Washing over the darker portions of a war. The vietnam war bitterly divided america. We must admit past mistakes. And we must learn from past mistakes. Because that is how we avoid repeating that mistake. Chuck hagel talks about mistakes made in the vietnam war. Retired threestar Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger, author of the new book why we lost a generals inside account of the iraq and afghanistan wars. Up. That and more coming welcome to democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report. Im amy goodman. The u. S. And china, the worlds two largest polluters, have agreed to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions over the next decade. President obama unveiled the details with chinese president xi jinping in beijing. Also announce the United States has produced a new goal of reducing our Greenhouse Gas emissions by 26 to 28 below 2005 levels by 2025. It is an ambitious goal but an achievable goal. Whichl double the pace at we are reducing carbon emission in the United States. It puts us on path to reducing emissions. China has also made its first ever commitment to stopping by 2030. From growing we will have more on the story after headlines. Has issued ations new morning over the plight of refugees displaced by war in syria and iraq. On tuesday, u. N. Spoke person Melissa Fleming warned a funding shortfall threatens up to one Million People as winter looms. Ande are very concerned by over 58 million funding that could leave as many as one Million People without proper help. This sharptly due to increase of internal displacement that we have witnessed in iraq. Peoplee to 13. 6 million have been displaced by the conflict in serious and iraq. Hashuman World Food Program cut rations for four. 20 5 Million People, and more could be on the way. A u. S. Drone strike in pakistan has killed at least or people. The victims were described as suspected militants in the northern waziristan tribal district. Meanwhile, at least seven people have died in a u. S. Drone strike in yemen. The Yemeni Military claims those killed were on their way to carry out an attack. Israeli settlers set a palestinian mosque on fire amidst worsening unrest in israel along the west bank. The torching of the mosque followed separate palestinian knife attacks that killed an israeli settler and an israeli soldier. On tuesday, forces shot dead a palestinian man in the west bank after a crowd of protesters threw stones and fuel bombs. Prime minister netanyahu is vowing to crush renewed palestinian protest, while palestinian president abbas has accused netanyahu of seeking to dictate a religious war. The latest round of tensions escalated following new israeli Settlement Expansion in occupied East Jerusalem and an attempt by extremist israelis to enter a mosque. Mexico overinues in the apparent massacre of 43 students by police in and a drug gang. Protesters in guerrero set ablaze the Ruling Political Party state headquarters. Right Police Clashed with masked demonstrators who threw stones and firebombs and briefly kidnapped a police commander. In our neck story, missouri governor jay nixon says he is prepared to redeploy the National Guard after a grand jury reaches its decision in the Michael Brown case. On tuesday, nixon said guard members will be on standby should protests erupt. Officers from the Missouri State highway patrol, st. Louis county highway and city police will operate as a unified command to protect the public. The National Guard has been and will continue to be part of our contingency plan. The guard would be available when we determined it is necessary to support local law enforcement. According to governor nixon, more than 1000 officers have recently undergone some 5000 hours in training on crowd control. The deployment of the National Guard in the protests that followed browns killing in august held fuel criticism of the states militarized crackdown. Leaks in the case of just darren wilson, the officer that killed Michael Brown, will not be indicted. Prosecutors expect a grand jury decision this month. Governor nixons announcement comes as Michael Browns parents have taken their case to the United Nations in geneva. The mother and father have been accompanied by a group of activists. On tuesday, they asked the committee to end discriminatory u. S. Policing tactics, including racial profiling, and investigate the targeting of. Ommunities of color the new york city doctor who contracted ebola after treating patients in west africa has been released from the hospital after being declared ebolafree. Dr. Craig spencer was the first and only known ebola case. In a News Conference upon his release, he said Early Detection proves the effectiveness of existing protocols and also urged support for Public Health workers volunteering in west africa. Early detection, reporting, and our recovery from ebola speaks to the effectiveness run the protocols that are in place for health staff returning from west africa. I am a living example of how the earlyols work and how detection is critical to surviving ebola and making sure it is not transmitted to others. Please join me in turning our attention back to west africa do ensuring that aid workers not face stigmas and threats upon their return home. Volunteers need to be supported to help fight this outbreak at its source. Dr. Spencer was diagnosed last month after having taken the subway and visiting a bowling alley, sparking initial alarm. With his recovery there are now no known cases of the ball inside the u. S. Nurses across the country are holding rallies and strikes today to protest what they call the inadequate protection of Health Workers treating patients hospitalized with ebola. National nurses united say hospitals lack proper equipment and protocols weeks after a pair of nurses contracted ebola at a dallas hospital. Those are some of the headlines, this is democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report. Im amy goodman. And i am one gonzalez. Welcome to our listeners and viewers around the country and around the world. The United States and china are two of the largest carbon polluters and have announced plans to limit Greenhouse Gas emissions over the next decade. President obama announced the accord at a News Conference in beijing. Today i can also announce the United States has set a new goal of reducing our net Greenhouse Gas emissions by 26 to 28 below 2005 levels by the year 2025. Its is an ambitious goal but is an achievable goal. It will double the pace at which we are reducing Carbon Pollution in the United States. It puts us on a path to achieving the deep emissions reduction by advanced economies that the Scientific Community says is necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of Climate Change. Chinese president xi jinping announced chinas ever firstever commitment to stop its emissions from growing by 2030. We published a joint statement about dealing with Climate Change and together announced our individual action goals for 2020. We have agreed to push forward on international Climate Change talks at the 2015 to guide nations, change conference in paris and to deepen what operation in the fields of clean energy and Environmental Protection between our two countries. To talk more about the deal, we are joined by jake schmidt, rector of the International Program at the National Defense counsel from washington, d. C. Your response to the deal, and first, lay out what it is. Thank you. The deal is an agreement between the two countries in terms of the next ups in their carbon cuts. As we go into the International Agreement next year in paris, countries are supposed to propose what they would do for the period after 2020. This is these countries saying what their target will be for that to period. The u. S. Is going to further strengthen their targets by cutting them to below 2005 20 , and what he 6 to the chinese have outlined, for the first time, that they will commit to having a co2 emissions peak, which is a huge deal considering their fastgrowing economy. In terms of the statement by president obama, to what degree is this largely symbolic . He would need some sort of congressional support or endorsement of such a policy. Assessment has looked at this and we have come up with a very strong conclusion, which is that this can be achieved under existing law. Congress passed the clean air act. Congress has given them the authority to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions and we expect this kind of target can be met without having to go back to congress for new legislation. Really, we have to ensure congress does not try to stop that, but the president has the power to veto those and we expect this and future administrations will send that signal, that any efforts to roll back these landmark agreements will be undercut. Was announced,al Senate Minority leader, who could me majority leader, mitch mcconnell, said that our economy could not take the president s ideological war on coal that would increase the squeeze on middle class families and struggling miners. The unrealistic plan that president went about his successor would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs. Your response . We have proven time and again that you can grow the American Economy and solve eironmental challenges. Wind andving a booming solar market that is creating jobs in the United States. People are installing energyefficient windows and light bulbs, insulation throughout the u. S. Are confident that as america continues to invest in clean energy solutions, it will not drive the economy into bankruptcy, as some claim. In fact, the opposite has been proven over the past decade. Can growty is, america and solve our environmental challenges. One question about the chinese commitment. Theyre talking about producing 20 of all their energy needs by 2030 from nonfossil fuel energy. How big of a deal is that, what would it take for the Chinese Government to be able to publish that . They are about halfway to the goal now, which is a huge challenge as they go forward. They have clearly broken almost every record that has ever been set in terms of wind and solar deployment. Thathinese have proven they can deploy these clean energy solutions. They will have to double down on it. Is reality is, China Building out its net branch of fresh rupture. The cost of wind and solar efficiency is must more much more cost competitive with things like old. Given the challenging air pollution in china, it is clear they cannot continue to rely on coal because that is having a devastating impact on their citizens. Last year, there was a video of republican lawmakers talking about china and Climate Change. We cannot do it alone as one nation. The problem is in china, mexico, india. Have china and other industrialized countries not working with us, all we will do a ship millions of jobs overseas. China made the comment they will not be engaging in a cap and trade system. Atmospheres other that are much more polluting. India and china will not stop doing what they are doing. Doesis motion, what it would prevent congress from passing any law with new mandates on Greenhouse Gas emissions, unless china and india have the same mandates. America is a country, not a planet. If countries like china, india, and russia are not part of a carbon reduction global program, that it does not matter what we do. It makes no sense if we do not require the Major Industrial countries like china and india to do the same thing. Was the last voice was senator jim demint. Your final comments, now that china is at the table . For almost two decades we have are from the opposition, that they want other countries like china to also be engaged in this battle. This is a clear sign that china is going to engage in that. A commitment to peak their co2 additions admissions, as part of an International Agreement next year. This is a huge shift in the debate. We expect the opposition to continue to trot out these lines as big o forward. Jake schmidt, thank you for being with us. You are watching democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report. Im amy goodman. As president obama attends trade talks in china, he used a video message on monday to issue a strong statement in favor of a free and open internet. He called for the fcc commission of netld the idea neutrality by classifying the internet as a publ utility. Obama said such protections from rent providers blocking access to websites, slowing down content, or providing paid fast lanes for Internet Service. Cable companies cannot decide which Online Stores you shop at or which streaming services you ca use, and they cannot let any company pay for priority over its competitors. To put these protections in place, im asking fcc to reclassify Internet Service under the telecommunications act. In plain english, im asking them to recognize that for most americans, the internet has become an essential part of communications and everyday life. The fcc is an independent agency and ultimately the decision is public hase but the already, to nearly 4 million times. President obamas proposal comes as his appointed fcc chairman tom wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cell phone and Cable Industries is considering breaking with the president on the neutrality. According to the washington with wheeler met officials and referred a more nuanced solution. He said, what you want is what everyone wants, and open internet that does not affect your business. I have to figure out how to split the baby. On monday, protesters called on wheeler to favor Net Neutrality and plotted block his driveway. Let you go to work today because you work for verizon, comcast, and at t, not the people. You are selling us out on the neutrality and that is not ok with us. We want to know what side you are on. Protests also took place in a dozen cities after it was reported that the sec was considering a hybrid approach to Net Neutrality. This would include expanded protections to internet providers. For more on the latest developments in the debate over the internets future, we are joined by steven renderos. Helped arrange two hearings with fcc chair tom wheeler earlier this year. He is also part of a network of 175 social justice organizations from around the country called media action grassroots network, or magnet. Start by talking about the significance of what president obama said. It is significant because basically it is an agreement of all the points we have been making on the neutrality. There should be no blocking or discrimination. Comcast cannot block the website that i want to visit, that there should not be fast or slow lanes. No pay schemes that allow faster access for consumers. Most important for us, he talked about applying this to mobile broadband which is where a lot of users of color 10 to access their internet. In addition, he said t way to do it is by reclassify the internet as a title ii broadband telik medications service, treating it like a utility, which it is for most of us today. Within hours of president obama making the announcement, my inbox was flooded by opposition candidates from industry and other conservative groups who basically portrayed this as a catastrophe for business and innovation on the internet in america. How important is this battle going to be over the next few weeks on this issue of what the fcc decides . Critically important. Some of the indications that we have gotten from chairman wheeler are that he would like to delay the vote. N he came into office he may not have a choice if they keep blockading his driveway. He talked about wanting to get the rule done efficiently and quickly, using a different set of authorities under section 706 of the telecommunications act. Now that the president has laid out clearly what the roadmap is, now he wants to step back and delay, which is unfortunate. It is like after president obamas statement, ted cruz came out with his tweet. It isironic because because of platforms like twitter where he is able to share his misguided opinions, but it also provides a platform for other voices to be heard. This whole idea of the government interfering with free internet, over the doesnt it somehow distort the historical record of how the internet was created, and the backbone of the internet, which was largely billed as a result of government financing . Certainly, if you want to maintain innovation, a place where the internet is an Economic Driving engine, you want to maintain Net Neutrality. That is what it is doing. What we have had with the internet since its inception, how we have experienced it. It is not about protecting google or facebook but about providing the conditions for the next google or facebook to exist. Just to clarify the ted cruz week, Net Neutrality is the obamacare of the internet. The internet should not run at the speed of government. Great political theater, but it is ironic because of and open internet that he has a platform like that. But were are also hearing about things that are happening arou the world coming in mexico, in ferguson the, all of these political moments which are now more significant because people have a platform to share their story. For people that are not familiar with this debate, why would they know what is happening in ferguson with a hybrid model, why wouldnt they know what is happening in mexico . If you think about the foundational principles of the internet, which is different from the rest of the media consumersers are both and creators of information. I can start a blog, twitter stream, a tumblr. People use this to shape their representation because the media does not reflect their experiences. On the internet there is no distinction, so we are producers and consumers of information. We can control our own narrative. Thate of the things wheeler initially tried to do was making a distinction between preserving Net Neutrality through cable services, but not necessarily in terms of mobile. Recent reports have shown the problems of Telephone Companies and mobile companies also slowing down content has grown. Can you talk about that . The first thing to think about is who is on mobile . Phone latinos use their to access the internet. 40 of africanamericans use their phone to primarily access the ternet. Are talkingwe about, that is who need to be protected. Part of the fallacy of the fcc plus 2020 rules was that it left mobile unprotected. But the reality is, for the average internet user, that is the internet to them. There is no distinction between accessing it between a computer and a phone. It is the internet. Some examples of problems that we reported on, providers in beijing on Net Neutrality . Of at tve seen examples blocking the face time app. After the Net Neutrality rules, tieredcs came out with a data plan where you could pay to get more access to more websites. That is essentially taking the cable model and applying it to the internet. A series of public hearings have been held to draw attention and support for Net Neutrality, including one in brooklyn. Among those who testified was cayden mak, technical director of 18 million rising. I am serious when i say i came from the internet, the internet raised me and saved my life. Have you ever been clear and jan and brown in american suburbs . It takes its toll. Not all of us make it out of the closet, the subdivision, of our teenage years. And itmost 28 years old has been a decade since i have lived there and i am still healing from those wounds. And open internet is not just a matter of survival but opening us up to the possibility of magic. Not in the sense of arthur c clarke, but magic in the sense that we are open to the encounter that will change us. The internet gave me my first chosen family. It was not just about ego tripping that it was College Students that wanted to talk about these ideas, but a moment of mutual recognition, a series of encounters that changed everything. A word for how i felt. Concepts that describe what i saw. Other people who made it out alive. That is how i know and open internet is about making magic. I am living proof that when you have an open network of it empowers the least among us to become creators just as much as the rich and powerful. That was cayden mak. Your response . Online groups like 18 million rising, color of change, would not exist for were it not for an open internet. A we can shape and be part of the political system in a political significant way. Tom wheeler is the former , the nationalta cable and telecommunications association, which is now headed by michael powell, who is the former head of the sec, so they just switched places. Talk about the revolving door. Yet president obama appointed him. Absolutely. It will be an interesting moment to see what tom wheeler does. There was a article where tom wheeler is separating himself, saying we are an independent agency, we will do our own thing. Obamasd president approach to Net Neutrality naive and simplistic. Simplistic isand to consider than 4 Million People have commented on this issue, the most ever at the fcc, and to not take those voices into account, 99 of which were in support of Net Neutrality. Takingident obama, in the stand, is not only going against a cable and telecommunications industry, but also against many of the major civil rights organizations in the country that have been remarkably awol on this issue, or have been supporting the Cable Companies and telik an indication companies which always provide their conferences and conventions, programs, major funding. Can you talk about this internal battle in the Civil Rights Community about the issue of Net Neutrality . See ais unfortunate to lot of the legacy organizations take a position like this. Color of change often compares Net Neutrality to the Voting Rights act of the i can 60s. It is unfortunate that that is the reality today, but there is a whole Online Community of s,ople of color, queer, tran who speak out through an open internet. The legacy groups are not with us on this issue but there are presentps thateally where we should be at. Of people who responded online to the fcc around and open internet . 4 million. And the percentage of those that support and open internet, not the socalled hybrid model . 99 . Ist is interesting is, that the most the fcc has ever received on any issue. It is including Janet Jackson and the super bowl. Steven renderos, thank you for being with us. The center for media justice. When we come back, a threestar Lieutenant General says the wars in iraq and afghanistan have been lost. Stay with us. [ ] this is democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report. Im amy goodman. In the United States marked veterans day on tuesday with a series of events nationwide. Baking of the Vietnam Memorial in washington, chuck hagel said oring the nations groups troops include questioning the policies that send them to war. We must be honest in our telling of history. There is nothing to be gained by glossing over the darker portions of a war, the vietnam war and that bitterly divided america. We must open a knowledge past mistakes. And we must learn from past mistakes. Because that is how we avoid repeating past mistakes. The world reminds us that we must never take the security of our country for granted, ever. We must always question our policies that send our citizens to bore because our nations policies must always be worthy of the sacrifices we ask of the men and women who defend our country. That was defense secretary chuck hagel yesterday. We turn now to a retired threestar general who helped the man troops in afghanistan and iraq. The tenant general Daniel Bolger has just published a book, why we lost a generals inside account of the iraq and afghanistan wars. He writes in a piece published this week in the New York Times, general bolger called for a Public Inquiry along the lines of the 9 11 commission to look into why the two wars in iraq and afghanistan have gone so poorly. To find out more we are joined by Daniel Bolger, served 35 years in the army before retiring last year, commanded the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team in iraq in 200506, the 1st Cavalry Division in baghdad in 200910, and the Nato Training Mission in afghanistan from 2011 to 2013. His military awards include five bronze medals, including one for valor, and a combat action badge. Did the u. S. Lose the wars in iraq and afghanistan coali . Tion military assistance the simplest way to say it is that we misapplied the forces. We did not use them in the way that they were trained and prepared. Secretary chuck hagel, a vietnam veteran, like his brother, served in vietnam. His statement there is a very powerful. You have to have a public debate before you commit forces. We had been after 9 11 but it was very rushed. We had it again in 2002 before going into iraq. We never continued the debate. The initial phases were successful from a military standpoint but we never followed up by having a discussion, is it appropriate to send thousands of men and women into Foreign Countries to go house to house trying to sort out who is a terrorist, who is a villager . That is something we tried in Southeast Asia and it did not work but we repeated it once in afghanistan, and then again in iraq. That is very disturbing, and i think that led to a failure in both campaigns. The surge in iraq . The word is what it means, a temporary measure. It was a temporary increase in troops. The best way i would use an analogy if a patient is ill and has a fever have a you can give aspirin to bring the temperature down. But when you stop giving it, the underlying beaver is still there. The surge gave some temporary relief. It was not permanent and it did not solve the underlying problem which is to say that both countries have an insurgency and the solution, if there is going to be one of arrests in the hands of the iraqis and afghans. The enormous amount, not only of casualties that occurred on the u. S. Side as well as the iraqi side, and then this enormous buildup of an iraqi army trained by the united is then essentially disintegrated with the rise of isis, how did that happen . We should not be surprised by that. The old iraqi army, we pop them twice. They also disintegrated when we came into contact with them. Isis had a similar experience. It takes many decades to build up a decent army. A couple of days at the range and marching round will not do the trick. We have that experience building armies in other countries. Particularly the south koreans, who did not do well in the korean war in the 1950s, now have an army capable of defending their country and are going around the world doing the United Nations missions. That was an effort of decades. It does not require hundreds of thousands of troops or fleets of jet bombers. It requires a small number of trainers and a longterm commitment to a solution that the people of that country, the afghans and iraqis, want. State in your book that the u. S. Military is essentially not prepared to mount counterinsurgency wars. Conventional wars is one thing, but counterinsurgency is a whole other world. Could you expand on that . We are very good conventional wars. We were so good at it, myself and other commanders thought that this time we could fight in vietnam and we would get it right. Our men and women were so tough and well prepared, we thought this time we could pull it off. We missed the fundamental strategic error of that thought, and error based in arrogance, hubris, whatever word you want to use. When a country is having a problem with insurgents, the solution must lie with the local people. The solution will be partially political in nature, there may be a violent component to it, deals cut, but it is not something that hundreds of thousands of western troops can solve on the matter how well they are trained. I think we missed a fundamental strategic point. Blame myself,id concerned about my own failings in that area. I studied the vietnam war. I knew what we did wrong. In my arrogance, im amy error, along with my peers, thinking that this time because our troops are better, we can pull it off. You have called a commission to look at the flaws of what happened, for a kind of commission. In june, we spoke to Richard Clarke, the nations top former counterterrorism official. He said he believes george w. Bush is guilty of war crimes for launching the 2003 invasion of iraq. He served as National Coordinator for counterterrorism. He resigned in 2003 following the iraq invasion. This is part of his response, about whether george bush should be tried for war crimes. I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes. Whether that would be productive or not, i think is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal court in the hague, where people who take actions as serving president s or prime ministers of countries have been indicted, and have been tried. So the president is there pr ecedent is there to do Something Like that. Then went on to say that george bush wanted him to place the blame of 9 11 on iraq. The governmentit altogether, testified before a congressional committees, before the 9 11 commission, wrote a bush revealing what the administration had and had not done to stop 9 11, and what they did after the fact, how the president wanted me to blame iraq for the 9 11 attacks. Clarke, therichard former top counterterrorism czar. Your response . I dont know that war crimes or that is in order, i do not have enough knowledge about those aspects. But i will tell you on where Richard Clarke is on firm ground is the seriousness about a public hearing about what went wrong. If you go back to the korean war, which i mentioned, 1951, there were major hearings. We called in macarthur. He testified. Omar bradley, the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of bute, pretty much everybody president truman testified. Senator fulbright called similar hearings during the vietnam war. In that case, the general did testify. Where are those hearings on this war, where are the similar events . People like Richard Clarke need to be called in so they can explain fully what they know and then it can be put to the full light of day, so the American People can say through their elected representatives, we think this is a good idea, we want you to stick with it, or this has not worked out, let to something different. But the key thing we need is pur peace was in october in 2002 with the use of the authorization of the use of forces in iraq. Other than that there has been just arguments about the budget. I want to raise the issue of how the branding of the war on terrorism has expanded to so many other countries, some of which, countries that america does not know anything about. The label,ed Operation Enduring freedom, there was a team in the ,aribbean, the horn of africa kurdistan, in the philippines. Given the fact that so many arab and muslim countries have now been targeted for this expansion of our war on terrorism, how do you, as a military man, deal with this growing perception in the arab and muslim world that there is almost a civilizational battle between the west and their region of the world . Weits a great concern, and should not forget, speaking as americans, the primary victims so far of the war on terrorism in iraq and afghanistan have been the iraqis and afghans. We caused some of that. I can tell you we tried hard to prevent civilian casualties, but when you use modern weapons, it easy. Always especially when the enemy is wearing civilian clothing. Infected has also casualties on their own populations, civil wars. The primary victims of these wars have been from the arab and muslim world. You would think there would be common cause to get together and find some ground where we could agree on who is the enemy here and what to go after. That is where i think we have a challenge. We do not hold those meetings either. Focused onstay threats to the american homeland, im glad we are, i dont want to see another 9 11. We end up in a, lot of places with our intelligence entities and special forces, chasing a lot of people. Do you have to be retired to say Something Like this . No, and im glad you asked. Secretary hagel is a good example of that. When we close the doors and have a meeting in the military, with members of government i met with secretary hagel, with his predecessor, pineda, secretary ,ates, secretary rumsfeld secretary rice, kerry, etc. We get to have our say. When the doors close on the weekend a very honest about what we think or dont think. But there is a tradition of military. Ontrolled when the decision is made, you support that decision. That is the decision you carry out to the best of your ability. If you cannot, you have to do like Richard Clarke and say i can no longer work in this organization. Talk about your personal experiences as a commander, particular incidents that really drove home to you the failures of our policies and our efforts in those areas . When i was there in 2005, in iraq, my duties include going out with u. S. And iraqi forces. I would go out into the villages, and it was obvious immediately that as much as we try to develop intelligence and figure out who was who, you are going into a village where the notification of the target individual you are looking for 40plusyearold male, his name is mohammed. In a village there are 500 people that could answer to that decision. So you are going into homes, marketplaces, schools trying to figure out who is the enemy. You dont speak the language, so you are working through your iraqi counterparts. It became amply obvious to me that if this is what we are reduced to, we were following the wrong policy. This is not a fight that we should be doing. A very legitimate fight for the iraqis to determin the future of their country, or the afghans. We can help them but they have to take the lead. They use a much larger political opponent. They cut deals and make arrangements, they bring people in. They dont feel like they have to hunt down and kill everybody. I wanted to turn to a piece we did yesterday. Phil donahue and ellen spiro did a film called body of war which looked at a young man, who died this weekend. Looks at the white house Correspondents Dinner in 2005 and includes president bush joking about the missing weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons of mass destruction ve got to be somewhere. [laughter] mope. No weapons over there. Maybe over here. [laughter] president obama at the white thee president bush at white house Correspondents Dinner, joking, in 2005, as thousands of u. S. Soldiers were dying because the pretext was weapons of mass destruction, looking under the tables of his oval office, saying no weapons there, no weapons there. You should never joke about Serious Business like that. Obviously poor judgment on the president to make light of that. But expressing a profound truth, even if he is laughing about it. What we think about going into iraq, there were a series of votes in Congress Going back to the early 1990s, and in the United Nations, that identified Saddam Hussein as a problem for multiple things. Chemical problems was one thing. There was recently a good article talking about the residual program that existed. There were nerve gas and mustard gas rounds that were still there. They were not modern, not in good shape, but they were present. Which the u. S. Provided them with. Yes, in the 1980s when they were fighting the iranians. With that in mind, the other things that Saddam Hussein had on his letter that we should not forget, tremendously dangerous to his neighboring countries. Invaded several of them including iran and kuwait. The u. S. Supported hiin iran. Yes, but certainly not in kuwait. He had done that. He had obviously killed a large number of his own civilians to include checal weapons against shia and kurds, and that followed with the gulf wars. The other is a connection to terror groups. This was not inconsequential. Iraqeader of al qaeda in was in 2002 before we came in. This was in northern iraq. Whad an arrgement with kurdistan. The masternd of the ,alestinians liberation front he was a guest in baghdad. But president bush saw that it did not want to use other examples. The imminent threat to the u. S. , the reason that they invaded iraq, was weapons of mass destruction, because that could hurt people in the u. S. That proved to be a pretext and a lie. I dont agree that it is a lie. There. Ere weapons over i think we Miss Understood the scale of them. Lie would imply that the president or somebody knew that there was nothing there and said lets do it anyway. What about Richard Clarke saying after 9 11, he bumps into bush at the white house and bu says we have to get your rack and he looks at th saying, they have nothing to do with 9 11 . There were similar statement in Bob Woodwards book. Part of it was because iraq was on our threat radar. What the u. S. Do about afghanistan then was minimal. Weekend, i went to vienna, austria, and i interviewed Robert Kelley, former director of the iaea. He expressed regret over the 3 invasion of iraq, saying and what very bad happened in 2003, it is extremely embarrassing that the country ignore the people in iraq making the observations and did not take us into account. When the u. S. At their team in two months after the war, the leader of the team quit. His statement was am a we were all wrong, they had no weapons of mass destruction. Well, we were not all wrong. The people in the field were saying that there was nothing there. That was Robert Kelley of the iaea. Residual program is what existed, as the New York Times pointed out. We certainly saw the remainder of that. When i was in baghdad, they were still removing yellow cake uranium from the old plant that israelis have bombed in 1981. There were pieces and parts, and intelligence work is never complete. Things that we have to remember is the atmosphere of the time one thing that interested me when i was researching the book that we are talking about, the vote for the authorization for the use of force in 2002 was even more decisive than the one in 1991. Which Hillary Clinton supported. Among others. John edwards. We have to go to break, but we will come back. Daniel bolger is our guest. His book is why we lost a generals inside account of the iraq and afghanistan wars. Years in the u. S. Army before retiring in 2013. We will be back with him intimate. In a minute. This is democracy now , democracynow. Org, the war and peace report. Im amy goodman. Gonzalez. Our guest is Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger. He has written a book called why we lost a generals inside account of the iraq and afghanistan wars. Years in the u. S. Army before retiring in 2013. I wanted to ask you about a couple of choochoo to decisions by the u. S. In iraq and afghanistan. In iraq, the decision early on to not only topple Saddam Hussein, but to basically purge from theists government and military, the result being a disintegration of government structures in the entire country. Now the virtual dismemberment of iraq as a functioning state. Also in afghanistan, going in after al qaeda and ending up, for 10 years, fighting the taliban, who had never attacked the United States. You talk about both of those . In the case of iraq, the misunderstanding of their role in history, part of what we experience going after the nazis in germany, Imperial Japan from 1945, did not fully understand t and sunniathis population had a big overlap. Those were the educated folks, the people that not just ran the police and intelligence services, but also the power, water, education system, hospitals. When you sign a blanket order and say that these people can have nothing to do with society, not only do we disenfranchise them and create essentially the core of the insurgency, which dont provide it fighters for isis to this day. Mother thing you have done is chopped. Modern society for the rest of society which depended on these guys to keep the lights on, the roads clear, to keep all of these other things. Not well thought out. As a result, very difficult to reverse. In this case, we were a victim of our own success. John keegan, the British Military historian, commented in his book on the iraq war. We talk about disbanding the iraqi army. It had already disbanded in the face of the u. S. Invasion. We would have bought all had to keep these people in government but call the people back, make sure they figure out who is who. It wouldve been quite the process and it is not something that we thought out. Afghanistan, you correctly say, the people that attacked us on 9 11 were part of osama bin Ladens Al Qaeda network. They were resident in taliban,an, but the their dealings and activities were all within their own country. They were not an International Terrorist group. But to get to al qaeda, we had to go through them. Al qaeda, International Terrorist group. Individual,e osama bin laden, to yemen, a family, resident in sudan, he was an international businessman. His father was a wellknown and wealthy construction contractor. General bolger, what if war was simply not an option . What if it was off the table . I tell you, that is something that always needs to be brought up when we make discussions, decisions about going to war. There needs to be a voice that says that if we just do not do this . The military people sometimes have been that voice. Very controversial figure, whom i admire, colin powell. He was that voice in the first gulf war, based on his it. As in vietnam. He had been an advisor to reagan these forces. He knew what he was doing. Vietnamese forces. He was counsel in the First Bush Administration saying think hard, be careful. By the second war, he is a voice crying in the desert and nobody is listening. Hear therely questioning generals, like you, when it comes to russian decisions, in the media. You hear a lot of generals, we do not know their connection to contractors and how they might benefit personally, do you think there is a problem with that . If someone is in the military and being interviewed, you should hear if they work for boeing or lockheed martin. That degree of transparency is important. From any of a lot of work, they would identify what the guy was doing. Work at North Carolina state university, and adjunct professor. I enjoy teaching professor history to the men and women that go there. We have seen that over the past few years, problems with the contracting of these wars, private contractors that come in and make huge killings off of the military , servicing the military, off of the presence of the military in these countries. They fuel Political Support for the war. Certainly there is that aspect. In a copper has a look at the war, that has got to be one of the things we look at. There, these contractors did we form our military incorrectly so we had to buy these people to do the job . Lieutenant general Daniel Bolger has been our guest, author of the book why we lost a generals inside account of the iraq and afghanistan wars. Years in the u. S. Army before retiring last year. Democracy now is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. Email your comments to outreach democracynow. Org or mail them to democracy w p. O. Box 693 new york, new york 10013. New york, new york 10013. Joanne on todays show, were going to talk all about spices and herbs and what they do to really flavor your food. First of all, were going to have some hummus with preserved lemons and im going to show you how to make preserved lemons. Im going to use those to really flavor that hummus along with some capers. It will be delicious. And with my student jerry, were going to make some skewers of chicken that are dusted with all kinds of spices. And with that, a sauce thats made with yoghurt, ginger and harissa, and some couscous with herbs. So stay with me for a great show all about spices and herbs. [ music ]
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.