Half of America and the upper echelons of the US military may be cheering Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation from the post of Defence Secretary, but there was no rejoicing yesterday among those most directly affected by his decisions: the frontline soldiers in Iraq.

Troops expressed little pleasure at the departure of the man responsible for their protracted deployment to a hostile country where 2,839 of their comrades have died.

Indeed, some members of the 101st Airborne Division and other troops approached by The Times as they prepared to fly home from Baghdad airport yesterday expressed concern that Robert Gates, Mr Rumsfeld’s successor, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, might seek to wind down their mission before it was finished.

Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said. He insisted that Iraq was better off now than before the war.

…

But these men are also some of the last believers — people who are still convinced that Iraq can survive its present violence to become a stable democracy. “We’re losing a lot of people over here, but they’re not dying in vain,” Sergeant Gomez insisted.

Do these men sound like they’re trapped in a quagmire?

UPDATE – Deeper analysis from a military man over at Counter Column.

Technorati Tags: iraq, rumsfeld

‘It isn’t a war to win. It is a problem to be solved.’

So what does this mean? Bring the troops home now? Time to negotiate? I hope we start seeing a plan take shape here, because I’m not really equipped to understand nebulous platitudes that leave me thinking the worst.
Technorati Tags: pelosi, iraq

If I were an Iraqi who cooperated with America, I’d be camping out on that embassy roof right about now.

A potential draft of the Iraqi Bill of Rights ‘leaked’ out on the net today, and I couldn’t resist taking a look.

I would have been better served gouging my eyes from my head.

While it is a far improvement over what existed before the US invasion, it falls far short from any meaningful representation of freedom. If this comes to pass, Iraq will not last more then twenty years as a ‘free’ nation. At best it will end up being France, at worst, a banana republic akin to South and Central America.

Some specific provisions, and why they are the kernals of Evil.

Article 1, section 3. Any individual with another nationality (except for Israel) may obtain Iraqi nationality after a period of residency inside the borders of Iraq of not less than ten years for an Arab or twenty years for any other nationality, as long as he has good character and behavior, and has no criminal judgment against him from the Iraqi authorities during the time of his residency on the territory of the Iraqi republic.

Article 1, section 4. An Iraqi may have more than one nationality as long as the nationality is not Israeli.

Except Israel? Let’s just start codifying hatred right out of the gate. I don’t know how many Israelis would seek Iraqi citizenship, but such language doesn’t bode well for our hopes of a more open and tolerant form of Islam springing up any time soon in the Middle East.

All from Article 1.

8. Iraqi women have the right to grant Iraqi nationality to their children and likewise to their (non-Iraqi) husbands after five years have passed from the marriage contract provided that the husband is resident in Iraq.

9. A woman married to someone with Iraqi nationality or who has been naturalized has the right to earn Iraqi nationality.

10. All Iraqis are equal and have the right to acquire or earn Iraqi nationality and to pass it to their spouses and children.

I don’t really see the point of sections 8 and 9 if section 10 states that ALL Iraqis are equal. Why stipulate specific clauses for Iraqi woman and then turn around and say that all are equal? Maybe this is just a revision problem?

Article 3. All Iraqis are equal before the law and equal in the rights that they enjoy by virtue of citizenship just as they are equal in the duties that are imposed upon them by virtue of citizenship without regard to gender, opinion, belief, nationality, religion, sect, or origin.

Take care when confronting an organizing document that speaks of both rights and duties in the same breath. How many Bill of Rights speak of duties of the citizen? What does this have to do with the inalienable rights enjoyed by citizens?

Article 5, Section 1. People are equal in their humanity and human dignity. Their humanity is protected and honored. Social justice is the basis of building the society. The Iraqi people are one people, unified by belief and the unity of the homeland and culture. Anything that exposes this unity to danger is forbidden.

Social Justice? Precisely what does that mean, beyond the typical Leftist speech about elevating the ‘downtrodden’ and doling out equal helpings of suffering to all? And note that the state reserves the right to FORBID anything that endangers the unity of the social structure. So much for legal dissent. This is akin to outlawing Flag Burning, only writ large. Reprehensible speech MUST be protected.

Article 5 Section 4. The state shall ensure harmony between the duties of woman toward her family and her work in the society and equality with men in the fields of political, social, and economic life without conflicting with or disturbing the provisions of the Islamic shari‘a.

Good old Shari’a Law. Just what we need, a nod to Islam in the founding document. Great.

Article 5 Section 9. The state shall guarantee the realization of the social guarantee necessary for citizens in case of old age, disease, inability to work, or if they are homeless, orphans, widowed, or unemployed. It shall provide them social insurance services and health care and protect them from the talons of ignorance, fear, and want, providing them with housing, and special programs to train them and care for them. A law shall be issued regarding this.

The nanny state, codified.

Article 5, Section 10. The state shall support, in accordance with law, the families of martyrs, guaranteeing the legitimate rights taken by the fallen regime.

MARTYRS? I have no idea what this means, but it can’t be good. Skipping ahead a bit. There’s enough outrage in each section to keep yourself amused should you wish.

Article 6, Section 3. Freedom of opinion, expression, publishing, printing, the press, advertising, media, meeting, peaceful demonstration, founding political parties, unions, and associations are guaranteed in accordance with the law. No one may be arrested or have his freedom restricted because of his belief, political thoughts, or religious convictions. The idea of the
Ba‘th party is absolutely forbidden and it is not permitted to be a part of political pluralism.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. Not an absolute statement of freedom, as it can be curtailed through the legislative process. This isn’t a foundation document. It is worse than useless. In the United States, until the Kelo Decision, we could rely on our Constitution as the final arbitrator of dispute. It served as the prime document. Here, this includes built in language to permit it to be cast aside through ordinary legislative action. I can think of nothing more frightening.

As for the exclusion of the Ba’th party, I don’t know how you can forbid an idea. To even speak that way disturbs me. I can understand the desire to repress the evil past, but the strength in a society is it’s ability to compete with reprehensible ideas, out in the open and without fear.

Article 6, section 4. There is no censorship on newspapers, printing, publishing, advertising, or media except by law.

Except by law….

Article 7. Iraqi citizens have the right to enjoy security and free health care. The Iraqi federal government and regional governments must provide it and expand the fields of prevention, treatment, and medication by the construction of various hospitals and health institutions.

I don’t think I need to comment on the horror of this Article.

Article twelve, section 1. Work is a right for every Iraqi citizen and a duty for him. The state and the governments of the regions shall strive to provide work opportunities for every able-bodied citizen.

Again with the right and duty. We now not only have the right to work, but work is compulsory? And the government has to provide a job? We fought for this?

Article Twelve, Sections 4 and 5. No one may be required to undertake a specific task unless that task has a public benefit in accordance with law or in the case of staving off a sudden public danger.

5. Compulsory service (the corvee), slavery, the slave trade, forced labor, or any work that is imposed on the Iraq citizen not in accordance with the provisions of the constitution or the law are forbidden.

Let me translate that one. “Slave trade and force labor is outlawed, unless the state is the slaver, then it is ok.” Can there be a more covert expression of Evil? The day the first man discovered the magical power of the phrase ‘the public good’ is the day we all had chains slapped on our wrists.

Article 13, section 1. Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency.

Nothing like a Decleration of Rights by consensus. The true Rights of Man are not granted by Man. They come from Nature (or God if you prefer). Our Constitution is an expression of recognition of these natural rights. This abortion of a document is a statement of rights granted as a gift from a society that explicitly recognizes it’s own power to curtail rights at the whim of those in power. This guarantees nothing, and provides the illusion of freedom. Far better to live without laws than to give these ‘laws’ the sanction of legitimacy.

I encourage you to read the rest. Guns are banned, taxes are elevated to be ‘sacrocant’, and all Iraqis are held in bondage to the public good. It is a nightmare of a document.

My optimism in Iraq has just evaporated.

The Iraqi Parliament got together and elected an interim president. You might have missed it in the wake of the Pope coverage.

So why is this interesting?

A collection of Shiites and Sunnis got together and elected…a Kurd.

The Shiites are lining up their rulers, and so far I’m impressed by a few things. For one, the dreaded Islamic Republic doesn’t look to be in the cards, as the various groups are talking about the necessary coalition building inherent in a parliamentary system.

Second, the language of this entire news article strikes me as an important indicator. Take a few minutes and read through it. Baring the unusual circumstances of the ‘insurgency’, the tone of the quoted parties are what you would expect if this was a piece about the British elections. There are no typical banana republic indicators of illegitimate coups or corrupt negotiations with discredited despot wannabes. Sure, it is early in the process, but go judge for yourself.

A first priority for any new government will be to establish a role for the Sunnis, who make up 20 percent of the population but won only six seats because of a boycott and security fears that kept turnout to single digits in some Sunni areas.
That process, seen as critical to undermining support for the insurgency, has begun, said SCIRI’s spokesman in Washington, Karim Khutar al-Musawi.
“We have talked to them, and they will join us in the government and in drafting the constitution. We also have had talks with the Association of Muslim Scholars and other Sunnis in order to come to an agreement with them,” Mr. al-Musawi said yesterday.

This is a Shiite talking about a group of Sunnis.

Not ready for Freedom?

In spite of everything, the Iraqis voted. They did so with a passion and a seriousness that gives the lie to the cliché that Arabs are not ready for democracy. One myth down, a thousand to go.

Everyone says that this is the first free elections in Iraq for fifty years. That is another lie. There has never been one single free election in the long history of the Arabs ever. This is the first one.

It took the Americans to conduct it and force it down the throats of dictators, terrorists, exploding deranged humans, and odds as big as the distance between the USA and the Middle East.

The Arab world is not monolithic in attitude, but it is still refreashing to see someone of reasonable perspective in print.

Via Powerline, this fits in with the previous post about Amir Taheri’s piece in the Arab News. A returning soldier from the Iowa Army National Guard offers a summary of accomplishments in Iraq.

I recently spent the holidays with family. My father is a wonderfully intelligent man, yet his only exposure to the news is either the networks or CNN. As you can imagine, his outlook on Iraq matches the message of the MSM – namely hopelessness, death, destruction and ultimately a failure that cannot be avoided. He’s always surprised when I roll out information like what is provided in this report.

I could engage in idealistic questions about why the media has abrogated it’s responsibility to report the news in exchange for it’s self-appointed mission to derail genuine efforts to make the world a safer place, but there’s little point in going there. The media has made it’s choice. It’s up to the consumer to understand what they are getting.

Another Powerline post. It seems the French are putting conditions on any international conference on Iraq.

“France said Monday that it would take part in a proposed international conference on Iraq only if the agenda included a possible U.S. troop withdrawal, thus complicating the planning for a meeting that has drawn mixed reactions.

Paris also wants representatives of Iraq’s insurgent groups to be invited to a conference in October or November, a call that would seem difficult for the Bush administration to accept.”

Paris wants the INSURGENTS to have a seat at the table!! Behead some infidels and Paris elevates you to a legitimate party in the debate. Unbeleivable.

Kerry wants to do business with this idiots??