Gen. Odom, outspoken critic of Bush's war and occupation died...

[Postman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053102193_pf.html

"The president's policy is based on illusions, not realities," he wrote. "There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq."

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq, it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place."

Gen. Odom became a fixture on news programs and never altered his critical stance toward the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and Iran. On Tuesday, he and Brzezinski wrote an op-ed article for The Post in which they stated that the White House's "heavy-handed" approach toward Iran would backfire and "almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons."

[Ian David]

1. "An autopsy will be performed, but his wife said he had an apparent heart attack." n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. How sad.

General Odom was an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. He will be missed.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Wow. I'm shocked. nt

[Muttocracy]

4. oh, how sad, I became a HUGE fan of him when I heard him testify on Iraq

a few days before Petraeus and Crocker did. Of course they got all the media attention, and few on DU watched the hearings either I expect, but Odum and McCaffrey gave amazing testimony on the state of our military.

http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hrg080402a.html

Written testimony:
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/OdomTestimony080402a.pdf

"...
I challenge you to press the administration’s witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe’s transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo.

How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense.

To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration’s witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy.

The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran’s policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits.

No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.

Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim.

A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don’t make sense.
..."

[gateley]

8. He was impressive (understatement) during those hearings.

A military officer who understood what was at stake and our folly in pursuing this course.

I am saddened by his death. His family can be so proud of him. :patriot:

[lyonn]

9. And yet he was pretty much ignored by the media

He darn sure gave it his best shot when he could. Hopefully those in Congress were paying attention since they do all the voting and such. We need many more men like him. Biden does fall in that category.

[JI7]

5. very sad

[bonito]

6. RIP, Let's hope he's wisdom carries on. n/t

[Botany]

7. If only we had listened to the General.

Well before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Gen. Odom warned that military action in Iraq would be
foolhardy and futile. He outlined his positions in The Washington Post's Outlook section Feb. 11,
2007, in the essay "Victory Is Not an Option."

"The president's policy is based on illusions, not realities," he wrote. "There never has been any right
way to invade and transform Iraq."


R.I.P. General Odom :patriot: