong direction. The issue is how far this will go, and what may legally come to the table to compel this non-sense to end:

___ How many acres will Members of Congress agree should be destroyed in the District of Columbia before there is a review of this folly?

___ How many American civilians have to be put at risk?

___ How many wars will the President start, despite insufficient resources from Congress, but Congress refuses to contain the President?

* * *

Power, when it is not managed or contained, will expand. The error is for Americans to believe that unconstrained power will voluntarily constrain itself.

That which cannot be sustained, but continues, will either collapse from within; or cross a barrier without. By waging and supporting illegal warfare, the US Congress and President have crossed the line into war crimes.

Foreign fighters have, under the direction of the world military powers, the legal right, power, and authority to wage combat operations on, over, and adjacent to the United States.

This looming prospect of open combat has nothing to do with the American enemies abroad, but with the domestic enemies in the US Congress and Executive branch, who arrogantly defy their oath, refuse to constrain power, and recklessly pretend that non-sense is prudence.

American citizens are going to have to decide how many of your civilian friends you will be willing to see sacrificed before you agree: Your government is the problem; the problem is not abroad, but in the District of Columbia.

If you want your Constitution, the decision will be one for Congress and the American public to decide: How far will you let the President go before only foreign combat losses remain the last check on American tyranny.

This is where America finds itself. So much for checks and balances as the Framers thought they might work. The issue is what institutional changes have to be made -- outside the Amendment process, and with a New Constitution -- to compel Free people to do what they promise: Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

If American's don't agree with a system that will compel checks and balances, foreign fighters will compel Americans to agree with something else. The Constitution cannot credibly be called a credibly system of government when, in the name of opposing an enemy, the American people -- collectively -- assent to its inferiority.

The enemy opposes America for one reason: The US Congress refuses to oppose the President's illegal, reckless, and absurd defiance of the well intentioned checks and balances. The world is not required to continue groveling at the feet of a system which defies prudence, especially when the imprudence and recklessness is not called what it is: Tyranny.

* * *

We can go back and forth, all day long, about whether the American government will or will not work.

This blog has been about one thing: Calling to the attention of some what is happening. It doesn't do much good to keep talking about things that Americans, despite a call for change, will not accept.

___ When happens when free people freely give up their minds and choose to pretend that their loyalty to folly is success?

When the stupid people harm each other, nobody cares. But when stupid people expand their power, and affect others, that's a different story.

Stupidity will not stop when a nation has weapons to compel others to grovel at the feet of stupid people. It is absurd to use the world's opposition of that stupidity as "evidence" of your superiority.

The world opposes what is stupid, reckless, tyrannical, abusive, and arrogant.

* * *

What's within the scope of possibility:

___ A military coup

___ A civil war

___ A transnational revolution

___ Sustained combat operations against American civilians

___ Foreign fighter bombardment of the US Capitol

The American leadership arrogantly pretends that the war is distant. The problem, despite the folly, could be that the needed combat losses in the District of Columbia may embolden the US government to extend its tyranny.

The problem is this abuse of power is not stopping; and the prospect of adverse consequences -- should this momentum continue -- are viewed, when mentioned, as evidence that someone else has a problem.

* * *

The problem is that the US Constitution, as it was designed, does not work to credibly check and constrain power; and American citizens have given up their rights and minds to tyrants who talk about an illusory outcome without regard to whether that dream is possible.

Freedom abroad can never be justified on the back of abuse at home, especially when that abuse comes in the form of reckless disregard for prudence and reality.

* * *

Other options have been rejected. American are not permitted to engage in combat operations not violently overthrow the government. But they can legally push for change within this system; and legally craft and design a new system.

Make no mistake: The fact that Americans are not taking up arms and violently overthrowing this government does not mean that the lesser options are compromises; or that the lesser choices are not evidence of the rage and contempt Americans hold for this sham government.

Rather, it is the careful consideration of Americans who might otherwise see the possible wisdom of violent revolution has having the prudence to agree the legal process, as reckless as it is in defending American values, must be used:

___ State level prosecutions of the Members of Congress for war crimes and failure;

___ State-level investigation and disbarment of DOJ and White House counsel for complicity with war crimes;

___ State-level proclamations calling for Congress to investigate and impeach the Vice President and President;

___ Lawful delegation of power, authority, and right by We the People to foreign fighters to impose grave, severe, and adverse combat losses on the American government and combat forces worldwide.

* * *

Americans may not be legally allowed to engage in violent revolution, nor use what some might view to be the needed combat against the reckless US government, but there are legal ways to channel the image of what is required into what must be done.

All Americans leaders should know that the refusal to engage in open combat, and the refusal of American citizens to violently overthrow this government is not evidence that you are right, but says more about the discipline and respect for the rule of law of everyday Americans.

It may be the desire for revolution and violent change of government which propels American citizens to make a call, speak out, and legally oppose what is illegal;

IT may be the belief that the American government would be better off it were throwing the waste heap of history which inspires Americans to press for needed changes;

It may be the genuine concern that America’s government will only respond to sustained combat losses on the battlefield which might inspire some to press for additional indictments of the reckless DOJ and White House Staff for their complicity with war crimes.

* * *

Never mistake American’s respect for the rule of law, and their refusal to use illegal methods to bring about changes as a sign that they are happy with what is not working; or what they may believe should be lawfully destroyed and transformed.

This Congress, if it were to undergo sustained, lawful, and grave combat losses, would not be something I personally would care happens. Americans will be hard pressed, when given the chance to express their view, what they would like to see Congress endure for what this Congress has recklessly permitted.

Reasonable people oppose what this Congress is permitting to let spread; and reasonable people can legally permit foreign fighters to do what Americans do not have the legal right to do -- stand up for themselves, wage war, and violently overthrow a government which shows disdain for the founding principles.

* * *

Americans have figured out how to wage lawful war by proxy; and how to bring combat losses to the Nation's leadership -- it is through the lawful delegation of power to others.

The Capital markets will send money where it is needed.

___ Who do you think is paying for the weapons used to openly attack the US government abroad?

The same people who say they want Americans to oppose something. The same people are funneling money to both sides.

This government doesn't care who wins or loses; the people funneling the money are not doing this to win or lose, but to make money.

The war Americans are being asked to wage, support, and justify has nothing to do with American values, freedom, or security but with one thing: The power to get more power. Whether that power is measured in money, popularity, perceived respect, or blind devotion -- it doesn't matter.

* * *

This doesn't have to continue. Americans have to decide how much money they want diverted from schools; how many people they want to blindly support who do not deserve support.

Americans have options. They voted for change, but the US government is not giving them something new.

Americans are allowed to lawfully draft a New Constitution; transform the government; and create something that better does what the Framers intended.

It is not a requirement that the world be forced to choose between "this non-0sense we have" or the "possible threat of world opposition." This non-sense is giving us what we supposedly were promised could be avoided: Opposition.

The choice is not between failed leadership and bad consequences; but something new with many options. All that's required is a change.

This Congress was given the chance to change, but refuses.

* * *

The way forward is for Americans to decide that change is possible, things can adjust, and we can move to something that does not rely on fear or threats; and can be something that constructively solves problems without abuse.

The issue is: What level of abuse and destruction -- either in the mind, or in physical space -- must Americans physically and mentally endure to the point where they collectively say, "Enough is enough." We reached that point in November 2006. The problem is that there is more, and some think we have not had enough.

* * *

The US government continues to slide closer to thin ice. The American leadership cannot be assured their political positions will remain intact.

Americans know they have options. They can see there is a solution. The question is whether that solution will be something this Congress agrees with, or opposes. Regardless, the Congress is not required to assent to illegal activity; nor are Americans required to believe that Congress, in its present form, is eternal.

Change does not mean bad things; or that things will be inferior. Change can be an improvement, especially when it does less of the bad things, and more of the good things.

Americans are not served when they vote for change, but the American leadership refuses to change, as it should.

* * *

Non-violent, lawful revolutions are hard to anticipate, especially when they spread and gain strength without warning.

Americans are ready for a change. The question is whether the US Congress will be part of the transformation, or be transformed without any input.

We the People are not required to permit Members of Congress to have any input to the new oversight. We the People may legally create a new system that imposes power on the US government.

We the People are not required to stick with what doesn't work. We can solve this problem. There are many different ideas and solutions. These issues can be solved. There is a way forward. The future of America does not necessarily include this Congress and the US government as it is presently designed.

There is a way. The question is whether Americans would like to discuss a solution; or whether it would like to pretend that we are stuck with what is no longer providing solutions: The reckless US government.

We can talk. We can jointly agree to make new rules which denies Members of Congress privilege, power, and authority they have abused, not asserted, or refused to assert as required.

If you take nothing away from this blog, take this: Things can be solved, we are not required to keep doing what is not working, and those who have been abusing power can be held to account, even if they pretend they are above the law.

Where Congress refuses to enforce the law against the President, foreign fighters are imposing battlefield losses on the President. No American should be concerned that foreigners are doing what Congress refuses to do: Check power.

Members of Congress, when they say that they will not stop what is illegal, should be careful what they wish for: Legal consequences for having failed to assert their oath, use their minds, and be responsible. We the People can be responsible, especially when we have so many examples of what not to do.

"Don't be like Congress" is a bad rule. The better rule is: What will make Congress do what the Framers through Congress would do without question.

We have a Bill of Rights, yet some of the Framers thought there need not be a law or right expressed when Congress and the US government were not delegated the power to deny that right. Yet, in 2007 this Congress believes that it can deny rights without authority; then pretend that it alone can only be the source of reaffirming what was not legally taken away.

The error is for Americans to believe that the absurd legal arguments related to habeas deserve attention. They do not.

* * *

I would like for you to discuss with your friends the following:

___ What may be legally done to expand a non-violent revolution?

___ What institutional changes are required in the framework of the US government to compel the US government to do what the Framers thought they would naturally do?

___ What do you want to see foreign fighters lawfully do by way of lawful attacks on the US government, Members of Congress, and others complicit with war crimes?

You’re not allowed to advocate revolution, violence, or actively plan illegal activity. But you are allowed to talk about what you believe. Beliefs are not criminal.

It is legal to believe the following, so long as you do not take steps to put this illegal activity into effect:

___ You can believe that the US government is illegitimate;

___ You can believe that the US Congress is complicity with war crimes;

___ You can believe that the President is unfit for office;

___ You can believe that Members of Congress have defied their oath;

___ You can believe that the US government is the source of instability and abuse.

Americans should know, regardless your actions, that there are other nations, powers, and people around the globe putting these beliefs into effect. Your government has no power to prevent other nations from doing the following, which is with one goal in mind -- to do what Members of Congress refuse to do:

___ Constrain power;

___ Force abuse to end;

___ Compel accountability;

___ Respect human rights;

___ Enforce the law;

___ Impose military and combat consequences on Members of Congress and the President.

* * *

Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and other nations are asserting power. They are allowed to do this. The error is for Americans to miss the meaning of their assertion of power: Where Congress refuses to constrain what is illegal, other nations have a say and may legally oppose what is not lawful.

Americans should not think that you’re alone, or that you're stuck with your reckless government. Rather, look at the other avenues by which the desired outcome -- transformation of the US government to something better -- can be inspired.

There are a spectrum of options which new Members of Congress will have the chance to debate. I encourage all citizens to ask your candidates the simple questions:

___ What is their plan to improve things;

___ What will they do not ensure this abuse of power does not occur;

___ What will they do to build on what we have to make the US government do what it should do;

___ What is their plan.

* * *

The false argument is to suggest what we have is the best. it is not. There are solutions which this Government refuses to embrace: Listening to We the People.

The issue is what will compel, and not make discretionary, that simple solution: What will compel the US government to just stop, and listen; as opposed to continuing to enable what is reckless, unsustainable, and could be improved.

___ Demonstrations aren't working;

___ Combat losses aren't working;

___ Voting results are not working;

___ The prospect of jail time and indictments doesn't work.

___ The law, Constitution, and system of governance doesn't work.

* * *

The question is: Now that we've endured the list of options that have failed, when are we going to have a serious discussion about real solutions:

___ What needs to change;

___ What can lawfully be done;

___ What will compel the US leadership to do what they took an oath to do;

___ What will force the US leadership to not be stupid;

___ What will impose timely consequences on the US legal community for their assent to violation of the Constitution;

___ What is a solution to compelling the US leadership to be competent, open minded, and willing to assert their oath at all times, not just when the weather is favorable;

___ What will be a real solution to transforming the US government into something that is something we can be proud of, not embarrassed by?

* * *

There are many solutions. The US Constitution was not supported 100%. That is irrelevant. It is what we have.

The question is what will 51% of American -- outside the Amendment process, beyond the Power of the US government to influence -- support by way of a transformation of the US Constitution, and transform the way the US government and We the People interact.

We can create a legal board of directors whose job is to oversee the US government -- kind of like an intermediary body which has the power to do things; and which can be tightly regulated with very limited, finite powers, which very easy removal and dismissal options.

Something needs to change. The question is what will 51% of Americans support as something that really improves things, not transitions to something that appears better, but is worse.

* * *

I will not accept "the best we can hope for is more war crimes" as an option. No, our system should punish, not enable, war crimes.

I will not accept "the best we can hope for is partisanship" as inevitable. No, impossible problems can be changed into possible solutions.

I will not accept "the best we can hope for is muddling through" as required. No, we can choose to promote leaders who get out of the mud and lead us out of the mud.

Americans have to ask: Do we want more of the same; or are we willing to say, "This is really enough."

This doesn't have to continue. Things can be solved. There are solutions. The problems can be redefined into something that will compel a yearning for improvement.

The question is: How bad do you want it.

The time for talking is at hand. We the People need to openly discuss what will transform this system into something that is an improvement. I look forward to your ideas.

Read more . . .

WWIII: The World Finally Challenges the United States?

Napoleon and Hitler Revisited: America's Convoluted Logic Over Iran and Iraq

Congress needs to act to prevent the President from making the same mistake as Hitler and Napoleon: Use of combat forces well beyond what they were capable of supporting, in theaters well beyond what are supportable with resources or the necessary support structures.

- -

In 2003, when US ground forces were on the Iraqi border in Kuwait, some argued that its time for US to use them. The US military was itching to get into Iraq and end this. Despite no credible demonstration the problems identified in Iraq have been addressed, the same momentum is itching to expand combat operations in Iran.

This is reckless use of American combat forces, is illegal, and no nation is required to remain silent or a passive observer. If the US attacks Iran, the US may -- as did Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor -- awaken the world to wage a World War against the United States.

The error is to use the world's reasonable opposition to this non-sense as evidence the United States is right; or that the American people must support what is folly, unlawful, and reckless. America is in 2007, like Japan and Germany were in WWII, wrong and isolated. Congress need to act as a circuit breaker before America crosses the Iranian border. Combat forces have pentrated Iranian airspace. It may not be too late before crossing the Rubicon.

Will Congress act before the President might be removed from office by force in the first American military coup?

* * *

This isn't news: More examples of same Iraq-like non-sense, but applied differently: To Iran.

The Bad Plan Was Not Coordianted

Put aside the politics of planning for an Iran invasion. Consider the known problem with the planning in Iraq: The President and Patreaus are supporting soemthing which senior PEntagon planners have not reviewed. Hegel:

I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even team B'ed this plan. Ref

Team-B-planning means to have another look; and do risk assessments with a red-team, whose goal is to look at options, attempt to defeat the original plan, and point out the flaws which need to be remedied. [Analogy: Hitler independently invaded Russia, without coordinating his plan with his own military.] There are two problems:

A. There has been no scrub of the orignal plan; and

B. The planners required to do this review haven't been briefed to beging their analysis.

Translation: Civilians, outside Cent C0M have pointed out the flaws; military planners would find more problems. The President ignored his planners in Iraq the first tiem, prompting We the People to throw the GOP out of the Congressioanl leadership. And the President is not being openly attacked on the political stage for what reason? [Answer: No credible reason other than a fear of a needed confrontation.]

The error is to [a] ignore the bad plan; and [b] shift attention to the "lack of unity", implicitly arguing, "We need to have unity on a bad plan"; as opposed to entertaining debate -- different views -- explore our options.Ref Compelling Americans to have unity over an honest debate is teh same non-sense we had in teh wake of Sept 2001 and on the eve of the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The US government wants to be united in its stupidity and has not learned the lessons of the Iraq debate.

* * *

Weapons: Russia and Iran

Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way. One does not address nearby battle management problems by extending the order of battle. Using the convoluted argument over Iran -- that because Iran is supporting Hezbollah against Israeli abuses; therefore the US should attack Iran -- where's the US plan to attack Russia over this?

The US has failed to credibly demonstrate an ability to conduct combined combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Extending the order of battle into Iran would not solve, but be constrained by, the self-evident American problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the US argues that Iranian support for lawful action against illegal US-Israeli actions warrants US attacks, Congress must ask where this is going to end: Despite insufficient resources, as provided to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US proposed to wage combat in Iran.

__ Why should anyone believe the real resource constraints that exist with Iraq and Afghanistan will be solved?

__ If the US is going to attack Iran for them lawfully doing what the US has done -- waging illegal warfare in Iraq -- what is the plan of Congress to ask the President about his plans to attack Russia?

___ Given the problems of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, how does the US credibly argue it can sustain combat operations in either Iran or Russia?

___ There's been no coordination on the Iraq plan; why should anyone believe there's been any needed coordination on military plans to attack either Iran or Russia?

___ Why is the US talking about attacking Iran for things Iran has done -- exporting weapons -- but the US is not willing to admit the expanded combat operations plan that exists for an intervention in Russia through Georgia?

* * *

Patraeus Joins the Delusional

Patraeus is asking for something that does not exist; has not been supported, and the US has shown no ability to provide:

"I believe this plan can succeed if in fact all of those enablers and all the rest of the assistance is provided," Petraeus said, adding that interagency help for the war effort "needs to be substantially more robust than it is." Ref h / t

The US commander is saying that, despite five [5] years after the "big event" of Sept 2001, the US still has not sufficient interagency support to fight the incorrectly-defined war in Iraq; yet wants the public to support this momentum, despite not understanding the problem; while the US plans to apply the same flawed planning model [a disconnect between the resources, and real problem] into a third combat zone: Iran.

This is absurd.

* * *

Iraqi Leadership Convoluted

One sign of a problem is when the leadership points the options as either-or; but there's no real difference, while ignoring the other options. Consider this Iraqi leader quote:

So this, I think, creates a very complex problem for the Iraqi government, because either you accept the American security agenda and see yourself as part of it—in which case you have to take whatever repercussions emerge from that, including perhaps greater escalation in the domestic level of violence and instability—or you accept the fact that the United States may prevail in this confrontation with Iran, in which case a new a political landscape is drawn for the Middle East.Ref

The problem with the argument is both options in the either-or construct presume the US is part of the solution; and that there are no other options.

Reconsider the either-or argument presented: Either you accept the US security agenda; or you accept that the US security agenda may prevail. Either way, the common element -- asserted, without proof -- that all options involve the US security agenda regardless the American inability to see that through.

* * *

Meaningless Pledges: The GOP POsitions Are Meaningless

Here's a comment at Greenwald: Ref: What happened to the DNC victory in November 2006; and why are We the People being ignored? This non-sense should be challenged not legitimized.

That the GOP may or may not support something -- as it relates to Iran -- is meaningless. The US President is going to do it anyway, even if Congress opposes him.

* * *

Assessment

The US is laying the foundation for an Iran invasion. It's absurd to believe that the invasion will be sustainable given the US failure is Iraq:

The US cannot credibly provide resources for a a civil war-insurgency [the two are not the same], and Patreaus is arguing for support for something that is not winnable: The US cannot, unlike Vietnam, impose combat forces on civil combatants. The Vietnam analogy understates the problem. Unlike Vietnam where the US was attempting to impose force on an insurgency; the US is attempting in Iraq to impose force to contain both [a] an insurgency; and [b] a civil war.

Yet, when we look at an insurgency and a civil war as a combined challenge -- this becomes [c] a third-step removed from what Petraeus and the US are planning for. Iraq is neither an insurgency, nor a civil war, but something different: A combined insurgency-civil war, a creature which the President and all Commanders have refused to consider, discuss, or openly acknowledge. There is no plan to deal with Iraq as it is, only as it has been incorrectly defined.
Congers needs to comprehend the problem: Despite the President losing control of Congress, the President has lost control of a coherent US foreign policy, and has no credible plan in place to adjust. The President plans to expand combat operations without facing reality:

A. The resources are not available;

B. The proposed opponent is not required to cooperate;

C. The proposed planning model hopes for what does not exist: Cooperation;

D. There has been no catalyst to change what is failing: Defective leadership;
delusional planning using inadequate resources relative to an incorrectly defined problem; and a change in leadership asking for what the US has been unable to provide this many years after 9-11: Competent, coordinated operations.
Iraq was a war of choice. There is no credible way the US can expand combat operations in Iran, much less have any influence on Russia, as long as the US expands combat operations as recklessly as Napoleon and Hitler.

Unless Congress excuses oversight, and credibly ends the President's continued push for expanded combat recklessness, Congress must be seen as part of the problem: They have a mandate but will not assert the will of We the People: We need leadership, not assent to the same non-sense which put Napoleon and Hitler at risk.

Read more . . .

Iraq: More Than An Insurgency

Petraeus' error is to impose a cookie cutter on Iraq.

* * *

After Napoleon fell from grace, Europe descended into turmoil.

Iraq should not be viewed as a place where there is instability; but the opposite -- where instability is spreading like Europe.

The Russians, unable to provide stability, withdrew.

* * *

The error is to pretend Iraq, like Europe, can be managed; yet, few in 1815 would imagine what Europe, beyond the turmoil, would become in the 21st Century.

Americas believe Iraq will have to be muddled through; the Iraqis are not satisfied with the mud.

Read more . . .

A New Constitution As An Alternative To This Reckless US Government

This leadership should be careful what they ask for.

McCain asks for Benchmarks for Congress to oversee the President. Stunning -- the GOP did not do this 2001-2006, now wants the DNC to provide a plan. You asked for it, you got it. Stop delaying.

Some have suggested Americans are required to provide an alternative to these plans: Ref Americans are not required to remain loyal to what is recklessness.

A viable alternative is a New Constitution.

Hoc Voluerunt !

* * *

Iraq: If the US government is going to say, "Yes" they better have a track record of success.

The President has no foundation to, after creating a disaster, to put the responsibility on others for solving the problem. This President has rebuffed alternatives; now that he's in a mess, he's asking -- not making -- others solve his mess.

The error is for anyone to believe the President's sleight of hand. We are not required to solve his problem; our refusal to solve his recklessness doe snot inspire confidence.

No American should be fooled. This reckless government -- long before the Sept 2001 attacks -- has systematically violated the law, not done its job, and pretended its someone else's fault.

The responsibility lies with the reckless leadership in the White House and Congress. They are either part of the solution -- and the needed reforms -- or they remain the problem.

* * *

This government cannot credibly talk about solutions, when it offers the same: Reckless deference to absurd Presidential statements. This President is not a credible decision maker. If he want to assert -- which he legally cannot -- that he is the final decision maker, then he bears final responsibility.

The President is manipulating America citizen's minds: Asking people to believe he is the ultimate authority; while shifting attention from this President taking no responsibility for his mess.

The President is the problem. His manipulations need to be openly called what they are: Reckless defenses which should be legally challenged not enabled with silence.

* * *

Time for the President to be challenged by all Americans: "Bring it on, Mr. President." If this President wants to claim the powers of a King, then he should act like a King and directly target Americans in the open, not secretly as he is doing with indefinite detentions.

The President is weak, insecure, and not all that bright. No American has the duty or responsibility to solve the President's problem.

The enemy is emboldened because of America’s recklessness and this President's buffoonery. Congress stating the obvious doesn't do anything new but give the President another excuse to avoid looking in the mirror.

Americans are not required to remain united under the recklessness of this US government. We may lawfully re-unite under a New Constitution.

* * *

Gates is making excuses for the poodles in the White House. Gates has one intention: To make excuses, not provide leadership.

The plan, as applied to Iraq, cannot succeed: It is impossible for US ground units to prevail over something they are not designed to engage, much less defeat: A combined [a] insurgency; and [b] civil war.

Petraeus is in a no-win situation. Americans are not required to support losers with an impossible mission.

There is no reason to give them more time. They need their walking papers. If Congress will not stand up, We the People need to stand with a New Constitution and compel Congress to choose: Between the one they currently ignore; and the New One which will lawfully strip them of the power they refuse to assert.

No American has any obligation to do anything. Only the President has an obligation to act. This President has defied his oath. His arrogant poodle Gates cannot credibly compel anyone to believe that we have any obligation to take responsibility for anything.

This war rests on the back of this arrogant President's lies and delusions. The responsibility for this Congress rests with impeachment and investigation. This President and his poodles in the White House cannot credibly say that We the People have to believe a non-sense leader should be given deference.

That which is absurd should be condemned; a President who refuses to assert his oath or fulfill his responsibility should be stripped of the discretion to assert or avoid his responsibilities.

This President, rather than assert his oath, illegally usurps power, but refuses to take responsibility for what has failed. Where he defied reviews where oversight might provide adjustment, this President should be called to account; where he refuses to account, he should be lawfully removed from office.

* * *

Nobody has a superior responsibility to solve this President's mess. The President, as usual, provides not basis to believe his goals or his plan.

Asserting that something should happen is not the same as facing reality: Whether it will or will not work.

___ What reason has this government given to any American to continue holding any allegiance or confidence in this Government?

___ Is there something specific this leadership has outlined in any plan that would warrant continued loyalty to the buffoons in Washington?

___ Why should any American have confidence in the leadership who, despite reckless defiance of the Constitution, they offer nothing that is better?

A New Constitution exists. The leadership have been denied the power to have inputs or comment on this New Constitution.


Where the President asks for more inputs and ideas, ask the President his views on the New Constitution: He has no comment, because he cannot speak; he dares not to utter a word, knowing the rule of law in a New Constitution may legally do to him what he has convinced Congress not to do: To hold him to account.

The Executive Position can be divided into many parts, leaving the Executive Power in the hands of many, not one; and permitting one to legally wage war on another, especially when the chief violator -- as this President -- wages illegal war.

A New Constitution could legalize lawful combat against one who wages illegal war. Congress refuses to hold the President to account for the law; A New Constitution would delegate to a new Executive the sole power to wage war against a reckless commander in chief.

Where does it say that a New Constitution could not permit what is required: Enforcement of Geneva; or is the leadership asking that We the People require outside help, as opposed to relying on domestic forces that would lawfully, as permitted, wage lawful combat against a reckless buffoon acting as President?

* * *

A New Constitution may legally delegate to the States the power to lawfully unite, organize, and protect the Constitution from the lazy, reckless, and moronic buffoons in Congress. They have an oath but ignore it; they leave the Constitution in an inferior state, hardly inspiring confidence they are serious about their oath.

Foreign fighters see what the US government pretends is not real: That the US government officials are reckless, incompetent, incapable of leadership, and delusional. Combat does not reward the absurd, but what is logically planned and sustained.

America cannot be sustained on the back of non-sense and excuses.

* * *

It is only part of the problem whether there will or will not be GOP defections. The greater question is how many more Americans will withdraw support from this US government, and align themselves with something that might offer a solution: A New Constitution.

This President has no legal foundation. He has defied his oath. Americans must agree to extend their arms to their political opponents, and unite under a New Constitution. One that will impose timely consequences on reckless Presidents; a rule of law that will prevent unconstitutional bills from being enacted; and a system that will impose on reckless Presidential counsel meaningful consequences for their complicity with war crimes planning.

Whether there are defections is meaningless. This President is arguing over the pawns, while real King Makers are considering what must be done to lawfully strike this President from his illusory pedestal, and force him to assent to the law.

This President wastes time, shows not deference to his oath, and he has recklessly manipulated the loyal for illegal objectives and ends.

* * *

No one can credibly argue the President has no "leverage" on Capitol Hill. The ultimate power is for a minority, besieged President to manipulate the masses in the opposing party.

This President has manipulated the DNC leadership to fear accountability. Indeed, where there is no accountability, the US government is illegitimate and cannot legally be recognized as having lawful force, especially when it picks and chooses from the law; but does nothing to show the law is uniformly enforced, especially against a buffoon in the White House.

Do Americans have an obligation to be loyal to something that defies loyalty? Indeed, the question asks that we believe that loyalty is more important that prudence. It is not.

Prudent minds will explore the solution to this reckless defiance of the law. A way forward will examine what will timely protect the Constitution, not let the likes of Addington, Cheney, and the buffoons working for Gonzalez hide behind non-sense, and avoid accountability.

The US leadership has no plan to protect the Constitution, other than to assert absurdity. Americans are not required to remain loyal to this non-sense.

* * *

This leadership has meetings, but the fruit is tyranny. IT is irrelevant what the leadership perceives; the issue is whether they do or do not comprehend the President's continued manipulation.

Leaders do not simply condemn. They legally remove all lawful support for what is criminal. We need more than empty speeches; we need lawful action that will remove the funding support for what cannot be allowed to continue.

Where the Congress says it disapproves, but keeps providing funds, the Congress is saying: Ignore our words and written language, but only focus on the illusion of oversight. This President does that, perpetuating illusion and ignoring the written law.

This American government is not legitimate. It defies the law. It has contempt for the separation of powers. Despite abuses, it commands Americans to remain loyal to something that should be lawfully destroyed through a New Constitution.

* * *

It is non-sense to talk of what should or should not be plans and benchmarks, when the plan hopes to solve a problem that cannot be solved: An insurgency on top of a civil war. The US cannot credibly impose "benchmarks" on another nation when the US government’s idea of reviewing benchmarks is to ignore the rising tides in Louisiana.

As with New Orleans, this government's approach to reality is to pretend reality does not exist. This government should not be given loyalty, especially when it is disloyal to the Constitution, leaving it in disrepair.

* * *

The GOP, despite losing the November 2006 election, has successfully manipulated the DNC Congress not to do what the GOP threatened: To remove the Filibuster with the nuclear option.

The GOP refuses to provide a solution or a plan; there was no leadership in the last two months of the GOP. When they still had power, the GOP refused to enact legislation that would solve these problems. The stupidity is for the DNC leadership to believe they must do something which the GOP cannot do: Solve this President's mess.

* * *

It would please me if the US Government would stop lecturing to Iraq about what it should or should not do; and look in the mirror: Why is this US movement lecturing others about what should or should not be done; and not doing that at home: Demonstrate that it can function.

As with all things, arrogant Americans like to impose standards on others which they cannot meet: Competence, and demonstration of functionality.

___ Why are the Iraqis and Americans assenting to standards which this President will not meet?

No credible answer from the lazy American poodles in the Congress.

* * *

It makes no difference what the Administration might like for us to believe is a weakened position.

If there is real disgust, the defections will not be only from the GOP, from the US government, with growing support for real solutions and better oversight; nor the same excuses.

The burden for leadership rests with the US government. It is failing. If the US leadership wants Americans to believe them, they should go on the record and put their writing for all to see: Why should we believe you; where is the demonstrated competence justifying belief. They have none.

* * *

When the "best" that American can offer is recklessness, the leadership should not be given more chances. The need a New Constitution which will legally impose on them meaningful consequences, and not enable what is reckless.

Read more . . .