Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TheRealNews: "Would a Democratic President pull out of Iraq?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 09:06 AM
Original message
TheRealNews: "Would a Democratic President pull out of Iraq?"
Would a Democratic President pull out of Iraq?

http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=873&thisview=item

Tom Hayden: The media has failed to ask what will happen with the thousands of contractors in Iraq

Thursday January 31st, 2008
Tom Hayden is an American social and political activist and politician, most famous for his involvement in the anti-war and civil rights movements of the 1960s. Hayden served in the California State Assembly and the State Senate. His books include Rebel: A Personal History of the 1960s and Ending the War in Iraq.


Transcript:

MISHUK MUNIER, PRESENTER: As Super Tuesday approaches, many political analysts are wondering why the Iraq war is not playing a larger role in the primary debates. The Real News spoke with Tom Hayden, a prominent antiwar activist, a former California state Senator, and the author of Ending the War in Iraq.

TOM HAYDEN, ACTIVIST AND AUTHOR: I think it's to the credit of the antiwar movement that it seeded public opinion, like a cloud is seeded, so that the candidates, on the Democratic side at least, have to be antiwar in the way they position themselves. Whether they are or not is a deeper question. So because the antiwar movement doesn't have much capacity for electoral politics or for understanding warfare, it's done its job. And it means at least that the candidates, if one of them wins, becomes president, will have a mandate to carry out their words, which are words like “bring the troops home.” In reality, there are differences. Obama wants to bring troops home faster than Hillary Clinton, although she's proven that she's adjustable. But here's the thing where the media has utterly failed, perhaps because they've turned over national security issues to a small elite of correspondents who are embedded with the Pentagon intellectually, if not in reality. There's an absolute and total difference between combat troops and troops, and they're only talking about combat troops. Combat troops are American soldiers who get killed going into straight-up battles with Iraqis. They're all talking about withdrawing combat troops, but there's 162,000 troops there, there's 100,000 American contractors there, many of whom are security forces, and only a certain percentage, maybe half, are combat troops. So what about the rest? The implication of all the candidates is that they want to continue a counterinsurgency campaign on behalf of the so-called Iraqi army. They want to keep contractors, advisors, trainers, counterterrorist units, intelligence operations going in Iraq to turn it into—and they're not saying this, but to turn it into Central America in the 1970s. It’s become The New York Times gospel, military doctrine, bipartisan doctrine. I hope that they're only doing this for public relations purposes. But let's unpack that. Number one, I never heard any such thing in the debates, and I taped them—I listened very, very carefully. I have no problem if American security guards need to take somebody to the embassy. This is a question of implementing the following: embedding American advisors with Iraqi combat troops. That's the wording. Meaning, the war won't go on; it'll be more of a civil war, more of an El Salvador or Afghanistan type war. Number two, trainers: 20,000 trainers embedded in the Iraqi security forces, police, interior ministry, so on. Number three, security contractors: there are at least 17,000 Blackwater-type Americans who are security contractors. And you can go on. Special forces, intelligence units, etcetera. Hillary Clinton has said we need to keep a certain percentage of troops there to deter Iran. Barack has been, as usual, the most sophisticated and nuanced, but there's absolutely no question that he will be leaving behind thousands of American special forces to engage in something. So I think what we have to expect is that the antiwar movement has gone as far as it can. The media has completely failed to make this distinction. The candidates either don't get it, or more likely they get it, but they're in such a blur they're not going to elaborate on this. I talked to their advisors. I read everything they say. They are very sophisticated. They are leaving behind trainers by the thousands. The Phoenix Program was a program of torture and political incarceration in South Vietnam. It is being extolled by a colonel who's a close advisor to Petraeus, who wants to bring back the Phoenix Program in Baghdad. Number two, James Steel, straight out of the counterinsurgency efforts, some would say death squad efforts, in El Salvador and Honduras, he is a close advisor to General Petraeus. He's in Baghdad now. Number three, the head of American intelligence, former Ambassador to Iraq John Negroponte, was overseer of the 301 Squads, which were death squads in Honduras. These people know what they're doing. It's the failure or inability of the media and the antiwar movement to grasp military doctrine. I'm not saying they're all Quakers, but none of them went to school to study war. They went to school to study war-no-more. So they don't know what's going on here. And unless you break the monopoly on the discussion by getting these questions to the candidates, you'll never find out. Look, I'm going to vote for any Democrat. I think it's movement to start bringing the combat troops home. But it's designed to reduce American casualties, to get the war off TV. They have a multiple plan. They have Afghanistan troops there—not coming home. They are desperate to get troops into South Waziristan and Pakistan—blocked by Musharraf. They want to reduce these combat troops in Iraq and send them to these other theaters. And they're obviously fully backing Israel and its war against Hamas. And these battles have one thing in common that goes to the roots of American history: divide and conquer the native people against each other, have them kill each other, and keep the occupation secure, because you can't shed that much American blood. They even call the Iraqi troops in Iraq that are being paid by the Americans the Kit Carson Scouts. Do you know who those people were?

video at link...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
countryjake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-01-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. kick and recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. This part says a lot:
"But here's the thing where the media has utterly failed, perhaps because they've turned over national security issues to a small elite of correspondents who are embedded with the Pentagon intellectually, if not in reality."

Thanks for this post. It shows the difficulty in cahnging course and mindset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. what I find most startling
is even after all of these truths Hayden says he will vote Democrat regardless. :crazy:

and you are welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-02-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kick, and surprised
There's been no discussion. DUers are in full "praise Candidate Dee and
demean Candidate Dum" mode.

Don't bring up anything the two candidates agree on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC