Lessons of Iraq Policy: U.S.’s Loss Is China’s Gain
Lessons of Iraq Policy: U.S.’s Loss Is China’s Gain
Bush’s recent trip to China underscored his waning influence over the Chinese government, and that waning influence is a direct outgrowth of Iraq. China now has a better image in world opinion than does the United States. The South China Morning Post (6/26/05) editorialized that these poll results served as a “cautionary tale” for China:
It was President George W. Bush’s unilateral and belligerent foreign policy that poisoned the wellspring of global sympathy for America after the September 11 terrorist attacks. … Through its rash actions, the Bush administration squandered, in just a couple of years, half a century of America’s hard-earned reputation as a responsible, generally benevolent, superpower. … Chinese leaders, to their credit, seem well aware of the lesson in all this: that a distrusted superpower runs the risk of being ganged up on by the rest of the world.
The way the Bush administration went to war in Iraq has cost the administration a great deal of moral authority and respect in the world. As a result, the administration now has less ability to convince China to extrend greater freedoms to all its citizens. China remains a blind spot in Bush’s 2005 Inaugural pledge to “encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.”
One example of Bush’s lack of influence can be seen in the administration’s inability to successfully address the issue of China’s treatment of dissidents. Agence France Press reported:
Dissidents told AFP on Saturday that Chinese authorities had detained or put under house arrest at least a dozen dissidents and activists ahead of Bush’s visit to keep them from being heard.
Secretary Rice claimed concerns about these dissidents would be raised “quite vociferously” with the Chinese government, but whatever was said privately was apparently met with a “muted Chinese reaction.” Bush’s public call for greater religious freedom was meant primarily for the U.S. audience, as it did little to affect public discourse in China. The New York Times reported that the only Chinese television coverage of Bush’s visit was his bike ride with Olympic athletes.
As a result of Bush’s handling of Iraq, China can now quash free speech at home and still maintain the upper hand over the United States in terms of global respect.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I’m longing for the days of President Clinton.
November 20th, 2005 at 6:45 pmThere’s no doubt that our misadventure has greatly benefitted China.
China has huge, peaceful trading contracts with Iran to buy as much of their petroleum as they can pump and they did this without a single pair of combat boots on the ground and without firing a shot.
What are we going to eventually walk away from Iraq with?
November 20th, 2005 at 6:47 pm“Chinese leaders, to their credit, seem well aware of the lesson in all this: that a distrusted superpower runs the risk of being ganged up on by the rest of the world.”
Wow, remember when China was the great evil that nobody trusted and wanted to attack? I keep saying that we need to watch out for everybody ganging up on us and smacking us down for acting like worldwide bullies.
November 20th, 2005 at 6:49 pmIf in fact “world opinion” prefers the brutal authoritarian ChiComs, then that is one more reason to ignore world opinion.
November 20th, 2005 at 6:52 pm[...] Think Progress » Lessons of Iraq Policy: U.S.’s Loss Is China’s Gain [...]
November 20th, 2005 at 6:55 pmWTF is he doing over there anyway? That’s a hell of a long way to go for a stupid bike ride.
November 20th, 2005 at 6:55 pmIt is Old Bushie that is acting like a bullie. The American people did not want this war. This was a total mistake from the start. We need to get Old Bushie and his admin out of office soon. Our country can not handle 3 more years of Old Bushie.
If he went on that ship and said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
November 20th, 2005 at 6:59 pmWhy are we still in Iraq?
WWallace, it’s ignoring world opinion that has led us to our greatest calamities and it’s that ignorance which will cause us to lose our superpower status.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:01 pmFaiz, you went over the edge on this one. If you really think that Bush wants to extend freedom to anyone, I’ve got this bridge . . .
November 20th, 2005 at 7:09 pmCheck this out:
November 20th, 2005 at 7:21 pmhttp://www.bareknucklepolitics.com/forum
#8 Really. The US started out with “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” We ignore the rest of the world at our peril, and anyone who thinks we can prevail against the entire planet is a fool.
…except for wwallace, who is apparently some sort of wonky electrical void attached to a keyboard.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:23 pmThis editorial could have been written by any paper anywhere in the world. Of course, right wing shit-for-brains will blow off any opposing (enlightening) view simply for that reason — because it’s an opposing view, it’s different, and they can’t tolerate that. Makes them feel threatened.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:24 pmBush is so strategically inept and globally oblivious that we have completely ceded the high ground in global affairs.
Like the budget, he inherited something relatively healthy and destroyed it. We’ve barely scratched the surface of the second term–that’s pretty frightening to think that he’s done all this damage in less than five years.
If we buy him a really cool mountain bike and give him a medal, do you think he’d agree to step down?
Today on EWM: Bush: “Democrats Killed Jesus, Invented Disco and Drove Me to Drinkâ€
November 20th, 2005 at 7:32 pmIn Australia the news is all how Bush has pushed for China to revalue the Yuan and how the Chinese have been forced to give way on “democracy” issues. Its amazing the bias in the news here (corporate news, there are a few unbiased sources,becoming rare though), anything to give Bush the look of the upper hand. Not til I search other sources do I find out more evenly what is actually happening.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:35 pmJack, #8, You’re spouting meaningless cliches.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:35 pmMuse, if you loosen your tinfiol hat, do you think you’ll be less of a lunatic? Or is it too late for that?
November 20th, 2005 at 7:37 pmWWallace, I’m glad at least one of us is concerned about the future.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:38 pm#4
If in fact “world opinion†prefers the brutal authoritarian ChiComs, then that is one more reason to ignore world opinion.
I think the world understands that BOTH China and the U.S. are brutal, authoritarian regimes. But the Chinese haven’t made any poorly disguised attempts to take over the world.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:40 pmI expected as much. Knowing the penchant for DAs to request harsher and harsher penalties for criminals to stem crime (for crimes the government doesn’t like), is it feasible to get tougher sentences for those convicted of crimes while in office? Maybe that would help keep politicians focused on what they should be focused on and save us from losing even more of what we used to stand for.
November 20th, 2005 at 7:48 pmi warned you that your freedom bubble was about to pop!
November 20th, 2005 at 7:58 pmThanks for NOT Listening.
Dummies
November 20th, 2005 at 8:02 pmAccording to wingers, world opinion mattered when Bill Clinton had an affair and the US was the laughingstock. Then world opinion didn’t matter in the run-up to the war because Russia and France and Germany and the UN were all on the take with Iraq. Then when the insurgency kicked-in world opinion mattered in order to garner troops and money to build Iraq and fight the insurgency, now world opinion doesn’t matter because the world looks at China as less imperial and belligerent than the US.
I have two words for the wingers…..FLIP, FLOP.
-GSD
November 20th, 2005 at 8:28 pmI AM A RETARDED REPUBLICAN THAT KNOWS NOTHING!
November 20th, 2005 at 8:35 pmIGNORE COMMENT #22
British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328214.ece
November 20th, 2005 at 8:46 pmTorture with Drills
British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328214.ece
November 20th, 2005 at 8:47 pmThe US gov houses more prisoners in prisons than China by more than 6 to 1.
Who has the brutal regime?
November 20th, 2005 at 8:52 pmRon, I Didn,t KNOW that. Geez what a geek i must be.
November 20th, 2005 at 8:54 pmWhat’s wrong with cutting and running?
Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?
By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org
If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.
Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:
1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq’s neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
But consider this:
1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.
For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.
Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.
2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.
Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?
3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.
Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.
President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ’s statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.
Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?
Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism — returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.
Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world’s political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.
4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.
Why not ask: “Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam’s Iraq supported al Qaeda — which we now know it did not — isn’t your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda’s position in that country?”
5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran’s interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran’s interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran’s influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.
Questions for the administration: “Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?”
6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.
7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.
8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don’t the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime’s service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.
The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam’s political leaders lost the war.
Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.
9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military — especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war — has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.
Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration’s case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don’t see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.
As I wrote several years ago, “the Pentagon’s post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants.” The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly “supported the troops.” The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.
â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â–
So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.
Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.
I don’t believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.
Look at John Kerry’s utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:
1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America’s most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);
2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);
3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don’t really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)
The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
E-mail: diane@hudson.org
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129
November 20th, 2005 at 9:09 pmWhat’s wrong with cutting and running?
Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?
By William E. Odom
If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.
Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:
1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq’s neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
But consider this:
1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.
For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.
Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.
2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.
Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?
3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.
Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.
President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ’s statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.
Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?
Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism — returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.
Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world’s political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.
4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.
Why not ask: “Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam’s Iraq supported al Qaeda — which we now know it did not — isn’t your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda’s position in that country?”
5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran’s interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran’s interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran’s influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.
Questions for the administration: “Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?”
6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.
7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.
8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don’t the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime’s service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.
The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam’s political leaders lost the war.
Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.
9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military — especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war — has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.
Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration’s case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don’t see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.
As I wrote several years ago, “the Pentagon’s post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants.” The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly “supported the troops.” The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.
â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â–
So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.
Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.
I don’t believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.
Look at John Kerry’s utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:
1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America’s most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);
2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);
3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don’t really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)
The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
E-mail: diane@hudson.org
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129
November 20th, 2005 at 9:09 pmArguments for leaving Iraq…
What’s wrong with cutting and running?
Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?
By William E. Odom
If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.
Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:
1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq’s neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
But consider this:
1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.
For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.
Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.
2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.
Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?
3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.
Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.
President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ’s statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.
Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?
Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism — returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.
Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world’s political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.
4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.
Why not ask: “Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam’s Iraq supported al Qaeda — which we now know it did not — isn’t your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda’s position in that country?”
5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran’s interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran’s interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran’s influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.
Questions for the administration: “Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?”
6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.
7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.
8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don’t the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime’s service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.
The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam’s political leaders lost the war.
Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.
9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military — especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war — has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.
Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration’s case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don’t see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.
As I wrote several years ago, “the Pentagon’s post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants.” The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly “supported the troops.” The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.
â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â– â–
So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.
Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.
I don’t believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.
Look at John Kerry’s utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time,” but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:
1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America’s most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);
2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);
3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don’t really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)
The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army’s senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
E-mail: diane@hudson.org
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129
November 20th, 2005 at 9:10 pm** Dahr Jamail’s Iraq Dispatches **
** Visit the Dahr Jamail Iraq website http://dahrjamailiraq.com **
** Website by http://jeffpflueger.com **
DahrJamailIraq is now hosting daily news translations from Iraq!
Despite the more than 500 Arabic and Persian news outlets reporting
stories from and about the Middle East, there is currently no affordable means
for English speakers to gain access to much of this content.
Mideastwire.com aims to close this gap by offering a daily email
newsletter of concise, translated briefs from and about the Middle East.
Through a special arrangement with MidEastWire.com, we are happy to
announce that we are now hosting MidEastWire’s “Daily Iraq Monitor” on the
DahrJamailIraq website.
The daily translated news briefs from Iraq are available at
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mideastwire/
But you won’t have to check on the DahrJamailIraq website to keep
November 20th, 2005 at 9:22 pmcurrent on the Daily Iraq Monitor. You can subscribe for free! Simply
link to the RSS feed at http://dahrjamailiraq.com/mideastwire/rss.php
with your RSS reader and be informed daily of events in Iraq translated daily
from Middle East news sources.
Nicole, what’s with the spam?
November 20th, 2005 at 10:07 pmDid we piss in you rosebushes or something?
422 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2005/ 11/ 18/ schmidt-shame/ trackback/
If Schmidt can get 422 comments, Surely this post can get Twice that many.
November 20th, 2005 at 10:23 pmWouldn,t you think?
Bush has no where to run, NOT even China will put up with his CRAP!
November 20th, 2005 at 10:36 pmAnother good one landed a little bit ago.
CNN
November 20, 2005
Powell aide: Torture ‘guidance’ from VP
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/20/torture/index.html
Retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, told CNN that the practice of torture may be continuing in U.S.-run facilities.
“There’s no question in my mind that we did. There’s no question in my mind that we may be still doing it,” Wilkerson said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
“There’s no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated — in the vice president of the United States’ office,” he said. “His implementer in this case was [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department.”
November 20th, 2005 at 10:49 pmWhats with the philibuster pals?
November 20th, 2005 at 10:56 pmNot to give any disrespect to talk show hosts, but check out this picture:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6815/413/1600/capt.chnd12911201255.bush_asia_chnd129.jpg
And tell me he doesn’t remind you of a host giving his monoluge (sp)?
November 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pmOne overlooked point on the lead up to the Iraq war was Irans vulnerability. If anyone remembers: we had saddam hemmed in by not only a northern no fly zone , but a southern one too. Saddam couldn’t do much. At the same time Iran was having a political battle. Even though Irans judicial branch was strongly religious, their le3gislative branch was strongly secular. The legislative branch wanted to increase liberties and decrease religious dictates. Due to the structure of the Iranian constitution the judicial branch was able to dominate. They could disqualify office-seekers at will. The legislative branch resisted and most importantly THERE WERE PRO-DEMOCRACY DEMONSTRATIONS IN TERHAN. With a small wise effort we could have gotten Iran to join the enlightened democratic nations of the world. Instead we chose to invade Iraq. Iran swung hard to the right. Regional stability… well, according to the administration we’re making progress. In the meantime how many people have died? How much closer are people to living a life unfettered by religious extremists? Here or there.
November 20th, 2005 at 11:14 pmNana always used to tell me that the Bible said that before the end (of the World)
“The Yellow Race Will Rule The Earth.”
Now, I was about 10 years old and thought, “DUH! All my asian friends are MUCH better students than me! THEY actually STUDY!”
I’m now 40, and think, “DUH! They emphasize education! They educate their kids YEAR ‘ROUND! None of this 180 days crap! (Which is 6 MONTHS, PEOPLE! Our kids are in school for 6 MONTHS!!!!I’m all for unions, but the teacher’s union is FAR TOO POWERFUL! Kids should be in school year ’round. IMHO.)
We are PEONS in World View.
November 20th, 2005 at 11:29 pmTHANKS, Dubya! IDIOT!!!
It’s about time America woke up and realized we are no longer “ALL THAT”.
Oust this asshole out of office and start rebuilding global relations.
China has a Population of over 1.3 Billion People. China Disagreed with the War that Bush started.
November 20th, 2005 at 11:57 pmremember 911 the days after, when Bush declared War on the Entire Nation of Afganistan. the Carpet Bombings, Bunker Busters, How many Innocent Lives were Lost, Just at that moment. Now ,How in the World did Bush go from Afganistan to Iraq with his so-called war on terror? it never was a war on terror, it was Bushs war For freedom. and he is still trying to push it. this is why he is in China, well, China Knows better. once you set them free , you can never take it away.
God and Freedom Have nothing in Common. Have you ever read the Bible? Isrealites were merely led out of Bondage and Slavery, America is back in that same situation where the poor get poorer while the rich get richer. Do you defend the Rich , Free , and abundant Wealth? history is repeating itself, but, unlike Eygpt/Isreal, The whole America is going to be destroyed by a Mighty Earthquake.
Unless we give up our freedoms.
you do know the world population is around 6.6 Billion people, Chinas population is 1.3 BILLION People, India 1 Billion, and America?LESS than 300 Million, and how many of them are in prison, on drugs, not capable of defending freedom, there is a whole lot more to it than you realize. May I suggest you take a deep hard look at how many americans are killed just here in america?
And, How many Americans are not willinr to Die for Someone elses Freedoms?
Take 300 million Against 1.3 Billion. Who do you suppose God will Defend? the 300 Million?
I dont think so.
I find it ironic that China holds a tremendous amount of the foreign debt we owe for fighting the war in Iraq. OCP (Our Current President) arrives and sternly lectures. As their guest, he shows a lack of diplomatic skills with this ancient nation that culturally has had a penchant for politeness. Where would we be if China decided to invest their money elsewhere and called in their loaned money?
November 21st, 2005 at 12:19 amFrom thread below: Rummy attacks Murtha (last sentence)
” We can’t win militarily. They know that. The battle is here in the United States”.
Rummy admits that we have lost the war in Iraq.
Lets run with Rummy’s statement, I can’t believe Thinkprogress let this one slip by.
November 21st, 2005 at 12:21 amCarolgee, you sound as if money is the only thing important to you. is this the case?
November 21st, 2005 at 12:24 amYou know, I completely missed this one from earlier.
CNN
November 18, 2005
Lawyer may testify against Abramoff
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/lobbyists.tribes/index.html
“She’s breakin’ up captain!”
November 21st, 2005 at 12:27 amGlobal warming has some benefits. The new beaches in Sweden brings the beaches right to the babes.
http://www.AlGoreLabs.com
November 21st, 2005 at 1:47 amhttp://www.AlGoreLabs.com
Cowboy George has weakened our influence around t
If you’re a bully, you can instill fear in the hearts of those around you when you talk tough and flex your muscles. If you start a fight and you’re not quite so fast in putting your opponent away, others take note; someone will figure out that you a…
November 21st, 2005 at 6:58 amhttp://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg
November 21st, 2005 at 8:17 amWhat started the quest for global domination.
#47.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:40 amFREEDOM Started the Quest.
“One example of Bush’s lack of influence can be seen in the administration’s inability to successfully address the issue of China’s treatment of dissidents.”
Nonsense. The only way to successfully address Red Chinese totalitarianism is with nuclear weapons. They didn’t listen to Clinton either.
November 21st, 2005 at 10:58 amIf you’re a bully, you can instill fear in the hearts of those around you when you talk tough and flex your muscles. If you start a fight and you’re not quite so fast in putting your opponent away, others take note; someone will figure out that you a…
Trackback by The Subjective Scribe
How does Jimmy Carter’s botch of the Iran crisis and Clinton’s botch of everything in the Mid East figure in to your little theory? By the way…”putting them away” means carpet bombing of the Sunni cities in Iraq. You down with that?
Let’s hear your plan loser. Can’t wait.
November 21st, 2005 at 11:11 amhttp://china-research-papers.com/china_list_00.html
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:26 ambuy valtrex
Think Progress »…
December 4th, 2005 at 1:51 amPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm