Jun 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM by Political Chase
Mike Nifong, the Durham County District Attorney, has been found guilty by the NC state bar on six charges of ethical violations. Nifong falsely accused and charged three former Duke University lacrosse players of sexual assault, however, the charges were eventually dismissed by the North Carolina Attorney General, Roy A. Cooper.
Nifong must now face another state bar trial that will determine what sanctions will be levied against Nifong.
Late Update: Nifong says he will not fight disbarment after being found guilty of the ethics violaitons.
Jun 16, 2007 at 4:00 PM by Political Chase
So much for my interpretation of Gates’ new focus.
The U.S. strategy in Iraq has changed again (or has it), which lessens the feasibility of the idea Secretary Robert Gates suggested and I expounded upon. The New York Times reports the surge of U.S. troops has facilitated a new “offensive against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.” Therefore, Al Qaeda must have been the undefined new focus Bob Gates commented on yesterday.
The decision to mount more attacks in the Sunni belts is a trade-off in a military sense as it will limit the number of American forces that are available to secure neighborhoods inside the capital.
I’m a cynic, so bear with me a minute. Okay, so now we’re off fighting al Qaeda, who we should have been fighting all along. That’s just great, but after six years of George Bush, I question everything. Should this new strategy (how many is that now) be trusted and accepted at face value? It’s easy to accept this equation: Fighting Al Qaeda = Right Thing To Do. I want to play devil’s advocate for a moment.
- This is a pseudo-redeployment. What will be affect on the civil war we’ve been battling? Are the warring factions just going to rip each other apart now?
- It is an established fact that al Qaeda is by far a minor problem in Iraq.
- The greatest concentration of al Qaeda (publicly known) is in Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
- By initiating a major offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq, whose national interest are we placing a priority on, Iraq or the U.S.?
- The surge plan has been increasingly ineffective.
- Based on polling and media resources, I perceive the majority of Americans support fighting al Qaeda wherever the are, but do not support the status quo war in Iraq.
- Approximately 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way George Bush is managing the war in Iraq.
Considering the noted items and the history of President Bush’s deception, is it possible that this new offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq is more of a political maneuver than it is a military strategy?
Most reports and Congressional testimony indicate the highly anticipated report from Gen. Petraeus in September will not be as positive as the administration wants and needs. Consequently, if Petraeus issues a dismal report, the backlash and outcry will be overwhelming. However, if in September the military reports it is prosecuting an alleged offensive against al Qaeda, but still in Iraq, the historical elements of Petraeus’ report will be moot, and for the wrong reasons.
If the President’s message to the people in September is that we are fighting al Qaeda, albeit a potentially distorted message, the message will be accepted at face value because it’s al Qaeda. Bush may tactically employ what is his greatest fault - tell Americans what they want to hear and the discontent subsides, at least until he can escape from the White House.
I hope we are pursuing an appropriate offensive against al Qaeda, but any Bush sanctioned strategy or reporting must be verified.
Jun 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM by Political Chase
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates may be on to something sensible and novel. By novel I mean, I haven’t heard anyone else postulate nor implement his suggestion. In Iraq yesterday, Gates said, “perhaps we have gotten too focused on the central government, and not enough on the provinces, and on the tribes and what is happening in those areas,†the New York Times reports. “He said he hoped to spark greater attention to this ‘ground-up effort.’”
Gates idea deserves some attention. Realizing Bush’s dream of a democratic utopia just is not going to happen. A democracy is created from the ground up, not by a big swat from above, which is exactly what Bush has tried unsuccessfully to do. I know this isn’t the best analogy, but bear me out. Just like a classroom, better results are achieved when the class is small, and the collective affect of all the small groups is a better school. Furthermore, the cohesive bond of the school is remarkable. Ever been to a basketball game in Cameron Stadium at Duke University? Unbelievable. So, why can’t the same theory or organizational structure be applied in Iraq? One could argue against the approach, but that applies to every situation, and clearly what we have been doing is flat out wrong.
Maybe I’m looking too closely for any sign of reasonable thinking or action in Iraq, whether it is get out fast or an ingenious, realistic strategy to quick bring stability. If we are going to be there, why not focus diplomatic and political efforts regionally (within Iraq) and locally? Getting localities to agree and work together is much easier than telling the entire country to “follow me.” Congress is a perfect example. An idea - whether it originates from Congressional leaders, the President, or a single member of the House - comes to fruition from the bottom up.
General Petraeus has implemented a distributed military operation, so why isn’t there a paralleling political strategy? The central government is not working regardless of the reasons. What else is left? Pursuing Gates idea can’t make the situation worse, that’s for sure.
