Topic: Foreign Policy
Bush Trying To Buy Success In Iraq By Bribing Sheiks A recent report that secret bribe payments by the Bush administration through military channels are intended to buy the loyalty of Iraqi sheiks is undermining Bush claims that things are going well in Iraq.by Walt Thiessen
(Libertarian)
Friday, November 9, 2007
A November 8, 2007 article by Sam Dagher, correspondent to the Christian Science Monitor claims that the Bush administration is making payments to Iraqi sheiks in order to buy their loyalty. Bush's actions in this regard demonstrate that he really doesn't believe America's military presence in Iraq can actually achieve its stated goals. So he is hedging his bets by greasing some palms with taxpayer money. By doing so, he is committing America to a new form of government boondoggle that will eventually contribute to further destabilization in Iraq as well as further undermining America's own monetary problems at home.
Dagher states:
"But the strategy is fraught with risks, including the serious potential for wars among the tribes themselves and the creation of militias in die-hard Sunni Arab lands where many continue to question the legitimacy and authority of the Shiite-led central government in Baghdad....
"US military officers on the ground say there is tremendous pressure from high above to replicate the successes of the so-called 'awakening' against Al Qaeda in the western Anbar Province. The drive reached its apex in the run-up to the September testimonies to Congress by the top US military commander and diplomat in Iraq, US officers say."
The article focuses in particular on sheik Sabah al-Hassani, who has received $100,000 himself and has helped deliver Bush bribes totalling $1 million to others of his kind. Dagher uses Hassani as an example in the article, although he is merely representative of a much larger picture. The Bush strategy will produce some temporary loyalty in the near term, but it is certain to blow up in the long term.
"Maj. Gen. Abdul-Jabbar Rabie, who was once a commander in the Saddam-era Army and now heads a brigade of the new Army in Salahaddin, shares that view. Hassani's men lack discipline and loyalty, he says, and could soon become a militia.
"'They can spin out of control. They may be double agents and deal with both sides,' says General Rabie."
Timemagazine's Oct. 19 article by Darrin Mortenson claims that there is hope that sectarian divides can be healed because of recent success in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, where 32 tribal sheiks signed a "groundbreaking" accord to curb extremism and end sectarian violence in the region. The Time article makes no mention of bribes, but combined with the Christian Science Monitor article it makes one stop and think. It seems likely that if the Bush administration is willing to bribe Hassani and his associates, who are from the Salahaddin Province north of Baghdad, they are surely willing to bribe the 32 other sheiks south of Baghdad. And indeed, that's likely the real reason why those 32 other sheiks signed their agreement.
No one, including the notorious Council on Foreign Relations, seems to know how many sheiks there are in Iraq. They probably number in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. The word "sheik" in Arabic means "scholar," so there is really no limit to the number of potential sheiks that need to be bribed in order to achieve peace in Iraq through military means.
The big problem with a policy of bribery, of course, is that it only works so long as the bribe money keeps flowing. Cut off the money, and the policy fails. Make no mistake...this is going to get very expensive in a relatively short period of time, and the long-term results will be catastrophic both for Iraq and for America.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, November 9, 2007
Last modified: Friday, November 9, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Good article, Walt. Now, please tell those like me who dare to question Ron Paul's values what he has said about Judge Mukasey and Waterboarding. Not interested in what you think he might say; I want quotes. Here's the opinion of one who was qualified to render it. And now, thanks to an outstanding organization, anyone can render a qualified opinion on waterboarding.
“Waterboarding is torture,” Daniel Levin was to write. Daniel Levin was no theorist and no protester. He was no troublemaking politician. He was no table-pounding commentator. Daniel Levin was an astonishingly patriotic American and a brave man. Daniel Levin should have a statue in his honor in Washington, D.C. right now. Instead, he was forced out as acting assistant attorney general nearly three years ago because he had the guts to do what Bush and Cheney couldn’t do in a million years: Daniel Levin took himself to a military base and let himself be waterboarded.
And they waterboarded him. And he wrote that even though he knew those doing it meant him no harm, and he knew they would rescue him at the instant of the slightest distress, and he knew he would not die - still, with all that reassurance, he could not stop the terror screaming from inside of him, could not quell the horror, could not convince that which is at the core of each of us, the entity who exists behind all the embellishments we strap to ourselves, like purpose and name and family and love, he could not convince his being that he wasn’t drowning. Waterboarding, he said, is torture. Legally, it is torture. Practically, it is torture. Ethically, it is torture. Morally, it is torture.
Would you like to experience waterboarding? If you're 35 years of age or older there's an organization that will help you experience Congress-approved types of torture. This is a good way for you to prove to Jesus that you're willing to die for him, as he did for you. Believe me. When I say these people will get you to the point where you can see what's on the other side, it's an understatement. Interested? Search for America's most controversial writer on Google or Yahoo. There you'll find a personal email address. Send a short letter stating why you want to be tortured, phone number, and your home address. That's it. There is nothing else for you to do. If you're selected, you will be informed exactly as those who have been tortured by your government were informed. Hint: Say you want to be tortured to prove your love for Jesus. Do not worry about the cost; this is not about money.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-09 07:24:29
Bob, I couldn't find any comment by Paul about waterboarding or Mukasey at all. However, I did find this quote about torture from an article he wrote in June 2004, "It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment."
No, of course you didn't find any. The right to bear arms is a far cry from sticking a chained man's head under water. What a political dodge from a man who is being touted as different than Bush. But it does explain why Bush is where he's at, and what type of people put him there. I was privileged to watch a guy get waterboarded not long ago and he now needs heavy doses of paroxetine and weekly visits with a board certified psychiatrist. He no longer worships God, he thinks he is God. If any of you good Christians want to test your faith, I can make the arrangement. Don't worry about the fee, I'll pay that just for the pleasure watching how well you handle a little of the stuff we're dishing out. But that's not necessary to know how well Americans do because the North Vietnamise and North Koreans soldiers said Americans were the biggest cowards they'd ever fought, and just the threat of tourture would have them singing like a magpie. And, Walt, if you want to find out what value your columnist put on their opinions, start charging a monthly fee of $25 to post.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-09 09:16:15
You mean, unless Ron Paul explicitly brings up waterboarding and condemns it specifically, he's not against torture? This is the same guy who repeatedly voted against suspending habeus corpus, against the Military Commissions Act, and against the Patriot Act. But because I don't know of any particular quote where he has specifically mentioned the word "waterboarding", therefore Paul is dodging the issue?
If I remember correctly, you voiced support under another article's reader's comments on this site that you tend to support Hillary Clinton, who believes that torture is acceptable when it's an emergency.
I said I gave money to both Clinton and Giuliani. I do not have a problem killing Arabs or Americans if the government puts out a contract out that makes it worthwhile.
All I asked was for Ron Paul's position on the judge and waterboarding. Clinton and Giuliani has given their opinions. True, they're both doing their best not to answer any questions, and lie through their teeth when they do.
I just knew that this savior Ron Paul had dodged the question as he dodged the question about Abu Ghraib. That don't make him any worse that the others for me. I just wanted tosee how quick you Ron Paul fans would defend the dodge. Now when you learn that he has already misspent some of that Internet money, here's what I'm expecting to hear. "All the other candidates are doing the same. I don't care what he does with my money. I gave it to him do do with as he saw fit. I just want him to win."
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-09 10:32:01
I just realized that there is a very good source for what Ron Paul believes regarding torture. Last month he introduced legislation in the House which would prohibit the use of torture in criminal trials and in foreign policy. I wrote about his legislation which included the following points on torture:
SEC. 4. TORTURE OR COERCED CONFESSIONS.
No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.
SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD.
No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President's belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 2 years.
So while the above doesn't specifically discuss waterboarding, I think it makes pretty clear what Ron Paul believes regarding torture. "No civilian or military tribunal of the United States shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion."
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-09 10:35:23
As for "misspending" campaign money....I've heard that kind of argument before. There will always be those who disagree on how money should be spent. When they're upset about how it's spent, they usually claim that it was "misspent" as if there were a law against it. I don't care whether such claims come out about Paul or any other candidate. I do hope he'll use the campaign money wisely, but I don't for a second believe that he'll spend it the way I would spend it or the way you would spend it. Expecting otherwise is absurd.
" just realized that there is a very good source for what Ron Paul believes regarding torture. Last month he introduced legislation in the House which would prohibit the use of torture in criminal trials and in foreign policy. I wrote about his legislation which included the following points on torture:"
This was wrthwhile reading. It was all that I asked for to start with. I assumed you'd know since you're following this guy and I'm not.
If Ron Paul gets in the general lection against Clinton or Edwards, I most likely will vote for him. I will also contribute to his campaign. What I won't do is to consider him anything but a politician. I've spent my life working for these people and know them pretty well.
Buying off locals is routine procedure. I spent 14 months in Afghanistan, and the container loads of cash and liquor for the local "Warlords" are a not-well-kept secret. Your article will surely enlighten many though. Our tax dollars at work.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.