Operation Iraqi Occupation: Bush administration scraps plan for Iraqi self-government

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

After baiting the U.S. public into believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and Iraq was "45 minutes" from being able to unleash WMDs against the U.S., the Bush administration inexplicably and cynically called its Iraq War "Operation Iraqi Freedom" -- as if the public had signed on for the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqis in the name of U.S.-imposed election reform.

Of course, it was just a matter of time before the Bush administration would be forced to admit that it had no actual interest in seeing democracy or self-government in Iraq. Now that time has come. It's official: we're just going to occupy Iraq until further notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/26/international/worldspecial/26IRAQ.html

The New York Times

May 26, 2003

Iraqis Frustrated by Shift Favoring U.S.-British Rule

By PATRICK E. TYLER

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 25 — The sudden shift in postwar strategy in favor of an American and British occupation authority has visibly deflated the Iraqi political scene, which earlier this month was bustling with grass-roots politicking and high expectations for an all-Iraqi provisional government.

This week Kurdish leaders are clearing out of Baghdad to return to the north to consult with their constituents about a course of action. They have asked the new American civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, to visit northern Iraq to confront the popular disenchantment.

It was Mr. Bremer who broke the news to Iraqi political groups on May 16 that the Bush administration was reversing its plan to support the immediate formation of an interim government here that would have put Iraqis in charge of the country with allied forces and Western technocrats in a supporting role.

In a "leadership council" meeting on Saturday night, the main Iraqi political groups agreed to submit a formal protest to the occupation authorities over the delay in putting an Iraqi government in place.

Mr. Bremer has spoken about organizing a national conference in July to create an interim Iraqi administration that would be subservient to his authority. Still, no concrete arrangements have been made, the Iraqi political groups said.

They also decided to send delegations to Washington and London to press the case for organizing elections here as soon as possible.

In little more than a week, during which the United Nations passed a resolution granting broad powers to the United States and Britain to run Iraq, the country's political groups have come to the realization that they have lost their bid to dominate the postwar transition.

One Iraqi figure who attended the meeting on Saturday, Hamid al-Bayati of the main Shiite Muslim group under Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, advocated bringing pressure on the United States and Britain by organizing demonstrations here and abroad against indefinite occupation. But there appeared to be no appetite yet for an open confrontation with the allied powers that toppled Saddam Hussein and his government, Iraqis who attended the meeting said.

Ahmad Chalabi, whose Iraqi National Congress, a coalition of political exiles, was acting like a government in waiting until Mr. Bremer's bombshell, is shutting down the political campus he was running at the once fashionable Hunting Club in Baghdad. He has sent his political operatives to Washington to find out what happened to the "promises" made by Bush administration officials that have now been rescinded.

His "Free Iraqi Forces," about 700 paramilitary fighters who briefly cooperated with the allies in the late stages of the military campaign, were abruptly dissolved this weekend by order of Mr. Bremer, who signed a directive intended to disarm another militia, the Badr Brigade of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Only Kurdish forces, whose pesh merga guerrillas saw extensive military action in the north working with American Special Forces troops, have been allowed to keep their heavy weapons, artillery and armored vehicles during the transition to a new national Iraqi army.

The Kurdish chieftains from northern Iraq like Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani, Islamic clerics like Ayatollah Hakim and his Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim forces, and well-heeled Iraqi exiles like Mr. Chalabi and Iyad Alawi are now searching for a role as an appendage to the occupying powers. Some say they hope that accepting whatever role they are offered now will not damage their chances to come to power later.

But no one seems to know what that role is going to be, even if they form the interim administration under Mr. Bremer's command.

"At least now not all the failures will be put at our doorstep, because we are not in charge," said Hoshyar Zebari, an adviser to Mr. Barzani.

At the Saturday leadership meeting, Mr. Talabani, who as a young revolutionary studied the works of Mao Zedong, said he wanted to engage in some Maoist self-criticism.

Though now an advocate of democracy, Mr. Talabani said, "I think we were very slow," according to a record of the meeting.

"This slowness," he said, and the failure of Iraq's main opposition groups to broaden quickly their ranks to become more representative of the nation they hoped to lead, "gave the Americans the excuse," he said, to push them aside and declare an occupation authority with an American administrator, Mr. Bremer, in charge of the country.

Barely seven weeks after the war ended, the Bush administration has veered away from the Iraqi opposition it helped to unite against Mr. Hussein. Mr. Bush and his allies have come to believe that only by placing a firm American hand at the helm of Iraq can Washington protect its victory while also marshaling international support for the huge reconstruction task ahead.

But Iraqi political figures here believe that the United States and Britain will not be able to sustain a strategy of suppressing Iraqi demands for a more rapid transition to sovereign Iraqi rule.

"The idea that for a year or more, there will be no Iraqi state, no Iraqi sovereignty, is wrong," said Adnan Pachachi, a former Iraqi foreign minister who also spent eight years in the 1960's as Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations.

Mr. Pachachi, who was encouraged by the State Department to enter the political process in Iraq, has opposed the idea that a "small group" of opposition parties should be allowed to take control of the country. He took aim at Mr. Chalabi's perceived ambition to take charge of a provisional government.

In the interview, he accused Mr. Chalabi of being a "little underhanded" in politics, but praised his skills as a lobbyist in Washington.

After the allied military victory last month, Mr. Pachachi became a strong advocate for calling a broadly representative national conference of Iraqi political figures to draft a constitution and set an early date for elections for a sovereign Iraqi government.

The United Nations resolution has delayed the goal of Iraqi sovereignty for what some Western officials say could be two years.

"Can we participate?" Mr. Chalabi asked the group that gathered Saturday evening. "If we participate, can we stay unified?"

"And if we participate, will they engage us separately?" he asked, suggesting that the occupation authority might try to orchestrate the transition to get the kind of government it wants in Baghdad.

If there was a consensus that emerged from the meeting, it was that the ability of the Iraqi opposition to stay united would be tested in the months ahead and that the centrifugal forces of Iraq's ethnic and religious camps would position themselves to oppose Washington and vie for power once an electoral process and the drafting of a constitution gets under way.

[AJWatson3]

the only reason i think we are shying away from an iraqi interim gov right now is because the US is not done making war in the region.

[chiefhogskin48]

Hopefully, whatever happens, the alternative is better than Saddam. We were never going to make Iraq into Germany or Japan, but so long as we can make it a free, semi-prosperous society in the matter of 5-10 yrs, then the POST-war operation can rightly be considered a success. I was getting antsy, too, but Rome wasnt built in a day.

[Larry]

I keep remembering a headline (no story) from The Onion, the week the war started:

U.S. to Appoint Interim, Transitional Dictator

[AJWatson3]

as long as he isn't another Noriega. our hand-picked man. trained at good 'ol FT. BENNING. trained as an infantry officer, counter-intell, jungle operations, and combat intell from Jan16-Dec7, 1967.

[Larry]

Oh, I have hopes that this will all work out. (I don't consider it likely, but if Bush & Co. can pull it off, it'll be one of the greatest foreign policy moves of the century).

(But, I think it's a lot more likely that we'll just end up with another Shah).

I'd almost like to see the occupation forces convene a Constitutional Convention, and try to get the various factions arguing about the design of the new government. I'd propose that their starting point would be this handy document we've got in the Archives. (And which we appear to not be using, right now).

[AJWatson3]

the sooner we start letting them govern themselves, with supervision, the better. at least it will make the war look for like the goal was, "Iraqi Freedom"

[Burgold]

A lot of bad news recently in Iraq. Read that the mobile labs all checked out negative for traces of chemicals used in the production of WMD. Now, our efforts to democratize are at least slowing down considerably. Add in some of the other stuff like the awarding of contracts, the US reluctance to even now let UN inspectors in to search or do oversight. Has power and water been restored? It probably is a much shorter period of time than it feels, but it feels like an awfully long time to have so little progress in so many areas.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Larry

Oh, I have hopes that this will all work out.

Larry, let me save you some time waiting: it can't work out. And this was known by anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Iraq prior to the war.

According to the CIA, Iraq is 97% Muslim and 60-65% Shi'a Musliim -- that's the radical Muslim sect.

41.1% of the population is 14 years old or younger. More than 50% are under 20. More than 75% are under 35.

The GDP per capita is $2,500, and most of that GDP leaves the country via multinational oil companies.

In short, there isn't the economic or age distribution foundation to support a democracy, which requires a robust, middle-aged, middle class. And with nearly two-thirds of the population Shi'a Muslim, any democracy would instantly become a radical Islamic government with the belief system of fundamentalist Iran, but less stability (since there would be no stable theocratic rule, but rather unstable democratic governments).

See, it take only 5 minutes to understand that democracy can't flourish in Iraq, and even if it could, the result would be on the level of Iran or worse in terms of U.S. interests.

The people running the Bush administration knew this. But that didn't stop them from selling the war on yet another flag-waving lie ("Iraqi Freedom"), this one more difficult and time-consuming to prove to be a lie. (Even reasonable people like you, Larry, are taking a wait-and-see attitude.)

Wake up. There never was a plan for democracy in Iraq.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

I still dont care what you war haters say. Iraq today is better off and will be better off in the future then it was 3 months ago. I personally dont care who is running the place as long as Saddam and his sons reign of terror is over. Iraqi's will have a chance to shape their own destiny. It wont be the destiny of Saddam. And if you cant handle that well I have nothing to say to you.

[Larry]

It's hard to convince people they're better off, when they're sitting in the dark and pi**ing in the street.

I remember seeing a CBS story: Dan Rather and Norm Schwartzkopf return to Vietnam. Two thoughts kept occurring to me:

• I wonder if the people of this country wish we'd won, and
  
• I guarantee they're glad it's over.
  

War has costs. When you set out to "liberate" a country, then you're launching an operation where most of the costs will fall on people who didn't get to decide if they wanted to spend that much. And it's hard to demand gratitude from someone who didn't ask for the help.

[Buddha]

Damn ASF, you just couldn't take a break in honor of Memorial Day, could you???

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Just ask the common Iraqi or an Iraqi in America if they are happy that we launched the war and ousted Saddam. There was no way in hell those people ever would have gotten rid of those evil ba%$tards

[AJWatson3]

Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan

I still dont care what you war haters say. Iraq today is better off and will be better off in the future then it was 3 months ago. I personally dont care who is running the place as long as Saddam and his sons reign of terror is over. Iraqi's will have a chance to shape their own destiny. It wont be the destiny of Saddam. And if you cant handle that well I have nothing to say to you.

i can handle that so you can say something to me.

[Sarge]

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Gunmen ambushed a U.S. military convoy in northern Iraq on Monday, killing an American soldier and wounding four others. Also, four soldiers were wounded in what appeared to be a land-mine attack in a wealthy Baghdad (search) neighborhood, military officials and witnesses said.

It was one of the most violent days for U.S. troops since the war ended last month.

In the north, unidentified attackers opened fire on an eight-vehicle convoy on a resupply mission to a base near the town of Hadithah (search), about 120 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

The command said the ambush happened at 6:15 a.m. and that the troops belonged to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

The gunmen used machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades in the attack, the latest of several on coalition forces this month. The statement said helicopters were immediately dispatched to the area to find the assailants.

The names of the two soldiers were withheld pending notification of their families.

In the well-off Baghdad neighborhood of Yarmouk, witnesses said they heard several explosions and a 15-minute burst of gunfire Monday afternoon along the road to the airport, west of the capital.

A U.S. soldier near the scene said it was an ambush and that at least one Humvee was destroyed.

Another soldier, who also refused to give his name, said it appeared the Humvee hit a land mine and four soldiers were wounded. Troops blocked the highway, keeping reporters from the scene and causing a traffic jam.

Three American occupants of the Humvee were injured, said a third soldier, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said one was burned all over his body, a second was burned on the face and hands and a third sustained minor burns to his hands.

A witness who lives near the scene said a fourth soldier was injured shortly afterward when ammunition in the Humvee exploded. The witness gave only his first name, Adel.

An Associated Press reporter saw the Humvee, still burning, more than 90 minutes after the attack. It was unclear whether the mine had been placed there to directly target Americans.

The road that connects Baghdad International Airport with the city is frequently used by U.S. troops, many of whom are based at the airport. At least one other reported attack has taken place on that road in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, in Baqubah, 45 miles northeast of Baghdad, U.S. soldiers shot and killed a woman who tried to approach them carrying two hand grenades. The incident took place immediately after unknown attackers threw handheld explosives at U.S. soldiers guarding a former base of the pro-Iranian Badr Corps in the town, Central Command said.

"Squad members verbally warned her several more times, but she continued to advance towards them. When she refused, the squad shot her several times. She fell to the ground, dropping one grenade, and continued to crawl towards them," the statement said. "The squad fired again, killing her."

Earlier Monday, military officials said a U.S. soldier was killed and another injured in southern Iraq when a munitions dump they were guarding exploded.

The blast, which happened Sunday morning near the town of Diwaniya, 95 miles south of Baghdad, was not thought to be a result of hostile action, U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

The injured soldier was transported to a field hospital, where he underwent surgery, the statement said. Their names were also withheld.

A number of U.S. servicemen have been killed since the end of the fighting last month, mostly in road accidents and ammunition explosions.

[Sarge]

Not all Americans pay serious heed to the reasons for Memorial Day. Like the burden of fighting wars, remembering the dead often is left to the few, including those who love them. Douglas C. Payne, 53, says he never has forgotten to remember the fellow Marine who died saving his life in Vietnam more than 34 years ago. And he is haunted by doubt that the life he now lives is worth the sacrifice that earned his buddy, Pfc. Oscar P. Austin, a posthumous Medal of Honor.

"The first time I met any of his family I was feeling guilty, oh yeah," Mr. Payne recalls. "And I could see where his family would feel that I wasn't worth him giving his life for me."

On Feb. 23, 1969, Pfc. Austin scrambled out of a safe foxhole and, with his own body, shielded the injured and unconscious Mr. Payne, then a 19-year-old lance corporal, from a hand grenade and rifle fire.

The mortally wounded Pfc. Austin shot a North Vietnamese soldier who was storming their position, then fell dead 39 days past his 21st birthday.

Mr. Payne has traveled to Washington from California over the years to touch Oscar's name on Panel 32W Row 88 of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. He has left letters and thanks at the Wall for a life that he concedes wavered into alcoholism and despair before he regained his balance.

Families of wartime dead and veterans like Mr. Payne know precisely how to observe this Memorial Day, when newly turned earth lies raw on military graves resulting from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, which took 248 U.S. lives.

Elite soldiers of the Old Guard placed individual American flags over the weekend at each grave in Arlington National Cemetery's gardens of stone.

Today at 11 a.m., President Bush plans to lay a wreath at Arlington and express a grateful nation's homage, then meet with families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Communities across the land prepared for ceremonies, parades and other rituals of remembrance today. At 3 p.m. local time much of the nation will be asked to pause at airports, sports stadiums, shopping malls and other public places for the "minute of reflection" that became a fixture in recent years.

An estimated 35 million Americans were expected to travel during the long holiday weekend. For some 162,000 Washington-area families, the only memorial in mind was Lane Memorial Bridge and getting across the Chesapeake on that span's busiest weekend of the year.

Then and now

It was just that way for Deborah Peterson of Alexandria until Oct. 23, 1983, when Islamic Jihad terrorists drove more than a ton of TNT into a U.S. military barracks in Beirut. The 241 soldiers, sailors and Marines killed there included her 20-year-old brother, Marine Cpl. James C. Knipple.

"Until then, except for our father who was in the Navy, we were just very typical, complacent Americans who thought of Memorial Day as the opening day of the pool and a three-day weekend and a barbecue," says Mrs. Peterson, who works in the pharmacy at Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington. "Now we go up to the cemetery very often. I haven't worked a Memorial Day for 20 years."

She says the family also visits Arlington National Cemetery each Oct. 23 — "the day of remembrance" for the Beirut families — and on the anniversary of the death from cancer of her father, retired Navy Capt. John Knipple, buried one row over and five graves down from his son in Section 59.

It is in Section 59 that 21 of the Beirut dead lie, along with two of the 19 U.S. servicemen killed June 26, 1996, in a similar terrorist bombing at the Khobar Towers military complex in Dharan, Saudi Arabia.

At a ceremony in 1996 near the cedars of Lebanon planted in Section 59, the Knipple clan befriended Fran and Gary Heiser beside the grave of their son, Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Michael Heiser. He was 25 when he died in Khobar Towers.

"I used to go to Arlington maybe once a year. Now I stay home and pout and feel sorry for myself," Mrs. Heiser says in a lighthearted way.

What she and her husband, a retired Air Force sergeant major, actually do is roam every month or so from their north Florida house in a motor home, making new acquaintances who blessedly don't know or ask what happened to their son and only child.

"It's forced recreation, rather than stay home and watch the world crumble," Mrs. Heiser says, and Memorial Day plans this year don't include visiting their son's grave at Arlington or memorials at Patrick and Maxwell air bases.

How long does it takes for such a loss to heal?

"I think the pain probably never goes away," Mrs. Heiser says. "I don't know, but that's what I'm thinking. Not yet."

The distance to go

Cpl. Knipple's mother, Pauline Knipple of Alexandria, says the passage of 20 years hasn't lessened the loss much.

"It gets better, but it doesn't ever go away," says Mrs. Knipple, whose rheumatoid arthritis keeps her in a wheelchair. "Just talking about Jim's going and dying will start me crying when I say what a great kid he was, or when I see him in my mind practicing football at Jefferson High.

"My heart aches because I know there's people out there who have to go that distance to get to where they have to accept the heartache, because you don't have a choice, you know."

Memories remain fresh as well for Frank and Judy Adamouski of Springfield, Va. This morning they planned to walk the grounds of Arlington, where they last saw their son alive at a friend's funeral New Year's Eve — and where they buried him April 24.

The grave of Army Capt. James F. Adamouski, 29, is in Section 60, a flat, low field, beside those of 19 other troopers killed in central Iraq. Capt. Adamouski was one of six soldiers who died when their Black Hawk helicopter crashed April 2 north of Karbala.

An experienced helicopter pilot whose home base was Fort Stewart, Ga., Capt. Adamouski was not flying the Black Hawk when it went down. He left behind a wife, Meighan, who had married him just seven months before, in addition to his parents and three sisters.

"It's a great loss for us as a family, but we both could see outside that — that as a society, that's the price we pay to make things better," says Meighan Adamouski, 29, weeping during an interview. "There will always be a tear, but Memorial Day is a time to honor him, and I can't explain how truly honored I am to call myself Capt. James Adamouski's wife."

'A loss so overwhelming'

Some professional soldiers despair that the nation ever will properly recognize the sacrifices of the armed forces, in which "all gave some, some gave all."

Each death was individual, but the overall numbers are immense: The Pentagon counts 1.04 million Americans in uniform killed in wars since 1775, and 617,388 of those in the 20th century. More than 87 percent were in the Army.

That terrible official toll does not include military deaths in accidents, training mishaps or terrorism such as the September 11 attack on the Pentagon. Nor does it include daring expeditions like the attempted rescue of hostages in Iran (eight dead), or such half-forgotten operations as "Urgent Fury" in Grenada (19), "Just Cause" in Panama (23), "Restore Hope" in Somalia (43), or "Uphold Democracy" in Haiti (four).

The total includes 364,511 Union troops killed in the Civil War, but the Pentagon does not estimate Confederate deaths. Historian Thomas L. Livermore, a leading authority on Civil War casualties, estimates the Confederate dead at 258,000.

The Civil War gave birth on both sides to the custom of decorating warriors' graves. Residents of dozens of Southern cities scattered spring flowers on Confederate graves in 1866. Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi still observe Confederate Memorial Day in April.

Historians trace today's Memorial Day tradition to the "Decoration Day" turnout on May 30, 1868. Army Maj. Gen. John A. Logan had ordered a nationwide observance, including at Arlington, where the first military burial was held four years earlier. Gen. Logan proclaimed "the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion."

A 1971 law moved several national holidays to convenient Mondays, including the century-old May 30 observance, by then renamed Memorial Day. That law still nettles some traditionalists.

"Memorial Day is not the day to remember troops who died to protect our freedoms the way it used to be. It's just another day off, but I'd say the same about Presidents Day," says retired Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who capped a 29-year military career by serving as the first President Bush's national security adviser. "I know when I was growing up as a kid, Memorial Day meant something."

President Abraham Lincoln struggled to describe that meaning in his Nov. 21, 1864, letter to Lydia Bixby of Boston, who lost five sons in battle during the Civil War, still reckoned as the nation's costliest in human terms.

"I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save," Lincoln wrote of those sacrificed "upon the altar of freedom."

The cards dealt

Capt. Adamouski, a 1995 graduate of West Point who made a home with his wife in Savannah, came from a family that understood such sacrifice. His father, a retired lieutenant colonel, saw combat during 23 years in the Army and continues to visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to honor soldiers he commanded.

"I'm going to make sure you get a funeral like this one," Capt. Adamouski had told his dad after the New Year's Eve funeral at Arlington for his friend. Four months later, it became instead the father's duty for the son.

"It's ironic that I made sure he got a funeral like that," says Col. Adamouski, who calls himself heartbroken. "Sometimes the cards get dealt in a funny way."

Today's trip to Arlington will be Col. Adamouski's second since his son was buried, and he says he lost control of his emotions last time. His wife went several other times. When they returned together early this month, Mrs. Adamouski brought flowers and placed them at the 20 graves for soldiers killed in Iraq.

The grave of James Adamouski is not yet marked by a white headstone. A temporary green sign bears the officer's name along with the dates he entered this life and left it.

"We go and we say a private prayer and we have a lot of thoughts," Col. Adamouski says. "We have all of those questions that you can't get answers to. ... I guess I'll always do that."

For his daughter-in-law, Meighan, Memorial Day had meant "going to the beach and playing volleyball" — until she attended parades with her husband-to-be. Even then, she recalls, the pageantry and patriotism made her cry.

"Now I think I understand where that's coming from," the young widow says.

A fourth-grade teacher in special education, she is moving in with her in-laws and will study public administration at George Mason University. She has been unable to bring herself to visit her husband's grave since the funeral.

"I want to wait a bit. And I want to do it myself," she says. "That's a personal time that I want to be by myself. I'll probably cry, and laugh."

'To be so brave'

Although eligible for burial at Arlington in 1969, Oscar Palmer Austin was buried far away in Phoenix's Greenwood Memorial Park.

The Marine private's memory lives on in the Navy's ultramodern Aegis Guided Missile Destroyer DDG-79 that bears his name, and at a stone monument outside the county hospital in his native Nacogdoches, Texas. For $50, those browsing www.historyshopping.com can get an embroidered polo shirt bearing an image of the $800 million ship.

The monument in Nacogdoches includes his name and photo with the inscription: "An honor to one, a tribute to all, who sacrificed for our freedom."

Leslie Enright, 35, a country fiddler and something of a local celebrity, was asked in December by the Nacogdoches Daily Sentinel to list the four persons she admired most. She named her husband, Arthur; George W. Bush; Martha Stewart; and Oscar Austin.

"It's such a compelling story, just what an ordinary person put in that situation chooses to do," Mrs. Enright says in an interview with The Washington Times. "To be so young and to be so brave as he was — it's all about loving others more than yourself."

She met Pfc. Austin's family when her husband, a general contractor, did some work at the Austin house and they befriended his mother.

"In this part of the country, there are not only memorial services but parades," Mrs. Enright says. "Veterans Day and Memorial Day are fairly big deals down here, but for some people it's a barbecue."

Lives intersect

Oscar Austin was a boy when his family moved to Arizona. He became a Marine machine-gunner in April 1968, almost a year after graduating from Phoenix Union High School.

He returned from Vietnam less than a year later in a casket, shredded by the grenade and bullets meant for Lance Cpl. Douglas C. Payne, his 5-foot-4, 120-pound sidekick.

"I was raised away up in the middle of nowhere. I never had any friends of another race or anything," Mr. Payne says in an interview from his modest Tanglebob Ranch in Anza, Calif., near San Diego. "I was incredibly naive, and he was the first black man I'd ever met."

Today Mr. Payne raises eight quarterhorses to race, and he named one Oscar. "If ever I had a son I was going to name him [Oscar], but I didn't," he says.

Oscar Austin's mother, Mildred, moved back to Texas in 1980 and made part of her house in Sand Hill a shrine. It included her son's Medal of Honor with distinctive blue ribbon and a large photo of him in Marine dress blues.

"We called the living room 'the museum,'" says Pfc. Austin's sister, Bobbie Garrett, now a retired teacher who lives in Houston. "Granny mourned my brother so much; she never got over it."

Mrs. Garrett is grateful their mother lived long enough to attend the christening ceremony at the shipyard in Bath, Maine, on Nov. 7, 1998. "Granny" died 37 days after the USS Oscar Austin was launched.

Mr. Payne and Mrs. Garrett finally met two years later in Norfolk after the former Marine's daughter wrote to a Web site honoring Vietnam veterans, www.thevirtualwall.org, to express gratitude for Pfc. Austin's heroism.

"She said she wouldn't even be there if he hadn't saved me," Mr. Payne recalls. "The prospective master chief of the USS Oscar Austin saw it and called her. I guess he was under the impression I was dead."

That led to his being invited to the commissioning ceremony for the ship at Norfolk on Aug. 19, 2000.

Beforehand, Mr. Payne posted his own message to Oscar Austin on the Virtual Wall site.

"I am so proud they finally got around to honoring you my friend and I am so saddened even 30-plus years later that it is in death that you will be honored," he wrote. "You gave your life for me my dear friend. It is a debt I can never repay in this life."

Mr. Payne says he was apprehensive about meeting the Austin family in Norfolk.

"It was just real hard knowing they were going to be there. I could picture it that he was the one who lived, and I died. He was a great person and had so many plans."

A belated meeting

Mr. Payne anticipated correctly that Mrs. Garrett had wondered whether he was alive — and whether his life was exemplary enough to justify her family's loss.

"If he had not lived, it would all have been in vain," Mrs. Garrett says. "And if he had lived and turned out to be a drug addict or in prison, I probably would have felt even worse than knowing he didn't live.

"When I met up with him that is what I told him. And I said he might not have known how to find me, but you would have thought he would at least have found my mother."

The meeting could have been scripted in Hollywood: Mr. Payne was studying a painting of Pfc. Austin on exhibit at the Navy pier. Thinking he was alone, he said aloud to himself, "That doesn't look like Oscar."

"You're right, it doesn't," replied Mrs. Garrett, who had walked up behind him.

Then they embraced, the fallen Marine's sister and the friend he had saved more than 30 years earlier.

Mrs. Garrett, having learned from others what Mr. Payne's life was like, pronounces herself well satisfied. She says she is writing him a letter so he will rest easier.

"It gave me a good feeling to know that my brother lives on through him, and that my brother helped him to establish values in his own life," she says.

It was not always so, Mr. Payne admits, particularly after he got back from Vietnam. "My life was kind of shaky, a shambles, I expect, but I found out I couldn't drown it and drink it away," he says.

'What would Oscar do?'

With the help of a policeman friend, Mr. Payne turned things around, graduated from college and joined the Navy, where he rose to the rank of lieutenant. He completed 22 years of active and reserve duty, then became a vocational teacher in the California prison system.

"Is my life good?" he asks. "I think it is, yes. I was always saying to myself, 'What would Oscar do?' To me he seemed like a giant."

Mr. Payne recalls that the two frequently violated orders by visiting an orphanage at Dai Loc in Quang Nam province, giving C-rations and peanut butter to the Vietnamese children and daydreaming about taking all 41 to the United States.

"Oscar and I were good Marines. We weren't the best, but we were good," a pensive Mr. Payne says.

He tells how his friend lived on through his own pre-release counseling of young criminals at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, Calif.

"It often was misguided allegiance that put them there, and a high percentage of them are minorities and gangbangers who always talked about loyalty, so I turned that to Oscar," Mr. Payne says, struggling for words at this point.

"I told them he would have been loyal to me if I did something wrong, but I know he would also have kicked my butt. And I told them that Oscar, in his loyalty, he gave me life and he gave my family life."

The sense of responsibility often weighed on Mr. Payne.

"You can let the burden drive you into the ground or you figure there is a purpose that the person gave his life for you," he says. "So I made a second life. I tried to do that."

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Atlanta Skins Fan

Larry, let me save you some time waiting: it can't work out. And this was known by anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Iraq prior to the war.

According to the CIA, Iraq is 97% Muslim and 60-65% Shi'a Musliim -- that's the radical Muslim sect.

41.1% of the population is 14 years old or younger. More than 50% are under 20. More than 75% are under 35.

The GDP per capita is $2,500, and most of that GDP leaves the country via multinational oil companies.

In short, there isn't the economic or age distribution foundation to support a democracy, which requires a robust, middle-aged, middle class. And with nearly two-thirds of the population Shi'a Muslim, any democracy would instantly become a radical Islamic government with the belief system of fundamentalist Iran, but less stability (since there would be no stable theocratic rule, but rather unstable democratic governments).

See, it take only 5 minutes to understand that democracy can't flourish in Iraq, and even if it could, the result would be on the level of Iran or worse in terms of U.S. interests.

The people running the Bush administration knew this. But that didn't stop them from selling the war on yet another flag-waving lie ("Iraqi Freedom"), this one more difficult and time-consuming to prove to be a lie. (Even reasonable people like you, Larry, are taking a wait-and-see attitude.)

Wake up. There never was a plan for democracy in Iraq.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!

Oh man, you crack me up. You post the most ridiculous drivel I've seen on this board this side of Kefka. I haven't been around lately, but just coming back, and reading some of this stuff, boy you make me laugh. You should take this comedy act on the road. It is an act, isn't it? Because surely someone wouldnt post silly things like this with a straight face.

First of all, the GDP per capita # that you refer to is representative of oil production impacted by sanctions. If Iraq simply returns to their pre-sanctions production of 10 million barrels/day, at current market prices (which of course, are tightly controlled, with the market understanding the increased production to come), that alone represents more than double the current Iraqi GDP, ignoring all other sectors of the economy.

But, let's just pretend, for the sake of your argument, that Iraq's per capita GDP will be $2,500 for the forseeable short-term future. You've taken that figure, and the fact that a large portion of Iraq's population is under 14 (41.1%), and given those as your support for the inevitable failure of democracy. Now, its a statement that is absurd on its face, as is the statement on the middle class, which you have no statistical references to, nor ability to divine, given the heretofore unkown impact of the free market (and yes, boys and girls above the age of 5, the free market and democracy are not one and the same). But rather than engage in endless bickering, I simply offer this.

Here is another country.

It has a per capita GDP of ...... 2,540

Its percentage of the population under the age of 14..... 32.7%

What country is this, you ask?

India. The most populous democracy in the entire world, having existed in that form of government for more than 50 years.

It's only taken me one minute to write this post to destroy your pathetic illusions of comprehension of ties between economic and political systems.

That takes care of everything except your assertions on islamic radicalism based on your casting of 2/3s of the population as religious radicals. The Japanese were cast as radicals immediately following WWII, leading to suggestions that reform efforts would lead to failure. That obviously was not the case. It simply speaks to the necessity of the United States to take seriously its responsibility to restore order while transition the form of government. Which it is doing. Of course you don't like that. You would prefer to see them left to immediate anarchy, as it would support your agenda, which involves the failure of democracy to take root. Its not that you dont think democracy can succeed in Iraq. Its that you dont want it to. And when it does, instead of admitting your previous assertions were inaccurate, you will simply conjure up a new conspiracy theory involving puppet governments. Just like in Germany, where as we all know, they agree with everything we want them to, since we brought democracy there too.

I'd almost rather not post this, because the hilarity the board derives from your lunacy far exceeds any marginal benefit to your sanity by being jolted back to reality. But perhaps this will simply send you back to the drawing board, looking for even wackier and less substantial links to lean on. Perhaps jagsbch and his "matrix theory" can be of some assistance.

[Larry]

Leaving aside the 7 paragraphs of gratuitous insults, the 2 paragraphs of actual arguments seem to make sense.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Larry

It's hard to convince people they're better off, when they're sitting in the dark and pi**ing in the street.

You know, your right! Whats having the threat of being shot or having your loved ones raped in front of you for speaking an independent thought out loud compared to a good hot shower. You really can't put a price on that, can you?

Theres no question brutal dictators are often efficient. Can you figure out why? We'll get the water running and lights on. We'll get the oil fields running at peak efficiency again. We'll get a stable police force and government up and running eventually. And then we'll leave.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by TheChosenOne

Here is another country.

It has a per capita GDP of ...... 2,540

Its percentage of the population under the age of 14..... 32.7%

What country is this, you ask?

India. The most populous democracy in the entire world, having existed in that form of government for more than 50 years.

It's only taken me one minute to write this post to destroy your pathetic illusions of comprehension of ties between economic and political systems.

Oh, please, TCO. This is too funny.

You want to use India as an example? Go right ahead.

India suggests that with about 200 years of colonial British rule, the culture can be modified (through institutions, education, etc.) such that democracy can flourish on its own even in a poor nation.

So by this logic, Iraq should be ready to set sail under democratic self-rule in 2203.

Brilliant.

[Zen-like Todd]

Yes, in fact, its quite brilliant. You've already attempted to recast the light of your previous statements, when in fact they were quite simple, stand alone, and are glaringly inaccurate. I've shown an existence proof to the contrary, and you have absolutely nothing to refute that. You will, of course, choose to ignore the gaping holes in your arguments, because thats what conspiracy theorists such as yourself are used to doing.

So, is your modified argument that cultural differences can overcome the economic and age restraints you claim exist?

You stated:

In short, there isn't the economic or age distribution foundation to support a democracy, which requires a robust, middle-aged, middle class.

You've presented no evidence to that effect, and it has been contradicted with literally infinitesimal effort. So let's hear it.

bob and weave, asf, bob and weave.

[Yomar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40573-2003May26.html?

U.S. to Turn Attention to Reviving Iraqi Economy

Bremer Says 'New Phase' to Focus on Free Trade, Elimination of State Subsidies

By Scott Wilson

Washington Post Foreign Service

Monday, May 26, 2003; 2:48 PM

BAGHDAD, May 26 -- The top U.S. civilian in Iraq said today that the United States was "nearing the end of the first phase" of its work here, and would now turn much of its attention to developing a market economy in a country that has not known one for decades.

In a news conference today, L. Paul Bremer III, the civilian administrator of the U.S. occupation authority, hailed the recent progress of the operation in restoring electricity to much of the country, beginning an Iraqi police force, and reviving some of the many looted government ministries on the ruins of old ones.

Acknowledging that "there's still a lot to do" to improve basic services and security here six weeks after the war, Bremer said the United States would begin a "new phase" of its occupation focusing on reviving Iraq's economy through free trade and the eventual elimination of large state subsidies that made food, gasoline and other essentials affordable for many Iraqis.

But Bremer left unclear his plans for creating an interim Iraqi-led government, the first step in bringing self-rule to Iraq after 24 years of Saddam Hussein's harsh rule. Those delays have angered ordinary Iraqis and aspiring leaders alike, and his comments today indicated that Iraqis would not be deciding for themselves what kind of economy will replace the state-planned system that functioned under Hussein.

"A free economy and a free people go hand in hand," said Bremer, who arrived two weeks ago to run the occupation authority. "History tells us that substantial and broadly held resources, protected by private property, private rights, are the best protection of political freedom."

Bremer's comments after the U.N. Security Council last week lifted economic sanctions imposed on Iraq 13 years ago following the Persian Gulf War. U.S. officials had complained that the sanctions, which they once favored as a way of forcing Hussein to comply with arms inspections and perhaps foment a popular uprising against him, had become a severe hindrance to post-war recovery.

But liberalizing Iraq's intricate, state-run economy holds large political risks for U.S. administrators at a time of deep economic uncertainty here. For years, Hussein drew on Iraq's vast oil wealth to subsidize basic items for many Iraqis, creating something like a quasi-welfare state that the United States now plans to undo .

Before the 1991 war, Hussein's government spent $20 billion a year to import everything from staples to exotic items like Argentine beef and Indian tea, which it then sold to merchants at bargain prices. Once sanctions were imposed after his invasion of Kuwait, Hussein used "oil-for-food" proceeds to strengthen his hold on Iraq's economy by overseeing a food-distribution network that was relied on by 60 percent of Iraq's 26 million people. He doubled rations before the recent war to build popular resistance to the U.S. invasion.

Despite the potential hardships for ordinary Iraqis, Bremer said he plans eventually to end those controls and move Iraq toward a market economy in which trade would be a key component, and he announced the creation of a trade-credit authority designed to jump start exports . Iraq's economy now relies almost entirely on the world's second-largest proven oil reserves.

The money for the trade promotion effort would come from private lending institutions and Iraq's Central Bank, where $250 million was discovered today in a basement vault that had been flooded since the end of the war.

"We have brought back Iraq out of the darkness of international isolation and back into the fold of responsible, outward looking countries," Bremer said of the U.N. resolution ending sanctions. "Our task now is to help Iraqis rebuild their economy. After decades of manipulation and management, the road to a free and flourishing economy will not be an easy one."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

I feel very uneasy about this, it would be a breach of the Iraqi people's interests if this means privatization of essential utilities, something which has proven disasterous in the past (see Argentina and the rest of S. America, not to mention California) and would serve only the interests of the business(es) that would be lucky enough to get such a lucrative piece of the Iraq pie. Its still unclear exactly what Bremer means, but any mention by the United States of selling off Iraqi resources to private business is cause for concern.

[Larry]

I've got a nervous feeling about this article: Sounds to me like our plan is

• Increase the cost of living by 10x.
  
• Offer to loan them the money for groceries, if they'll sell the country to a big corporation (who'll then rent it back to them).
  

Now, if the plan is to start the economy first, then wean them off the subsidies, then that sounds like a great idea.

Maybe we could start by encouraging people to hire a bunch of them for construction work. (People who make things tend to be stable citizens.)

(And, I'm sure the Post wouldn't be phrasing things to make them look more ominous.)

[tex]

I see nothing wrong with having troops in Iraq, if only for deterrence. The Middle East will benefit from the stabilizing presence the U.S. forces bring to the region.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Yomar

Bremer left unclear his plans for creating an interim Iraqi-led government, the first step in bringing self-rule to Iraq after 24 years of Saddam Hussein's harsh rule. Those delays have angered ordinary Iraqis and aspiring leaders alike, and his comments today indicated that Iraqis would not be deciding for themselves what kind of economy will replace the state-planned system that functioned under Hussein.

"A free economy and a free people go hand in hand," said Bremer, who arrived two weeks ago to run the occupation authority. "History tells us that substantial and broadly held resources, protected by private property, private rights, are the best protection of political freedom."

This is really fascinating. Bremer is taking one component of democracy (private property rights) and asserting it as the primary guarantor of democracy. He is asserting that state subsidies are antithetical to democracy, and that free markets are essential to democracy. The logic of Bremer's argument is that it's better for multinational corporations (many headquartered nominally in the U.S.) to own Iraq's utilities than it is for Iraq's own government to own these utilities: that the presence of ExxonMobil and British Telecom is in some way related to the quality of democracy in Iraq.

This is a fairly radical idea. It's also ludicrous, in my view. There are innumerable examples of socialist democracies, many ongoing today in Europe, that defy the principles espoused by Bremer. Bremer may be right about "little" property rights: the right of individual private property, and the place of that right as a foundation securing democratic stability. But corporations are not persons (except in the legal sense), and the assertion that dominant large multinationals are somehow good for democracy is debatable at best, and fundamentally wrong in my view.

Free markets and multinationals *are* good for one thing, which is the growth of global economic wealth and productivity. However, the benefits of such wealth and productivity accrue disproportionately, typically favoring dominant nations, corporations and individuals. Such benefits typically exact a harsh toll on global natural resources and the quality of life of poor nations.

If Bremer were actually seeking "the best protection of political freedom," he'd discover it in the roots of his own country: a binding Constitution based on inalienable rights of the citizens, a representative government subordinate to the citizens and only those citizens, and the rule of law within Constitutional limits.

As for free trade, our own country's government subsisted primarily on trade tariffs and excise taxes (and no income tax) until the 20th century. Countless U.S. industries have been protected and/or subsidized. Almost all utilities were either state run or state regulated until very recently. In short, our own history controverts Bremer's argument that free trade and independence of utilities from state interference are somehow fundamental elements (yet alone guarantors) of democracy.

What we're selling, in short, is sick: a military occupation, no fundamental democracy, and the liquidation of Iraq's fundamental assets by auction to multinational corporations and international banking interests. Rock on, Iraqi Freedom.